S/PV.1519 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken at our 1516th meeting I propose now, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Portugal, Guinea and Morocco to take seats at the Council table in order to participate in our discussion without the right to vote. At the invitation of the President, Mr, F. B. de Miranda (Portugal), Mr. A. Tour6 (Guinea) and Mr. J. charkaoui (Morocco) took places at the Council table.

In accordance with the further decisions taken at the 1517th and 15 18th meetings 1 propose next, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Liberia, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Tunisia, Mali, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, the United Arab Republic and Mauritania to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, on the understanding that they will be invited to take a place at the Council table when it is their turn to speak. At the invitation of the President, Mr, L. H. Diggs (Liberia), Mr. B Rabetafiku (Madagascar), Mr. A. M'$&k (Tunisia), Mr. G. Sow (Mali), Mr. J. M. Baroody (Saudi Arabia), Mr. A. S. Alattar (Yemen), Mr, G. J. Tomeh (Syria) and Mr. A. Ould Daddah (Mauritania) took the places reserved for them.

The Security Council will now Continue its consideration of the question before it, The first speaker on my list is the representative of Pakistan, Ambassador Shahi, who will introduce the draft resolution contained in document S/9542.

Mr. President, before I address myself to the item on our agenda, I should like to join my colleagues in congratulating you on your assumption of the Presidency of the Security Council for this month, Zambia is in the front rank of the struggle of the peoples of Africa against colonialism and apartheid in the southern half of that continent. It’has borne the brunt of this struggle with a dignity and a fortitude that have evoked admiration in Pakistan. We are confident that under your outstanding leadership the Security Council will be able to act in accordance with the expectations of all States Members of the United Nations on the matter before us and on the other questions which the Council may be called upon to deliberate this month. 5. I should also like to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Lord Caradon for the superb manner in which he discharged the duties of President of the Security Council for the month of October. Since the Council held only one closed meeting in that month, we did not have the opportunity of giving expression to the high esteem in which we hold him not only because he is an outstanding representative of the senior Commonwealth country but also because of his great qualities of statesmanship. To Ambassador Yost, who was president of the Council last month, I cannot fail to pay a tribute. November was one of those infrequent but welcome months when the Security Council managed to conduct its business’ under the con fident and skilful leadership of the representative Of the United States, without any formal meeting. 6. Turning now to the question before us, namely, the complaint of Senegal against Portugal [S/95131, 1 should like to begin by pointing out that only four months a@ the Security Council, in its resolution 268 (1969); strongly censured Portuguese attacks on Zambian territory and 7. The representative of Senegal has placed before the Council certain facts which show that of late, Portuguese incursions have become more frequent and serious. To compound the seriousness of the facts cited by the representative of Senegal in his first letter [S/9513], the aerial bombardment of the same village, Samine, on 7 December has been brought to the attention of the Security Council by Senegal in document S/9541. In this attack of yesterday the number of dead has mounted. Twice in the past-in 1963 and 196%Senegal was obliged to approach the Security Council for redress against the Portuguese colonial authorities. The Security Council took the necessary action in resolutions 178 (1963) and 204 (1965) respectively, deploring the Portuguese military incursions against Senegal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and requesting the Portuguese authorities to cease and desist from any such violations in the future. Nevertheless, I regret to say, the Portuguese armed attacks continued. 8. I said earlier that Senegal’s present complaint must be viewed in a wider context-namely, that of the confrontation between Portuguese colonialism and free Africa. In their letter of 2 December [S/9.524 and A&l], 36 independent African States Members of the United Nations have demonstrated their solidarity with Senegal, the victim of acts of aggression by Portugal and have expressed their concern at the constant threat posed by the Portuguese colonial army in its “war of reconquest in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau)” to the neighbouring States, besides Senegal, of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zambia, Guinea, Congo (Brazzaville) and Tanzania. In addition, a complaint from Guinea is awaiting consideration by the Council. Furthennore, it was only a little more than four months ago that the Security Council, in its resolution 268 (1969), strongly censured Portuguese armed attacks on Zambian territory. 9. The case of the international community against Portugal was stated by my delegation, along with several others, in this Council on the Zambian complaint. This case was based on the various resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council pertaining to colonialism and racialism in southern Africa. I should like briefly to recapitulate the indict,ment of Portugal by the General Assembly and the Security Council in some of the salient resolutions adopted by these two principal organs in the past. 11. Second, in resolution 180 (1963) the Security Council affirmed that this contention of Portugal-that is, that the African Territories are an integral part of Portugal and constitute its overseas provinces-was contrary to the Charter and also determined that the situation in the Territories under Portuguese administration was seriously disturbing peace and security in Africa. The General Assembly also declared, in resolution 1807 (XVII), that the colonial war being carried on by the Government of Portugal “constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security”. 12. Third, in view of Portugal’s continued refusal to recogniz,e the right of the peoples of its colonial territories to self-government and independence, the General Assenlbly, in the same resolution, requested all States Members of the United Nations to deny Portugal any support or assistance which might be used by it for the suppression of these peoples. 13. Fourth, by its resolution 2105 (XX), the Assembly, while recognizing the legitimacy of the struggle by the peoples under colonial rule to exercise their right to self-determination and independence, invited all States to provide moral and material assistance to the national liberation movements in colonial territories. This appeal has been repeated in several subsequent resolutions, notably in paragraph 13 of Security Council resolution 253 (1968) relating to Southern Rhodesia. 14. It may be asked, what is Portugal’s defence against this indictment? In his statement at the 15 16th meeting df the Security Council, the representative of Portugal advanced certain arguments: First, Senegal he said was attempting to “invent” situations by causing incidents or allowing them to be caused against Portugal and coming to the Security Council to complain against Portugal. But, we may ask, what has the representative of Portugal to say against the invitation by the General Assembly, in its resolution 2105 (XX) and other resolutions that I have mentioned, to Senegal, among other States, to provide moral and material assistance to national liberation movements in colonial territories-which movements the General Assembly COI> siders to be legithnate? 15. Second, the Portuguese representative alleged a series of violent incidents against Guinea (Bissau) from Senegal, contending that Portugal had the right to react. Since Portugal has foreclosed all means of peaceful resolution of the conflict between the right of self-determination and its own colonialism in Africa, ia it expected of the people of Guinea (Bissau) that they should not struggle for their freedom? Is such a struggle contrary to the purpose& principles and c+ligations set forth in the Charter of the United Natic~‘? “Pakistan dots not and cannot subscribe to the notion that the spontaneous help and sympathy rendered to a resistance movement should esposc the country that ACCOSTS it to tbc p~nolty of reprisals, This notion is advanced not only by colonial Powers but also by all those who se& to cffacc a distinct people’s individuality a!~i to suppress its demand fljr self-determination. But it is a notion which has been esplodcd by the international law that is progressively developing in the post-colonial tlgo. It is this law which refuses to rccognize the so-called ri,gbt ol” pursuit. The Council cannot but refuse to COlllltCll~l1lCC the claim to Such il right, whether it is involved itI sou them Africa, in the Middle East or elsewhere. We regret that ~nucll of the case which the rieprcscntative of Portugal sought to make out, if analysed, rests ultimately on nothing but the assertion of this right of pursuit under the guise of self-defence.” /I488th tiwc thg, pam. 78.1 17, The right of self-dcfcnce invoked by Portugal is clearly untenable. Ncitlrcr the African community of States nor the United Nations recognizes the Portuguese colonial possessions in Africa iIs iiltcgral par&s of Portugal’s metropolitan territory, no Illiltter wllat the municipal law Of Portugal may dccrec. The right of the colonial peoples to self-detcrminntit~1~ cannot bc legislated away by domestic legislation which violates the rules of international law and the obligations or Member States under the Charter of the United Nations. Thcreforc, to talk of flouting by Senegal or, for that matter, by any independent African State of “norms of international conduct” and “flagrant violations of international law committed against Portugal in Africa” is to harp on the rules of international law which were lcleveloped in the colonial age and which have since been profoundly modified by the law of the United Nations. 18,. Portugal has also been contending that such incidents as may occur should be settled on the basis of bilateral negotiations. It is true, of course, that a large number of these incidents have, in fact, been so settled. The question is, why do the aggrieved African countries sometimes prefer, as Senegal has now done, to come to the Security Council to complain against armed attacks by Portuguese cwlonial authorities? The statement of the representative of Senegal provided the answer. The fact is that the basic issue in question is not bilateral in nature. Even if it can be said that the individual frontier incidents between Portugal’s colonial Territories and their African neighbours are amenable to bilateral settlement, the root cause of the tension and conflict involves an issue which concerns the entire international community and the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of peace in Africa, as elsewhcle. 1’9. The suppression by Portugal of freedom movements in its colonial Territories has given rise to a refugee problem 20. There is another claim that Portugal advances in justification of its repressive policies in its so-called overseas provinces, namely, that the popular struggle in those Territories is not rooted in widespread nationalist movements but is due to ideological forces operating from without their borders, That argument has found little credence except perhaps in Portugal itself. The statement issued by the Heads of State and Government of East and Central Africa in Lusaka has clearly brought that ii;to focus, and I quote from that historic Manifesto, which was endorsed by the General Assembly on 20 November 1969: “The present Manifesto must, therefore, lay bare the fact that the inhuman commitment of Portugal in Africa and her ruthless subjugation of the people of Mozambique, Angola and so-called Portuguese Guinea arc not only irrelevant to the ideological conflict of powerpolitics, but . . . to the politics, the philosophies and the doctrines practised by her Allies in the conduct of their own affairs at home. The peoples of Mozambique, Angola and Portuguese Guinea are not interested in communism or capitalism; they are interested in their freedom. They arc demanding an acceptance of the principles of independence on the basis of majority rule.“1 That is a quotation from the Lusaka Manifesto in answer to Portugal’s contention that the nationalist movements in its colonial Territories arc inspjred by ideological forces from outside their borders. 21, The situation in Portuguese colonial Territories will, we fear, continue to remain a potential danger to peace so long as Portugal does not fulfil its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to lead them to self-government and independence, But, to qur infinite regret, the Government of Portugal seems as determined now as in the past to flout those obligations. Premier Marccllo Caetano stated as recently as 7 October 1969 : “Portugal cannot yield, cannot compromise, cannot capitulate in the struggle being waged in the overseas provinces. WC must be ready to do all that can peacefully be done to further the natural development of the great African prOVincCs. But we must be intransigent as to a withdrawal which would imperil for many Years al1 that has been accomplished in centuries.” It appears from that quotation from the Portuguese Prime Minister’s statement that Portugal is irrevocably committed to wage a protracted and cruel war against the Peoples Of its 1 official Records of #g &vx?m~ Assembb, ~@tt~f~~~~ Session, Annexes, age&a item 106, document AD’7541 para. the Manifesto. 22. If the Security Council wishes to ease the tensions in Africa, it is its duty to extend at this stage the fullest moral and political support to Senegal in the defence of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. All that Senegal has done is to attempt to carry out the resolutions of the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations which have repeatedly condemned the persistent refusal of the Government of Portugal to implement resoltition 1514 (XV) and all other relevant resolutions both of the General Assembly and of the Security Council, and Portugal’s policy of using the Territories under its domination for violations of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of independent African States. 23. It is in the light of these considerations that I have the honour now to introduce formally, on behalf of the delegations of Algeria, Nepal, Zambia and my own delegation, the draft resolution that has been circulated in document S/9542. 24. The contents of this draft resolution cannot but have been clearly anticipated by the members of this Council in view of similar and repeated complaints in the past and the actions taken on them by the General Assembly. It is especially important to bear in mind resolution 180 (1963) and resolution 218 (1965) of the Security Council, by which the Council made the determination that the situation in the Portuguese colonies was seriously disturbing peace and security in Africa. 25. To those members of the Council who may find it difficult to support this draft resolution unreservedly, 1 can reiterate the assurance that it is not animus against Portugal but grave concern at not only the situation existing on the Senegal-Portuguese (Bissau) front but also the potential danger along the entire frontier between free Africa and Portuguese colonialism that has inspired this draft resolution. 26. It is with a sense of sad duty that we view the rejection by Portugal of the call to reason that is contained in the United Nations Charter, in the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and most recently in the now overwhelmingly endorsed Manifesto on Southern Africa-the Lusaka Manifesto, initiated and signed by all the Heads of Government and States of Central and East Africa. 27. It is tragic that Portugal-a country that has made such great contributions in the march of civilization;a country that has been untainted by accusations of racial discrimination and colour prejudice-should act in concert with Pretoria and Salisbury to perpetuate colonialism, apartheti and illegal racist minority rule in Southern Africa. 28. In introducing this draft resolution in document S/9542 we once again appeal to Portugal to abandon its colonial wars and, in the spirit of the Lusaka Manifesto, to recoguize the right of the peoples of Mozambique, Angola 29. I commend the draft resolution to the Security Council, with the following revisions which the four sponsors, namely, Algeria, Nepal, Pakistan and Zambia, have agreed to make in its text as a result of consultations, Those revisions are as follows. In document S/9542, which is the draft resolution I have referred to, the second preambulat paragraph, which reads “Having heard the statements by the parties” should be deleted. In the first line of paragraph 1 the words “Government of Portugal for ordering” should be replaced by “Strongly condemns the Portuguese colonial authorities for”, which would then be followed by the remainder of the paragraph: “the shelling of the village of Samine,” and so on, as in the present text. I hope I have made myself clear.2

I thank the representative of Pakistan, Ambassador Shahi, for the kind words he has addressed to the chair. 31, Mr. JAKOBSON (Finland): Mr. President, I am happy to have this opportunity to extend to you the best wishes of my delegation on your accession to the Presidency. It has been a great pleasure to work with you during the past year and I am looking forward to another year of friendly co-operation with you and your delegation in the Security Council. I also wish to join in paying tribute to the Presidents of the Council in October and November, Lord Caradon and Ambassador Yost. 32. As we are considering the complaint brought before the Security Council by the Government of Senegal, we are conscious of the fact that it comes from a State which desires nothing but to live in peace and to promote peace and which, under the leadership of President Senghor, plays a constructive role in the work of the Security Council and in international co-operation in general. The complaint of Senegal thus merits our most serious attention. 33. The facts about the incident which have led to the convening of this meeting of the Security Council do not seem to be in dispute, The representative of Senegal told US on 4 December that Portuguese armed forces based in Guinea (Bissau) had once again violated the territorial integrity of his country by shelling the village of &mine, causing casualties and material damage. He pointed out that this was not the first time that the territorial integrity Of Senegal had been violated by Portuguese forces. Similar incidents have in fact occurred intermittently ever since 1963 and they have become more frequent and more systematic each year. Decisions by the Security Council in 1963 and 1965 requesting Portugal, in accordance with its declared intentions, to take whatever action might be necessary to prevent any violations of Senegalese sovereignty and territorial integrity have not led to any lasting improvement in the situation. 2 The text of the revised draft resolution was subsequenth’ issued as document S/9542/Rev.l. 35. According to the Charter, in disputes of this kind a solution should be sought in the first place through the means envisaged in Article 33. My Government has consistently emphasized the primary duty of parties to a dispute to seek solutions by negotiation and conciliation. We are aware, however, that such a procedure presupposes the existence of the minimum measure of mutual confidence between the parties. In the present case this prerequisite does not seem to exist. In these circumstances it. is the duty of tlhe Security Council ~t~~~ti$&‘-&~ &mplaint and to seek. an effective remedy to the sitii’tiion within the terms of Chapter VI of the Charter..+--a,,“,“’ 36. The complaint which the Council is now examining must be seen in a larger context. As recently as last July the Council considered incidents which had taken place on the frontiers between Zambia and adjoining African Territories under Portuguese administration, and a few days ago we were informed that the representative of Guinea had submitted to the Council yet another complaint against Portugal [S/9528/. Thus repeated incidents along the borders between African Territories under Portuguese administration and neighbouring independent African Stat.es form a pattern of tension and violence. The underlying cause for that situation is Portugal’s disregard for the aspirations of the peoples in Territories under its administration, its persistent refusal to make any advance towards granting them the self-determination and independenIce to which they have an inalienable right under Chapter XI of the Charter and the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. In fact, no lasting improvement in this situation can be expected so lon8 as the Government of Portugal continues to pursue in Afriica a policy which cannot be reconciled either with the legitimate aspirations of the African peoples living under Portuguese rule or with the deepest convictions of the independent African States. 42. The matter raised by the representative of Senegal presents one aspect of the stubbornly surviving remnants of colonialism, actually one of the most serious aspects. With the denial to the African masses under colonial rule of their right to self-determination and with the repeated encroachments on the security and territorial integrity of sovereign and independent States of Africa, the threat to international peace and security is made twofold and must engage in earnest the prompt attention of the Council, as it is engaging it now. In this connexion, that conclusion is only strengthened by the complaint our brother delegation of Guinea is going to raise before the Council-and for the same reason, namely, Portuguese aggressive acts against Guinea. 37. It is in the light of those considerations that my delegation will determine its position with regard to the draft resolution which has just been introduced in the Council by the representative of Pakistan.

I thank Ambassador Jakobson for the remarks he made about me. They were much too complimentary. 41. May I also express our grateful thanks to you, Sir, and to the members of the Security Council for granting the request of the delegation of Syria to participate, We are deeply concerned over the matter being considered at the request of our brother delegation from Senegal. The problems arising from the obstinate non-compliance of Portugal with United Nations resolutions calling on the administering Power to implement forthwith the provisions of the resolution concerning independence-namely General Assembly resolution 15 14 (XV)-must indeed be the concern of all Member States, even of humanity at large, You cannot have a United Nations Organization and colonialism at one and the same time. The principles and objectives of the United Nations are in total contradiction to those inspiring colonialism. If colonialism is not defeated, those principles and objectives will be-and that will mean the defeat of the Organization. There is a polarization between the two; the one completely negates the other. 43. In essence, the rigime in Lisbon, like a few other reactionary colonial rkgimes, aims at deflecting the trend towards liberation which has characterized the second half, in particular, of the twentieth century and at keeping the African masses in Guinea (Bissau), Mozambique and Angola under the colonial yoke in defiance of all United Nations resolutions. If such defiance is allowed to continue with impunity, the United Nations will be indeed in a serious crisis. Its principles will be in jeopardy and it will be unable to fulfil its role in the establishment of international peace and -justice. We are all, therefore, indebted to the Government and the delegation of Senegal for reporting to this highest organ of the United Nations in order to expose this threat not only to their country, not only to their brethren, but to the whole fabric of the United Nations, thus facing the Security Council with its responsibilities. 44. The arguments of the delegation of Portugal, even in detail, are untenable. The representative of Senegal has put 45. Appearing in garments of innocence and peacefulness, that call for contacts and dialogue, is most misleading. The real dialogue was offered long ago; it is still refused by the very regime which purports to be asking for it. That regime has undermined from the start the very premises of any fruitful dialogue by claiming that the African Territories under its domination have no right to self-determination, have no African personality of their own, and ‘are mere Portuguese provinces. That ludicrous and arbitrary disposition of peoples and territory by decree by a colonial r6gime is the most glaring example of tyranny. What dialogue is possible when such absurd claims are advanced? Does the Lisbon r&me expect the sovereign countries of Africa to acquiesce in the suppression of their brothers’ right to self-determination and in the suffocation of their brothers’ distinct African personality ? Does the Portuguese rdgime expect the countries of Africa to turn the refugees from Guinea (Bissau), Mozambique and Angola over to the oppressor? 46. Can we forget that since the adoption of resolution 1514 (XV) no fewer than 30 resolutions have been adopted by the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Special Committee of Twenty-Four on dccolonizations regarding the same,problem that we arc discussing now? It is the ‘IJnited Nations resolutions themselves-the latest of which is General Assembly resolution 2395 (XXIII) of 29 November 1968--which affirm the inalienable right of the African people under Portuguese domination to self-determination, freedom and independence, and the legitimacy of their struggle to achieve that right; which condemn the persistent refusal of the Government of Portugal to implement resolution 15 14 (XV); which denounce the situation in the Territories under Portuguese domination as aggravating explosive conditions in all of southern Africa; and which appeal to all States to help the Africans in their struggle against Portuguese domination and to withhold assistance for the prosecution of the colonial war against those Africans. Indeed, resolution 2395 (XXIII) condemns Portugal’s violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of independent African States and it also condemns the collaboration between Portugal and the racist rhgimes in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. 47. Those United Nations resolutions provide the authoritative answer to the arguments and claims of the Portuguese delegation. The regime of Lisbon has tried to distort the picture; it projects on to others its own crimes and arrogates to itself rights due to others. It launches wanton attacks on the territory of Senegal, kills innocent citizensincluding women and children-and then claims that it was the victim rather th,a.n the aggressor, It speaks of selfdefence. But, who is to judge whom? Is it the party that 3 SIJ~&~ Committee on the Situation with regard to the Impkemerltation of the Declaration on the Granting 01” Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 48. The delegation of Portugal comes before the Council to plead against violence. What violence is worse than the forceful occupation of vast portions of the African continent, the force mobilized for illegitimate consolidation of colonial rule and denial of natural rights to millions of Africans? The regime of Lisbon turns its wrath against the countries that supply the liberation movements with weapons. Who is to be condemned-those who extend moral and material support to a legitimate struggle for self-determination and independence in full observance of United Nations resolutions, or those who supply the Portuguese colonialists with the means of force required to consolidate its colonialism and silence African aspirations? 49. A serious attack by colonial Portuguese forces was made on Samine village in Senegal. It made innocent human victims-among them women, children and the aged. Not only have the attacking forces violated sovereignly, international law and morality, but such brigand assaults on territory and innocent people run counter to every norm of civilized conduct, and, as if the Lisbon regime wants to give an exhibition of more power, it bombards populated localities of Senegal while its first aggression is being debated here within the Council. SO. In the last analysis it is the presence of Portugal in Africa by force of arms which is unwanted and illegitimate. Those who supply the colonialists with arms are known. The marks of the manufacture of their planes and destructive weapons are also too obvious to permit denial. The flow of weapons is too deliberate to permit any excuse. The principles of the Charter, the resolutions of the United Nations, are all against this illegitimate occupation and the support which the Portuguese receive from their allies. With the escalation of this colonial war so as to involve sovereign African countries as well, they have trampled on peace in Africa and menaced the peace of the world. It is, therefore, for the Security Council to take up the gauntlet, to enforce the rule of law, to accelerate the access of subject peoples to the exercise of self-determination, to silence with effective measures the guns of the aggressor and to remove the threat to Africa and international peace and security once and for all. Meanwhile, it is the duty of every country to come to the support of the subjected people and demonstrate solidarity with the independent countries of Africa in their noble stand of resisting aggression. This is not only an elementary rule but it is a stand of principle and not a stand of expediency. If it is not fulfilled, the independence and integrity of every small State will be in peril.

I thank the representative of Syria for the kind words he has addressed to me. 53. In regard to the item before the Council, my delegation wishes to express its feelings of shock at the events which have been denounced and its deep regret at the loss of innocent human lives. I wish to convey these feelings to the representative of Senegal. 54. Al; regards our theoretical position, that is to say our position on the principles that have been invoked in the consideration bf the item, it should first of all be noted that we are against the survival of all colonial rBgimes and that we have, as it were, an inborn anti-colonialist attitude, so that the self.determination of peoples is one of the essential tenets of our thinking in international relations. Fortunately, history has proved that colonialism is essentially short-ljved. Peoples aspire to freedom and that is a vital tendency which overcomes any attempt to suppress or condition it. On the other hand, my delegation does not hesitate to condemn any arbitrary qualification of selfdefence and any justification for reprisals or punitive acts. For if we are against the colonialist system, that does not make us the enemy of a nation. We maintain old bonds of friendship with Portugal, and even though that does not incline hs in its favour against evidence and justice, it does prevent us from taking a decision without having Portugal’s version of the facts. I think we can ask no less in cases such as the present one, and that circumstances can hardly be overloloked by the dclcgation of Colombia.

I thank the representative of Colomlbia for the kind words he addressed to me.

I apologize for intervening once again in this painful debate, but I do SO on a point of order. The Council will doubtless recall that this morning I asked it to meet without interruption and to adopt a decision today. However, certain friendly delegations have asked me to agree to deferring the vote until tomorrow morning. Naturally, I can only agree to that request, and I should be grateful to you, Mr.President, if you would agree to postponing the vote until l.omorrow morning. 5’7. The PRESIDENT: I thank the representative of Senegal for his intervention on a point of order to inform members of the Council that he does not wish to insist on his original proposal that the Council should vote on this item today. I call on the representative of Portugal on a pdint of order.

I merely wish to state that my delegation reserves its right to intervene tomorrow morning or at the next meeting of the Security Council, if the President will permit me to do so. r , ‘;‘I. ‘The PRESIDENT: I shall permit the representative of Portugal 30 make a statement before the vate tomorrow

I thank the representative of Senegal for the statement he has made on a point of order. It is my understanding, as I stated earlier, that the vote will take place tomorrow morning. 62. Since there are no representatives who wish to take part in the general debate, with the permission of the Council, I should like to make a statement in my capacity as representative of ZAMBIA. 63. When Zambia sent a letter of complaint to the President of the Security Council on 15 July 1969 [S/9331/, requesting an urgent meeting of the Security Council, we stated that the regular armed forces of Portugal had violated the territorial integrity of the Republic of Zambia by bombing the village of Lote, thereby causing considerable harm to life and property. When that meeting was convened [1486th meeting/ we listed 60 specific acts of aggression against Zambia by Portugal, Out of those 60 incidents the representative of Portugal stated that only about two were real acts of aggression or violation of Zambia’s territorial integrity. We argued, however, that whatever the number it did not alter the fact that Portugal had deliberately ‘violated the Charter of the United Nations. 64. In the same debate my colleague, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, reminded the Council that on no fewer than three occasions the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had appealed to the Security Council to condemn forcefully the aggressive acts of Portugal. Mr. Boye of Senegal also spoke and told the Council of the unrest that is being caused by Portugal in Senegal. Many eminent friends from Africa spoke of their experiences in their own countries, which share tlte fate of being neighbours of African territories still suffering inhuman oppression from the last bastion of the colonial epoch. At that first meeting and the ones that followed later my delegation was told by the allies of Portugal in this chamber that Zambia had failed to establish a prima facie case and that they could not support a resolution that condemned acts of banditry committed by Portugal, Obviously, Portugal must have felt comforted and assured of continued support when it repeated similar acts. 65. On 4December 1969, this Council met to hear the representative of Senegal, Mr. Boye, in his most judicious manner, give precise information on more than 20 flagrant violations of which his courltry had been the target this year alone. He mentioned places, dates, and names of persons who had been killed or captured; he even mentioned the villages which had been burnt. TO all those complaints and all that information given by the representative of Senegal, the Lisbon Government was content to make an over-all, cynical denial, 67, We have always pointed out that the Lisbon Government would not have to be harassed here at the United Nations, at the Organization of African Unity or at any meeting of people who long to see the world at peace, if only Portugal did one thing: leave Mozambique, Angola, and Guinea (Bissau) and grant the right of self-determination to the indigenous people. Portugal knows that as far as Africa and the United Nations are concerned Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau) are not Portuguese provinces whatsoever. We repeat that those Territories are merely Non-Self-Governing Territories, whose peoples are still deprived of the right to self-determination and independence. They are African Territories still being exploited by Portugal and its allies; they are parts of Africa, or Territories to which the United Nations resolution 1514 (XV) is applicable. That resolution represented a turning point in the history of imperialism and colonialism in Africa and elsewhere in the world and provided a basis for change. 68. But Portugal, instead of responding affirmatively and giving effect to the aspirations of the United Nations Charter, has defied that resolution. It is needless for me to reiterate the numerous other resolutions that Portugal has defied. There are many other resolutions of the General Assembly and Security Council, all of which I cannot mention, but the following are pertinent: General Assembly resolutions 1807 (XVII), 18 19 (XVII), 19 13 (XVIII), and Security Council resolutions 163 (1961) and 183 (1963). As I said there are many more, and not even a single one has been heeded or respected by the Lisbon rbgime. 69. Yet Portugal is a Member of the United Nations. It is the impunity with which Portugal defies those resolutions and the comfort it receives from its imperialist NATO allies which enhances its obduracy. Surely being a Member of the Organization and freely adhering to the Charter of the Organization does not mean that one simply has the right to sit behind a placard marked “Portugal” in the General Assembly, its Committees, the Security Council and other organs of the United Nations. Membership demands of a Member State that it live up to its obligations. Portugal has not lived up to them. 70. Every time the representative of Portugal has been called upon by this Council to answer charges of aggression brought against his country, he has unashamedly tried to confuse the course of debate: for instance, by wanting to give the impression that Portugal is at war with the independent African States that border the Non-Self- Governing Territories of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau). We have never declared war against Portugal; for, had we done so, the position would clearly have been different. Portugal is fighting a war of oppression; it is in the armed conflict with heroic men who are determined to 71. It is that assistance which we openly give to the oppressed people that the Lisbon regime terms “acts of aggression” and would like the Security Council to condemn. We in my own country have thousands of refugees from Angola and Mozambique. They are men and women who have run away involuntarily from their own soil to seek shelter in a foreign country. Mr. Boye eloquently pointed out that there are well over 50,000 refugees in Senegal alone being looked after by his Government in collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. My delegation must point out that the Government and people of Zambia regard the presence of Portugal in Africa as a rotten sore requiring immediate surgery. It is intolerable and unacceptable, and the pride of Africa is extremely hurt by the Portuguese presence in Africa. Consequently, we regard it as an act of good faith and an obligation to give any possible assistance to all those who are prepared to sacrifice everything, including their lives, in order to rout the oppressor. Furthermore, our act is only a positive response to the call of the world, and we would be letting down the world Organization were we to respond otherwise. That is why we feel all the more encouraged and in duty bound to act in this way. 72. Only last month the African people, in their tireless efforts to work together with the United Nations, presented to the General Assembly the Manifesto on Southern Africa, a lucid and clear document acclaimed by peace-loving nations of the world as memorable, eloquent and fair. The document provides a working framework for the oppressor and the oppressed. It insists that the African people want a peaceful settlement of all problems of colonialism and racial “superiority”. But it is also emphatic on the point that, should those colonialists refuse to negotiate, then the people of Africa would never abdicate their responsibility and abandon those who are still under the colonial yoke. 73. It is only a matter of time before all of Africa shall become free. We believe ardently in historic determinism, and we believe that no single nation, however strong, however well armed it may be, will crush the spirit of nationalism. That is a fact which has been proved in Europe, in Asia, in Latin America and in Africa. If Portugal’s presence and domination can survive my genera tion, it certainly cannot survive the generation that will come after mine. Here is the advice that the allies of Portugal should give it: that Portugal is fighting a lost war; that it is foolishly wasting all the financial help that they give it. Is it not Portugal which is the most under-developed country in Europe? Lisbon is spending about $400 millioll a year-or 45 per cent of its national budget-on defence and security alone, Defence and security in Lisbon mean 74. In this debate Portugal and its allies will hear the voice of agony from Africa. It is the voice of a continent still bleeding from wounds inflicted by a foreign oppressor; yet in it they will hear the rhythm of optimism, for if the 75. We shall have another occasion to continue this vigorous denunciation of these irresponsible acts of terrorism and banditry by Portugal, 76. Speaking now as PRESIDENT, I would say that, as I indicated earlier, there are no further speakers on my list for the general debate. In accordance with the views expressed during informal consultations that have been held during the course of the meeting, the next meeting of the Security Council, which will concentrate specifically on the matter of voting, will take place tomorrow at 10.30 a.m. The meeting rose at 6.5 pm. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PlJ8LlCATlONS United Notions publications may be obtained from bookstores and distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES ter publications des Nations Unier sent en vente dons ler libroirier et les ogances dbpositaites du monde entier. Informez-vow oupres de votre librairie ou adresser-vous b: Nalions Vnfes, Seclion der ventes, New York ou Gen&ve. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Los publicacfones de 10s Nacianer Unidos ea16n en venta en librerias y cosos distribuidoror en lodor portes del mundo. Conrulle o LU librero o dirijose a: Nacioner Unidor, Seccibn de Ventor. Nueva York o G&bra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $LJ.S. 0.50 (or equivnlent in other currencies) 82280-December 1972-2,050