S/PV.1569 Security Council

In keeping with a somewhat recent tradition, I shall refrain from the usual praise or compliments to my predecessors. I am sure, however, that they are well aware of the high esteem in which I hold them.

The representative of Senegal, in his letter [S/10251], while requesting a meeting of the Security Council also requested that the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal be invited to participate in the Council’s discussion. 8. In accordance with the rules of procedure and the usual practice of the Security Council, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal to take a place at the Security Council table to participate in the Council’s discussion without the right to vote. 2. Before proceeding to the agenda, I should like to express the unanimous feeling of the Council by welcoming here the Secretary-General of our Organization. We know the heavy responsibilities which our Secretary-General bears every day. We have all expressed the ardent wish that his health, which was impaired by his intense activities, be promptly restored. Your return among us, Mr. Secretary- General, is proof that our wishes have indeed been fulfilled, and we are pleased to express our great satisfaction to YOU. At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. K. Gaye (Senegal) took a place at the Security Council table,

I have received from the representative of Guinea the following letter: 3. The members of the Council will also understand when I express the deep feelings of my country-which they undoubtedly share-over the recent events in Morocco. I should like to express to His Majesty King Hassan II our deep sympathies concerning the losses suffered by the families of the victims. We wish to assure him of our sincere best wishes for the future and prosperity of the Moroccan people. We also wish to express to the representative of Belgium our deep sorrow and condolences over the tragic IOSS of his country’s Ambassador to Morocco. “On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to request permission to participate, without vote, in the discussion by the Security Council of the complaint by the Republic of Senegal against Portugal.” [S/l 0258.] If I hear no objection, in accordance with the practice of the Council, I shall invite the representative of Guinea to take a place at the Council table, without the right to vote.

Allow me, Mr. President, to express my deep gratitude to you for the condolences you expressed with respect to the tragic death of my colleague and friend, Mr. Marcel Dupret, the Belgian Ambassador in Rabat. At the invitation of the President, Mr. E.-H. A. Tour4 (Guinea) took a place at the Security Council table. 11. In this connexion, I should like to draw the attention of members of the Council to the letters dated 27 April [S/10182] and 16 June 1971 (S/10227], addressed to the Security Council by the Permanent Representative of Senegal. These two letters are mentioned in document s/10251. 12. I also wish to draw the attention of members of the Council to the letter dated 10 July 1971, addressed to the President of the Security Council by the Charge d’affaires ad interim of the Permanent Mission of Portugal to the United Nations /S/l 02551. 13. The first speaker on my list is Mr. Amadou Karim Gaye, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Senegal, upon whom I now call. 14. Mr, GAYE (Senegal) (interpretation from French): Mr.President, I thank you, first, for calling upon me to speak and,. secondly, for having been good enough to convene this meeting of the Security Council in so short a period of time, as to attest to the great interest that you have in the maintenance of peace and security all over the world, especially when that security and that peace are threatened in a country which, to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity, possesses as an essential weapon only its rights and the faith that it has placed in the United Nations. And these are bolstered by the faith that we have placed in the role which the Security Council is called upon by the international community to perform in order to ensure respect all over the world for law, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States when these are threatened. 15. The acts of aggression that have been committed on Senegalese soil by Portuguese troops-acts of aggression of which once again my Government must complain to the Security Council-go to swell a long list of violations of our frontiers and of the territorial integrity of Senegal. Those acts are closely linked with the repression that Portugal has carried out for eight years against the nationalist movements forced into armed insurrection by the obstinacy of Portugal to maintain in Guinea (Bissau) a colonial domination which today is rejected by all the freedom-loving nations of the world. 16. Now that, since the signing of the Charter of San Francisco, millions of human beings have recovered the right to assume control of their own destiny; now that dependence and colonial domination have been replaced in countries where persons have been given back their dignity as human beings by relations of co-operation openly based on freedom of expression of their will and of mutual respect of legitimate interests; even though this is a reality wherever we look in the world, Portugal is today one of the last of the European States to turn a deaf ear to the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, attached as it is to the laughable delusion that African territories can be merged in the Iberian Peninsula, 18. It is for these reasons that Senegal was in favour, ln 1960, of the establishment on our territory of a Portuguese diplomatic mission under the control of a charge d’affaires. And, in 1961, the Senegalese Government designated a Consul General in Guinea (B&au). 19. But acts as serious as these that have led to this meeting of the Security Council show clearly how Portugal intends to act towards the neighbouring African States that border those territories which it still holds. 20. It was in April 1963 that Senegal for the first time addressed itself to the Security Council [1027th meeting]. The village of Bouniak, located in the department of Ziguinchor, less than two kilometres from the Guinea (Bissau) frontier, after having undergone overflights by four Portuguese planes was gutted by Portuguese grenade attacks. The representative of Portugal here in the Security Council was forced to bow to the facts that were overwhelmingly set forth by the representative of Senegal. And the Security Council, in its resolution 178 (1963) of 24 April 1963, took note “of the declared intention of the Portuguese Government . . . to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal”. In the same resolution, the Government of Portugal was invited, “in accordance with its declared intentions, to take whatever action may be necessary to prevent any violation of Senegal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”. 21. But despite the assurances given by the Government of Portugal, not one year passed after April 1963, before Senegal was the victim again of new acts of aggression, committed by Portuguese troops on Senegalese soil. Not a single year has since passed without the Government of Senegal having to complain to the Security Council and to world public opinion of the human losses caused by Portuguese troops, the kidnappings, violations of the frontier and the air space of Senegal, the bombing and burning of villages, destruction of harvests and cattlerustling. 22. Two years after the adoption of the resolution of 24 April 1963, the Security Council, on Senegal’s request, held a new meeting on 19 May 1965 [1212th meeting] necessitated by the increasing gravity of the violations of Senegalese national territory by Portuguese forces. Overflights of Senegalese villages were cited: in Tanafe, On 4 April 1964; in Djidadji-Balante, on 5 July 1965; in N’Dofia, on 23 January 1965; and in San?-Kobe, on 8 March 1965. 24. Two soldiers of the regular Portuguese Army and an agent of the Portuguese Intelligence Service, arrested by the Senegalese authorities, attested, by their very physical presence, to the violation by the Portuguese forces of the integrity of our national territory. 34. The Security Council, “bearing in mind its resolutions 178 (1963) of 24 April 1963 and 204 (1965) of 19 May 1965,” on 9 December 1969 adopted a new resolution [273 (196911 expressing its concern “about the serious situation created by the shelling of the village of Samine in the southern region of Senegal from the Begene base” in Guinea (Bissau). The Security Council “strongly [condemned] the Portuguese authorities for the shelling of the village of Samine, which (1) on 25 November 1969 caused one death and seriously wounded eight persons . . . and (2) on 7 December 1969 caused five deaths and seriously wounded one woman” and “again [called] upon Portugal to desist forthwith from violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal.” Finally, the same resolution stated that “in the event of failure by Portugal to comply with paragraph 2 of the present resolution, the Security Council will meet to consider other measures .” 25. The Security Council, at its meeting of 19 May 1965, limited itself to reaffirming its‘resolution 178 (1963) of 24 April 1963 and requesting “once again the Government of Portugal to take all effective and necessary action to prevent any violation of Senegal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” [resolution 204 (19&Y)]. 26. The Secretary-General, it is true, was requested to continue to follow the development of the situation. 27. Four years after the adoption of this second resolution, the Security Council was convened once more, on 9 December 1969 /152Oth meeting], to reopen the record of Portuguese crimes committed on Senegalese territory. The meeting was called because of the frequency of the acts of aggression and the wide destruction caused by Portuguese troops on Senegalese territory. 35. The Security Council has remained seized of this question since 9 December 1969. Nevertheless, after the brief period of calm which followed the meeting of 9 December 1969, and despite the resolutions of the Security Council and despite the aims and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations which should govern the behaviour of all States Members of the Organization, Portuguese ‘troops and aircraft, very soon renewed their attacks against the territory and populations of Senegal. 28. In 1966, once again Senegal had to denounce twelve violations of its air space, the two shellings of its villages, the kidnapping by Portuguese forces of 43 villagers, and the theft of about 100 cattle, The material losses suffered were 200 huts and 11 granaries burned. 36. In the first six months of the year 1970 my Government was obliged to denounce 23 violations of its air space; 24 shells landing on Senegalese territory; 3 viilages destroyed; 320 huts burned; 119 granaries burnt down, 18 persons kidnapped; 36 persons wounded and four killed. 29. In 1967 Senegalese air space was violated six times: 12 shells were fired on Senegalese territory; three villages were destroyed; six persons kidnapped; seven persons killed; 10 persons wounded; 70 huts and 27 granaries burned. 30. In the course of the many Portuguese incursions on Senegalese territory, the village of Djirak, in the Department of Oussouye, was the scene, on 23 September 1967, of the summary execution of a peasant, who was decapitated in the public square: his severed head being taken away by the Portuguese murderers. 37. In spite of the provocative and murderous character of the acts of the Portuguese army and the increasing number of violations of Senegalese air space, my Government did not at the time ask for a special meeting of the Security Council. We limited ourselves to telling the international community the truth about all the acts of which we had been the victim and which are on the record. 31. In 1968, with the same cynicism, the Portuguese troops continued their criminal acts of aggression and destruction. The Senegalese authorities again denounced 14 violations of Senegalese air space, 19 incursions by Portuguese troops, in Senegal, 52 shells fired by the Portuguese on Senegalese soil, 4 villages destroyed, 22 persons kidnapped, 38. In January 1970, at the renewal of the violence of Portuguese attacks, the Senegalese Chief of State formally addressed the Secretary-General in order that a fact-finding mission be sent to Senegal to establish once and for all in the eyes of the world the truth about the daily damage inflicted by Portuguese troops on Senegalese territory. 32. From January 1969 to December of the same year, and even before the meeting of the Security Council on 9 December 1969, Senegal added to the list of deliberate aota of aggression perpetrated on its territory by Portuguese troops 27 violations of its air space, 240 shells fired on 39. It would be easy for the committee of experts, the Senegalese Chief of State pointed out, to note that the only foreign military base in Senegal was the result of a freely negotiated agreement with France; that the Senegalese unit 40. One might wonder what were the results of that investigation, and of what value were the Portuguese allegations? 41. The members of the group of experts who were in Senegal from 16 to 22 June 1970 will no doubt give you an answer on which I shall not pass judgement for the arrival of the group of experts in Cas:nname on 20 June 1970 was greeted two hours later with shelling from Portuguese artillery on a Senegalese village situated near the frontier, and I would add, in the presence of the group of experts. 42. Thus, the second half of the year 1970 was equally bloody along the entire frontier south of Casamance. Our air space was deliberately violated 113 times by helicopters, Dornier fighter planes and Fiat G-91 bombers, especially in the departments of Kolda, Sedhiou and Velingara. There were 19 incursions on the territory of Senegal by Portuguese troops with artillery cover in those same departments. 43. Those departments were bombed seven times. The village of SeWniB, in the department of Kolda, on the night of 4 to 5 September 1970 was shelled 17 times from the Cambajue base of the Portuguese. In the village of Kolodinnto-Maounde there were shehings on 13 July 1970. Two were killed, Mrs. Yacine Diallo, 40 years of age, and a child, Yamadio Diallo, 8 years of age, and 2 were wounded, Mrs. Ramata Diallo, 40 years of age, and young Aby Diallo, 6 years of age. The sinister balance sheet of these Portuguese attacks for the second semester of 1970 shows: 6 dead, 33 wounded, 12 of them gravely, 101 granaries burned, 256 huts burned, and 391 stolen cattle. 44. But it seems essential to me to dwell on the violence and deliberate repetition of Portuguese aggressions since the beginning of 1971, first of all because they followed a preparation of public opinion which reveals that these Portuguese attacks were premeditated. They also show an escalation in violence, violence which the Security Council, which has the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, is entitled to know, 45. Thus, on 2.5 January 1971 four 105-millimetre shells fired from the Portuguese base of San Dommgos exploded in the village of M’Pack-Mankagne and wounded one child, On the night of 30 to 31 January Portuguese troops operating from the Ingore base raided the village of Faraba, in the district of Diattacounda in the department of Sedhiou, and killed two inhabitants with machetes, On 3 February three Portuguese jet aircraft overflew the Senegalese village of Darsalam Peulh in the Tanafe district. On the night of 5 to 6 February six shells fired from the Portuguese base of Cambajue exploded in the Senegalese village of Sare Souna, which is located ten kilometres from the frontier. On 11 February the Portuguese base of Cambajue opened mortar fire on the village of SBIik&ie, department of Kolda. One shell fell squarely in the centre 46. In the face of the scope of these attacks, Senegal once again was compelled, on 22 April, to submit a new complaint before the Security Council. Despite the warn. ings contained in that complaint and despite the appeal made to the permanent members of the Security Council, Portuguese troops continued their aggressions and depreda: tions in Senegalese territory. 47. On 26 April, four days after the complaint was lodged, the village of SBlik6nie was attacked by regular units of the Portuguese Army. Six shells were fired, and two inhabitants were wounded. On 8 May a Portuguese observation aircraft overflew the village of Kolda. On 16 May two inhabitants of the village were wounded by grenade explosions. On 22 May the village of Singap was attacked by a group of Portuguese bandits armed with guns. On 31 May the village of Boutogoul, two kilometres to the south of Singap, was attacked by Portuguese soldiers, and two farmers were wounded. On 4 June a shell fell on the village of Mangob Roungou department of Sedhiou. On 6 June 1971, the village of Simbour was attacked by Portuguese soldiers coming from Ingore and one girl was killed. On the night Of 1 l-12 June an attack was launched against the village of Souboute, district of Diattacounda, by Portuguese soldiers and there were 3 wounded as a result, On the night of 13 te 14 June Portuguese soldiers plundered the village ef Manekounda. On 16 June a farmer was wounded after an attack against the village of Sibana. On 21 June the vilbgs of Niafor four kilometres northwest of Samine was attacked by a band of Portuguese mercenaries armed with submachine-guns and grenades killing one villager and stealing 62 head of cattle. On the night of 28 to 29 June the village of Kaniko was attacked at 9.3Op.m by Portuguese units, who withdrew carrying off some of the cattle. On the night of 2 to 3 July the village cf Diabakounda west of Samine, was attacked by a band of 48. However, the premeditated nature of the Portuguese attacks appears even more clearly in the preparation of public opinion through the circulation of false information obviously instigated by the Portuguese authorities. Thus, an article dated 25 May 1971 written by Mr. Bruce Loudon, who is the Lisbon correspondent of the British newspaper Tfze Daily Telegraph, reported the arrival in Senegal of Cuban technical advisers who were-and I quote from the newspaper-“to take charge of heavy weapons, communications and technical units” ready to invade Guinea (Bissau). As if Senegal did not have enough to do to protect its own frontiers! On 8 June 1971 an article appeared in the same newspaper unperturbedly announcing an imminent attack against Guinea (Bissau) coming from Senegal. On 14 June the very same newspaper, speaking of the “‘long and hostile Senegalese frontiers”, reported the arrival of thirty-two Cubans in Senegal to “assist and direct new attacks against Guinea (Bissau)“, Events have shown since then that Lisbon was simply trying to prepare new justifications for its repeated aggressions against Senegal. 55. On 5 June at 2.40 p.m. a military vehicle U-55 No. 240403/S8 of the 7th Light Infantry Company based at Samine exploded when it hit a mine placed on the road connecting Samine with the village of Toubacouta. As a result five were wounded, two seriously; one suffered a fractured skull and is still hospitalized. The wounded were Jean-Pierre Malack, Serial No. 271 .OO ,5 12; Path6 Niang, Serial No. 126.90.125; Mandiaye Babou, Serial No.770~01.162; Mory Talla, Serial No. 371.00.653, and Momar Lissa Seek, Serial No. 370.01.494. All the wounded were evacuated to the Ziguinchor Hospital in military aircraft on the morning of 6 June 197 1. 56. On 11 June, toward 5 pm., an anti-tank mine was discovered on the road from Faradianto, three kilometres from Samine. 49. But there is more. This escalation of violence now takes on a new form: the criminal laying of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines on Senegalese territory by Portuguese forces, 57. On 19 June towards 11.5 am. between the villages of Sare-Ndiaye and Medina Alpha Sadou, the car of the District Chief of Dioulacolon department of Kolda exploded on a mine. Four persons were travelling on that vehicle, license plate 4901 S.I.D. The driver was wounded, as was his assistant. The mechanic was killed instantaneously and the assistant mechanic was severely wounded. The wounded were taken to the hospital at Zinguinchor; the car was totally destroyed. 50. On 4 May an explosive device was found above and below the bridge between the villages of Salike and Sare Sissao. These explosives were found after a patrol of twenty-five Portuguese soldiers had been seen operating in the sector, 51. On 9 May an anti-personnel mine was discovered in the village of Bambato, Diattacounda district. An anti-tank mine was also removed near the same village, on the right side of the Ziguinchor-Tanafe road. The perpetrators of these ambushes could only be soldiers from the Bigene base in Guinea (Bissau) as footprints revealing the use of ranger shoes were found near the mines and were traced all the way to the frontier, on the road leading to the Bigdne base. 58. On 1 July, at about 8 am., two anti-tank mines were ‘removed from the OussouyeCap Skiring road. On the same day, at 4 p.m., 200 metres from the village of Santiaba- Mandjak au anti-tank mine exploded when a public transport vehicle belonging to Mr. Nolkante of Ziguinchor drove over it. One was killed; 13 were wounded. According to information obtained from inhabitants of the village of Santiaba-Mandjak, a Portuguese helicopter had landed on an adjacent ricefield on Wednesday, 30 June at about 6 p.m. Four men equipped with picks and shovels alighted. They boarded a Portuguese truck, which left along the Oussouye road. The helicopter took off again only when those men returned, at 11 p.m., towards the Portuguese base of Valtira located six kilometres from the border at a point directly opposite the village of Santiaba-Mandjak. 52. On 20 May an anti-personnel mine was found on a much-travelled path in the Koumbacara Sector. To avoid all danger to inhabitants, the police had to detonate that mine. 53, On 21 May a systematic demining operation was undertaken in the villages of Sare Mansaly and Tidelly in the Dabo district, department of Kolda. As a result of that operation one anti-personnel mine was removed about 800 metres from Sare Mansaly, on the Tidelly road north of 8are Mansaly; an anti-personnel mine 850 metres north. west of Sare Mansaly and two anti-tank mines 400 metres from the vlilage of Tidelly were also removed. Footprints found near the mines led to the village of Sare-Bakary in Guinea (Bissau), where a Portuguese base is located. Those mines were probably placed there on the night of 19 to 20 May. 59. On Friday, 2 July, the day after the explosion, a Portuguese helicopter flew over the same area and photographed the debris of the destroyed vehicle. On the same day at noon a unit of the Senegalese army discovered another anti-tank mine near the crater left by the mine explosion of the day before. The Section Chief then arrested a man who was obviously a look-out. Although he came from the village of Effock, which is near the frontier and has a pro-Portuguese reputation, he confirmed the 61, So the question that arises now is how Portugal has facilities so powerful that it is able to carry out a war of aggression and colonial reconquest in Guinea (Bissau) and elsewhere at the same time. 62. Rightly or wrongly, all the African States are convinced that that country, which is beyond doubt, one of the most underdeveloped of all European countries, could not alone, with just its own resources, carry the crushing burden of repression it has carried for nearly 10 years now and erected into a system both within its own frontiers as well as in the African territories. All the African States, rightly or wrongly, are deeply convinced that Portugal can do so only because it belongs to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and has the support of the members of that organization. At the last meeting of the Foreign Ministers of NATO one minister did not hesitate to attack Portugal’s colonial policy and express his fears that such activities might one day discredit NATO in the eyes of the Africans. 63. However, despite all the aggressions against the territorial integrity and national independence of Senegal, the Senegalese Chief of State, when visiting Casamance from 3 to 14 March 1969, publicly proposed to Portugal the broad ~mthne of a peace plan that would put an end to the struggle in Guinea (Bissau) between the Portuguese nationalists and Portugal, the burden of which in part at least is borne by Senegal. 64. The first stage of this peace would be a cease-fire, followed by negotiations without any prior conditions. 65. The second stage would begin, at the close of negotiations, by a period of internal autonomy for Guinea (Bissau) and the procedures, the limits and the time-limits of which would be freely discussed between, on the one hand, the representatives of the Portuguese Government, and, on the other hand, the representatives of the political movements of Guinea (Bissau). 66. Finally, in the third and final stage, independence would be granted, after negotiation, within the framework 68. Under the Charter the Security Council has the b i responsibility “to maintain international peace and secu. I rity”. It is UP to the Security Council therefore to prevent any Member State of the Organization from resorting to the use of force against the territorial integrity of any other Member of the Organization. It is therefore up to the Security Council to take effective measures to this end ia t order to prevent any, threat to the peace and to repress any j acts of aggression. It is for the Security Council to decide ; which measures should be taken to implement its decisions. 69. In its resolution of 9 December 1969 [273(1969/j, the Security Council stipulated that: “in the event of failure by Portugal to comply with paragraph 2 of the present resolution, the Security Council will meet to consider other measures.” 70. It is these measures which Senegal, after having exhausted all the procedures provided for under the Charter, asks the Security Council to take against Portugal. 71. One last word, if you will allow me. I should like to stress-and I hope better than I did in my statement-that, if we did not speak of the recent letter, in which Portugal saw fit to reply, it was because the mine-laying was only an isolated element in a long list of aggressions, that have taken place, that I wished to stress, and have taken place since the last meeting of the Security Council. Another matter is that all the countries with Ambassadors in Dakar who are free to move about, and who have already visited Casamance, know the situation on the southern frontier of Senegal. This new element, and one that is not for publicity or propaganda purposes, is the following: I left Dakar on Saturday at 10 p.m. This morning I received a telegram which was sent to me on the instructions of the President of the Republic, by the Governor of Casamance, which states: “We wish to inform you that the village of Farad&&o in the Department of Sedhiou, region of Diattacounda, was attacked on 10 July at 2 p.m. by Portuguese assailants.” 72. It is possible for the press correspondents accredited to Dakar and the press correspondents who are here and to whom weshall show this document, to verify whether this is an act deliberately committed by Portugal, doubtless showing the importance it attaches to decisions of the Security Council, as it already did when the experts went to Casamance .

The second speaker on my list is the representative of Guinea who has the floor. 82. We are asking ourselves the following question: is the Security Council, at the end of its endeavours here, once more going to adopt a resolution platonically condemning Portugal for its conduct, while on the morrow Portugal will receive the material and moral support of its NATO allies, thus placing the criminal in a position to permit him to continue perpetrating his depredations? 75. The question submitted to the Security Council is a complaint by Senegal against Portugal for repeated vlolations of Senegalese national territory and flagrant aggression against the Senegalese population of Casamance by mine-laying that has caused human losses and considerable material damage. 76. I must avow immediately that it is not with a light heart that the delegation of the Republic of Guinea appears before the Security Council to express all the sorrow, all the pain and all the revulsion that we feel at the countless and nameless crimes that Portuguese colonialism has committed and continues to commit in Angola, in Mozambique and in Guinea (Bissau), under the very nose of the international community. 83. We seize this opportunity solemnly to draw the attention of the international community to the Machiavellian plans for a new aggression that Portugal and some of its allies are at present hatching against the Republic of Guinea. 84. The Head of State of Guinea, President Ahmed Sdkou Toure, Supreme Leader of the RevoIution and Commander-in-Chief of the Guinean revolutionary and popular armed forces, in a statement to the nation on 1 July 1971, unveiled the new plans of aggression prepared by imperialism, using Portugal as its instrument of execution. Indeed, mercenaries are recruited, financed and trained on Guinea (Bissau) soil and in certain other countries for a new invasion of Guinean national territory. World public opinion must be informed of this. 77. Need I recall that on 22, 23, 27 and 28 November 1970, the Government and the people of the Republic of Guinea were the victims of the most heinous aggression that an independent African State has ever known? And the aggressor was Portugal. 78. Need I also recall that the Portuguese colonial soldiery, in its war of aggression against the innocent African populations, resorts to incendiary and napalm bombs and, against the African forests, defoliants whose devastating effects are known all over the world? 8.5. In the eyes of the delegation of the Republic of Guinea the standing and permanent question submitted to the United Nations, and now during the present discussion to the Security Council, the organ primarily responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security in the world, is not to judge the act of aggression as such but rather to know how the Council intends to redress and to put an end to what has been recognized as a manifest and flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this African country neighbouring on the enclaves under Portuguese colonial domination. 79. It is this massive destructive frenzy against men and nature that is the hallmark of the Portuguese colonial undertakings at the end of the twentieth century. 80. The complaint of the Government of Senegal is contained in documents S/10227 of 17 June and S/10251 of 6 July-these documents whose clarity, precision and concision show clearly one of the new aspects of the escalation by Portugal in its crimes against the African populations and warrant serious consideration by this Council. 86. We prefer to believe that the hope which we continue to place in the Security Council will not be disappointed. 87. We thank you, Mr. President, and we reserve the right to speak again during the course of the debate on this question. 81. The Republic of Guinea knows by experience that Portuguese colonialism is ensured blanket impunity thanks to the traditional protection it enjoys from its defenders in NATO. We also know that Portuguese colonialism, intoxi- The meeting rose at 4.55 p.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNfTED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Nations publicalionr may be obtained from bookstores and di,lributort throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write tar United Notions, Sales Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES Les publications des Nations Unier rant en vente dons les libroiries et les ogencer d4pasituirer du monde enlier. Informez-vour oupr&t de votre libroiric ou ndresrez-vou,s h: Nations Unies, Section des ventes, New York ou Gen&.ve. KAK IlOIlY’iCITb W3AAHCIfl OPfAHbl3A~HH 06bE#lHEHHblX HAMLI6i Il:~,w~in Opra~~~i:tn~~nn 06~~~n1rcir1il~1s IIaipil ~10ih’uo iq.uiTb n ~mim~s >iarasiiiiax II iII’CIlT~‘TIIflS 110 IIWX pnirOiiaS XiipR. IIanoAliTC cnpanim 06 Ir:\~arllilix n llaIUrll liilliiliiiOY YiU’iXlIiUC i1.Tli UlliUllTC 110 Zl@?c)‘: Oprnmwn~r~H Ohe~miiciiiiidx lIar(itilt Cwiiw~ uo IrpOAtiliC ll3~alln~, IIbiO-nOIXi lim %OllCBa. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLICACIONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicacioner de los Naciones Usidar c&n en venta en librerias y cases distribuidorar en todar partes del mwido. Consulte a su librero o dirljosc a: Nocioner Unidor, Secci6n de Ventar, Nuevo York o Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 030 (or equivalent in other currencies) 82020~July 197%2,050