S/PV.1570 Security Council

In accordance with the decision taken by the Security Council at its last meeting I invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal and the representative of Guinea to take places at the Security Council table. At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. K. Gaye (Senegal) and Mr. E.-H. A. Tour& (Guinea) took places at fhe Security Council table.

I have just received two letters, one from the Permanent Representative of Mali [S/10260] and the other from the Permanent Representative of Sudan (S/10262], in which they ask to be invited to participate in the debate in the Security Council on the item before us. 3. In accordance with the rules of procedure and with the past practice of the Council, I intend, with the consent of the Council, to invite the representatives of Mali and Sudan to participate, without the right to vote, in the debate in the Security Council, In view of the limited number of places at the Council table, I propose, in accordance with the Council’s practice, to invite the representatives of Mali md Sudan to take the places reserved for them at the side of the Council chamber, it being understood that they will be invited to take places at the Council table when it is their turn to speak. At the invitation of the President, Mr. 8. TraorC (Mali] and Mr. A. Eisa (Sudan) took the pkxes reserved for them in the Council chamber.

The Security Council will now resume consideration of the item on its agenda. I should like to draw the attention of the members of the Council to a letter sent by the representatives of thirty-five Member States, addressed to the President of the Security Council and contained in document s/10259. 5. The first name on the list of speakers is that of the representative of Mali. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and make his statement.

Mr.President, I wish to thank you and members of the Council for allowing me to speak on the question on the agenda of the Security Council. 7. The Portuguese authorities that have already been condemned by the Security Council for their dehberate assault on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of States Members of the United Nations have once again committed acts which led the Foreign Minister of Senegal to come to the Council yesterday [1569th meeting] to denounce them as crimes. 8. I shall not go through the overwhelming list of innocent persons who lost their lives in Senegal, of the poor youths whose possibly outstanding careers were cut short, nor shall I go back over the number of cattle and granaries stolen, of huts gutted and the efforts to destroy works of art, the kidnapping of citizens by methods that are very dear to those who have placed themselves outside the pale of the law of both man and God. 9. These practices are not isolated; they are part and parcel of the political conduct of the Portuguese Government. In fact the Agence France Press on 1 February this year reported the statement made by Captain Jaime Morais, a deserter from the Portuguese Army, who gave an interview to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet and explained his attitude by “his refusal to follow instructions calling upon him to burn villages and shoot civilians,” to take up his terms “in the name of the prestige of Portugal.” Mr. Morais spoke of this matter very clearly. Like all men 10. But if the statement made were to be doubted, the Council might well seek clarification from the reports of the fact-finding committee that it had itself sent to Senegal to investigate the resumption of shelling by Portugal, when that country refused to comply with the resolutions of the Council. The mine-laying is a disquieting aspect of the question but it is only one aspect of it. What is true is that the question that should concern us today is to know precisely the danger that Portugal’s conduct holds for pesce and security in Africa. 11. The analyses of the conduct of Portugal mentioned in documents S/l0227 of 17 June 1971 and S/10251 of 6 July 1971 prove that that country bases its policy on crime. The Portuguese morality calls for it to steal, to wipe out the products of the heavy labour of peaceful peasants. The least one can say is that it is in flagrant contradiction with the other morality according to which the international community has mobilized to alleviate the sufferings of all those who for one reason or another are in need. 12. In fact, beyond the purely military aspect of this question, Portugal only wishes to create in its own image entire zones where dictatorship and arbitrary acts would stand in the way of the political, economic and social evolution of a people, which, as I have said, would be contrary to its desire for colonial domination. 13. Senegal is the victim of this political aberration. The solidarity that links that country-to my own forces us to understand in a rather singular way the risks inherent in such behaviour for international peace and security. That understanding of events is shared by sll members of the Organization of African Unity, and it is doubtless not without reason that the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity declared that the presence of Portuguese colonialism on the African continent was a serious threat to the peace and security of independent African States. But should we not be falling victims to illusions were we to consider that peace can be threatened in Africa and preserved elsewhere? 14. Portugal is jeopardizing the security of all. The Council, whose primary responsibility is the maintenance of international peace and to restore it when necessary, has, according to the Charter, adequate means to ensure that that objective is attained. 15. It must do so in time. In order to do so it must take up the two-fold challenge of Portugal with determination. The chief of Senegalese diplomacy drew the Council’s attention to the cases of Portuguese aggression against his country at a specific moment when fact-finders of the Council were in the country. The Government of Portugal has repeated the same stand as before, for at the end of the statement yesterday the Minister of Senegal informed us of an attack on a Senegalese village, at the very time when the 17. Surely the Council is in a position to adopt measures so that the encouragement given to Portugal will not pollute the international political atmosphere. The mines treacherously placed in the paths of Senegalese, the flames that consume Senegalese huts, are so many alarms against which we must all mobihze. Portugal is the instrument of a policy that we all see clearly: to take back the dearly achieved independence of African States, to shatter the will of millions of human beings to live freely as their natural right grants people that of self-determination. In the fight of the facts told us by the Senegalese delegation here, the Security Council is here dealing with two totally incorn. patible philosophies: The first, in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Charter, and respectful of human dignity, only wishes to ensure that all men live happily and as far as the requirements of international law permit; the second policy is one of violence and absurd stubbornness. As the international community must apply peaceful means when dealing with the first of these philosophies, so too must it implacably ensure its own survival when it has to combat the second of these philosophies. It is this clear-cut choice which we believe we all have to make tpday and particularly the members of the Security Council. 18. Portugal has itself shown that the warnings contained in the resolutions that the Council has already adopted against policies of attacks on the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Member States of the United Nations do not disturb it unduly. As we generally say, great ills call for great cures, ‘and it is perfectly easy to understand the intentions and concern of the Senegalese Government, that of the end of your deliberations, the Council will fake measures that will once and for all discourage these professional aggressors, that it will grant justice to ‘Senegrd and in doing so, grant justice to all those who at all levels work untiringly for peace.

The Security Council has met te consider a serious situation arising from further hostile acts committed by Portugal against the sovereign African State of the Republic of Senegal, 20. This is not an isolated incident or a single act, but s new link in the old chain of hostile acts by Portugal against African States, in this case, against Senegal. The question is one of aggressive acts committed deliberately and systematically by the Portuguese colonialists. 21. The Council has heard the extremely infonnstlve statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sent@, He populated centres in Senegal, incursions into Senegalese the peoples of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau). territory by these units, artillery bombardment, mine laying Thus, the colonial wars which the Portuguese colonialists in Senegalese territory and other acts of aggression by have been waging for many years against the African Portugal. peoples under their oppressive rule are increasingly becoming wars against independent African States. 22. The territorial integrity and inviolability of Senegal has been grossly and frequently infringed by Portuguese armed forces, according to many communications from the Sonegalese Government. 23. As has already been pointed out on many occasions in the Security Council, as early as December 1961, Portuguese armed forces on three occasions committed acts of aggression against Senegal. In April 1963, the Security Council adopted a special resolution [178 (1963/l condemning all incursions by Portuguese troops into the territory of Senegal. At that time already the Council requested the Government of Portugal to take all the necessary steps to prevent any violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal. Nevertheless, Portugal did not comply with this decision of the Council, which is binding under the United Nations Charter. It has continued to pursue its poIicy of hostility and aggression against Senegal. Subsequently, in 1965 and 1969, the Security Council was again obliged to consider acts of aggression which Portugal had committed against Senegal. In its resoIution 273 (1969) adopted in December 1969, the Councif firmly condemned the Portuguese authorities for their acts of aggression against Senegal and again demanded that Portugal should immediately put an end to violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal. Moreover, the Council openly and unequivocally stated in that resolution that if Portugal failed to put an end to such violations, the Council would meet to consider further measures. 24. It is now obvious, however, that even this serious waning has not served as a lesson for Lisbon. Not only Senegal, but the Republic of Guinea, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the People’s Republic of the Congo, the United Republic of Tanzania and Zambia have been subjected to frequent attacks by Portuguese armed forces. The representative of Guinea, Mr. Toure, reminded the Security Council of the aggression against Guinea in his statement here yesterday. 25. The events in connexion with the aggression committed by Portugal against the Republic of Guinea in November last year must still be fresh in the minds of all the members of the Council. For the first time in the history of the United Nations, a mission of the Security Council, composed of five of its members,1 was sent to the place where the aggression had taken place, in strict conformity with the United Nations Charter. This mission brilliantly carried out the tasks entrusted to it by the 26. There seems to be no doubt that the sovereignty and security of the independent States in Africa and, consequently, peace and security on the African continent, cannot be consolidated unless these colonial wars against the African peoples are immediately brought to an end and unless all these peoples are granted independence without further delay, in accordance with the requirements of the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 27. These continuing and increasingly frequent armed provocations by the Portuguese colonialists against independent African States cannot fail to attract the close attention of the Security Council and of all peace-loving States. These acts of aggression are a direct continuation of Portugal’s colonial policy, which has been condemned in United Nations resolutions and is directed towards crushing national liberation movements in the territories under its rule and towards keeping the peoples of these territories under the colonial yoke. 28. We know that in its struggle against the national liberation movement Portuguese colonialism is at one with South African and Southern Rhodesian racism, This criminal triple alliance of colonialists and racists is being used by the forces of imperialism for combating the young African States which are striving to consolidate their political and national independence and for suppressing the liberation movement of the African peoples against the colonial and racist domination of southern Africa. Imperialism is using the Portuguese colonialists as its shock-troops against the freedom-loving peoples of Africa. That is why Portugal enjoys the patronage and support of the imperialist forces, particularly that of some of its friends and allies in NATO. 29. This explains Portugal’s insolent behaviour on the African continent and its disregard of the decisions of the United Nations. 30. The imperialists do not want the independence of the countries which have shaken off colonialism to be strengthened. In his report to the XXIVth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, General Secretary Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev emphasized: “There are no crimes to which the imperialists would not stoop in their attempts to maintain or restore their domination over the peoples of former colonies or of other countries which are breaking out of the clutches of :apitalist exploitation. There have been many new examples of this in the last five years”. 3 1. The facts adduced in the Council concerning Portugal’s hostile actions against Senegal confirm these correct 32. That is why this acute international political struggle, which often takes the form of armed conflicts and military engagements between the peoples of Africa on the one hand and the forces of colonialism and racism on the other, has now gone far beyond the limits of local conflicts. It has become one of the acute international problems of today. For a long time now, the United Nations has been paying serious and close attention to the problem. Colonialism, racism and apartheid are not the “internal affairs” of Portugal, the Republic of South Africa and Southern Rhodesia, as the rulers of these countries claim they are. Colonialism, racism and apartheid are constant and dangerous sources of acute conflicts, wars and international tension. Their prevalence is a challenge to all independent Africa and to all progressive mankind. The complete elimination of the vestiges of colonialism and racism in Africa would promote the cause of the maintenance and strengthening of universal peace and of the security of all nations. 33. Through the use of lies and deception and under the cover of demagogic slogans about alleged assistance to the peoples, imperialism is striving to impose neo-colonial domination on liberated peoples by means of fire, bombs and poisonous substances. 34. The Portuguese colonialists are drawing upon the experience and practice of their older allies in deception and in laying the blame at someone else’s door, They go so far as to use methods generally attributed to petty thieves and police provocatews. Suffice it to recall that the Portuguese provocateurs stuck a stamp reading “Russian” on every one of the mines they laid in Senogalese territory. This falsification was so crude and showed such elementary ignorance of the marking of mines that it immediately gave away the provocateun who had concocted it. Such pathetic stratagems can only arouse disgust and contempt, 35. Imperialist pressure in southern Africa is being opposed by the growing unity and militant anti-colonialism of African countries and peoples, which are insistently calling for the e!&nination of the remaining vestiges of colonialism from African soil. The African States, supported’ by all the anti-imperialist forces of the world, have united firmly in demanding acceleration of the process of the complete liberation of Africa from colonialism and racism. Africa’s stern demand resounded again recently at Addis Ababa, during the Eighth Conference of African Heads of State and Government.2 This Conference also categorically condemned Portugal for its gross and frequent violations of the 2 Held from 21 to 23 June 1971. 36. But what is required of the United Nations and of the members of the Security Council in an effective struggle for the complete elimination of colonialism from Africa is not “general terms” but practical deeds. And yet certain States, including some members of the Security Council, are not only failing to assist the African peoples in their just struggle for freedom and national independence, but are actually trying to hinder the completion of the decolonization process. It is well known that the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security [Genera2 A ssembly rcsoIution 2734 (XXV)], adopted by nearly’ all the Men bers of this Organization, with the exception of South Africa, at the twenty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly, contains a direct appeal to all States to promote the cause of the speedy elimination of colonialism or any other form of foreign domination. Some countries, however, reacted to this appeal in their own way, going SO far as to leave the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. 37. The Soviet Union’s approach to this question is based on its position of principle, that of consistent support for peoples fighting for their national liberation against coloaialism and racism, This position was once again clearly and unequivocally set out in the Programme of the struggle for peace and international co-operation and for the freedom and independence of peoples, which was explained in L. I. Brezhnev’s report and adopted at the XXNth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The Programme urges that the United Nations resolutions on the elimination cf remaining colonial rigitnes should be carried out as quickly and fully as possible and that racism and apartheid in all their forms and manifestations should be universally condemned and boycotted. The Soviet Union, which is consistently guided by this Programme and pursues a policy of peace and friendship between peoples, will continue to wage a vigorous struggle against itnperi- 38. The Security Council should not merely examine the question of the repeated instances of Portugal’s aggressive policy against Senegal. The interests of peace and security, the need to observe the United Nations Charter and the obligation binding on all Member States of the Organization, to abide by its principles not only in words, but aho in deeds, demand that the colonialist aggressor should be punished according to his deserts and that effective measures should be taken to prevent any repetition of his acts of aggression. Generally speaking, the United Nations and the Security Council must take measures under the Charter to ensure that those who prepare and perpetrate any act of aggression will not go unpunished.

I have received from the representative of Mauritania a letter [S/10261] requesting that he be allowed to participate in this debate of the Council without the right to vote. If I hear no objection I shall invite him to take the place reserved for him in the Council Chamber. 39, The Soviet delegation considers that the Security Council should approach this question in all seriousness. We cannot stand by impassively while Portugal commits such flagrant violations of the key provisions of the United Nations Charter. 40. The Charter obliges all Members of the United Nations to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, both against the territorial integrity and political independence of any State and by any other means incompatible with the purposes of the United Nations. By committing acts of aggression against Senegal, Portugal flagrantly violates these provisions of the Charter. Moreover, by doing so Portugal has also violated the Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security adopted by the General Assembly at its twenty-fifth session. 48. In the last few days, Mr.President, I have been consulting you and other members of the Council, and also the Secretary-General, in my capacity as the current Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Organization of African Unity, on the question of Namibia-a question that represents both an affront to African dignity and a challenge to the prestige of the United Nations. Today, in the same capacity, I wish to address the Security Council, assembled on another problem that concerns us all in Africa-that of Portugal. 41. Another fact that should be taken into account in considering this question is that, apart from the warning Portugal has received from the Security Council in connexion with its aggression against Senegal, Lisbon has had yet another’ grave warning. Security Council resolution 290 (1970) was adopted in connexion with Portugal’s aggression against the Republic of Guinea, and paragraph 8 of that resolution states that the Security Council: “Solemnly warns the Government of Portugal that in the event of any repetition of armed attacks against independent African States, the Security Council shall immediately consider appropriate effective steps or measures in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.” 50. The distressing picture depicted yesterday by my brother the Foreign Minister of Senegal is only one episode in a long history of disdain for international morality, the violation of international law and cynicism in the face of civibzed public opinion throughout the world. The stories this Council heard yesterday should be viewed in the context of the many complaints which have been before the Council during the last five or more years. In none of those cases has the Council found one mitigating circumstance for Portugal’s criminality. Portugal has been uniformly condemned for its outrage against the sovereignty of independent States and its outrage against the dignity of people under its domination. 42. The Security Council should now take the necessary measures to put a decisive end to the aggressive acts of the Portuguese colonialists, who are attacking the sovereignty and independence of Senegal and other African countries and are violating Security Council resolutions. By adopting such a decision, the Security Council will make an important contribution to the cause of the strengthening of peace in Africa and to the consolidation of international peace and security. 43. The Soviet delegation considers it essential that the Security Council, as the principal organ of the United 44. The USSR delegation will give its full support to any effective measures of the Security Council directed towards the final cessation of acts of aggression by the Portuguese colonialists and towards the strong condemnation and severe punishment of the aggressors. At the invitation of the President, Mr. M. E. M. Bal (Mauritania) took a place in the Council chamber.

The next name on the list of speakers is that of Mr.Abu Eisa, Foreign Minister of Sudan. I invite him to take a place at the Council table and to make his statement.

Mr.President, thank you very much for affording me this opportunity to address the Security Council. 49. Portugal and South Africa are indeed two sides of the same coin. They represent the same interests; they originate in the same philosophy; they adopt the same strategy; and they practice the same cynical bestialities. 51. The question which the Foreign Minister of Senegal asked yesterday about the ability of an under-developed “4. Strongly condemns. , , those member States of the Atlantic Alliance . . . for refusing to co-operate with the United Nations efforts towards decolonization and for their assistance to the Portuguese rggime in its criminal wars of repression and recolonizatian against the African peoples; - in Lisbon of the “5. Denotdnces the recent holding session of NATO Foreign Ministers 6‘ . . . “11. Strongly condemns the repeated and flagrant violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal by incursions of regular Portuguese troops into Senegal, particularly by the laying of mines.” 52. The Security Council was not unaware of this. The following is an excerpt from its resolution 180 (1963) of 3 1 July 1963, in which it requested “that all States should refrain forthwith from offering the Portuguese Government any assistance which would enable it to continue its repression of the peoples of the Territories under its administration, and take all measures to prevent the sale and supply of arms and military equipment for this purpose to the Portuguese Government.” 53. Let us face the facts. The friends of the enemies of Africa cannot quahfy for anything but the enmity of the African people. For that mason we in Africa do feel that there is a case for all those Powersconcerned to reappraise their policies and reeexamine their consciences, 54. In addressing this Council the Foreign Minister of Senegal was not complaiuing against an aggressor that is only violating the territorial integrity of Senegal but also against a colonial Power that is threatening by its policies the whole African continent, and in addressing you today I wish to stress that the whole of Africa stands as one man behind Senegal.

Mr. President, may I extend to you, on behalf of the Syrian Arab Republic, our warmest congratulations on your assumption of the presidency of the Security Council. Your talents as a diplomat, together with your eminent intellectual qualities, will stand as a guarantee to the Council that you wilf perform your task brilliantly and will sustain the hope of strengthening the role of this body, the supreme organ responsible for international peace and security. 57. The members of the Council and, indeed, the Interna. tional community as a whole are grateful to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal for having made clear to the Security Council yesterday the threat that exists to the peace and security of his country, of the entire region, and of all Africa as well. The objective, sober report, which the Foreign Minister put before the Council yesterday, based on facts and giving dates and place-names, showed us how much human and material loss * and suffering has been endured by our brothers of Senegal for some ten years because of the aggressive acts perpetrated against their territory by the colonial army of Portugal. Surely, their cause calls for more than mere expressions of sympathy and solidarity. The Security Council must live up to its responsibilities by taking an appropriate and vigorous stand to avoid any further deterioration of the situation. 58. It is true that at the root of the explosive situation lies the colonial presence of Portugal in Africa. The Portuguese colonialists, who have learned nothing from the evolution of human relations, still try by the use of arms to bend the African masses of Guinea (Bissau), Mozambique and Angola to their anachronistic colonial domination. They hope to deny for ever the rights of the African masses to dignity, to self-determination and to their aspiration to build their own independence as they see fit. They push the blindness of their racial fanaticism to the very limit of denying the African personality of the Africans under their colonial yoke. 59. Neither the evolution of ideas nor the changing times, based on principles of equality and freedom nor the resolutions of the United Nations to put an end to colonialism, such as the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 15 14 (XV); nor the work of decolonization already accomplished and which should have served as an example; nor the appeals of the Portuguese themselves, the progressive Portuguese, pleading for the emancipation of their country from the heavy colonial burden it bears none of these has changed the retrograde policy of the extremist minority leading Portugal and imposing its rule by blood and steel. 60. Despairing of winning back their inalienable rights by reason and by peaceful means, the African masses engaged in a struggle for their freedom, which the United Nations recognized as inevitable, legitimate and worthy of all material and moral support; that is the cause of the frenzy of the Portuguese colonialists who, aware of the fact that they are losing ground and initiative as the national liberation movements gain momentum turn their spiteful vengeance against the neighbouring African countries? At one time it is the United Republic of Tanzania or Zamb!a that experiences their murderous incursions; at another time it is the People’s Republio of Guinea that is subjeoted to their plots and their invasions; at still another time it is Senegal that is the victim of their constant acts of 61, What does this recrudescence of aggressive acts signify, if not the frustration felt by the Portuguese militarists as they see the national liberation movement in’ Guinea (B&au) day by day making solid progress along the road to final emancipation fron the colonial yoke? Unable to put an end to the struggle waged by the fighters for freedom, the Portuguese extremists vent their rage against the peaceful villages of the neighbouring countries. And unfortunately, their acts remain unpunished. The resolutions adopted by the Security Council in 1963, 1965 and 1969 condemning Portugal’s violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal have served only to redouble its arrogance toward and defiance of the international community. For what can resolutions alone achieve if the aggressors, far from finding themselves isolated, are assured in advance of the solid backing of their powerful Atlantic partners, who furnish them with the most modern armaments in the name of a strategy described as one of defence, but one of whose consequences is the cruel repression of the native peoples in the colonies and constant aggressions against independent African countries. 62. The numerous General Assembly resolutions calling upon Member States to cease their supply of arms and their economic and financial assistance to colonial regimes are complied with by the overwhelming majority of Member States, but frustrated by those capitalist Powers which, through firmness, could have succeeded in disarming the Portuguese regime and dissuading it from the nefarious policy it pursues, 69. Speaking in the debate in this Council concerning Portuguese aggression against the Republic of Guinea, the delegation of Poland, on 7 December 1970, used these words to characterize the nature of present-day colonialism in Africa and, in particular, the colonial policies of Portugal: 63. Security Council resolution 273 (1969) of 9 December 1969 threatened Portugal with the application of appropriate measures, should its aggressive acts against Senegal be repeated. Such aggressive acts have, since then, only increased in number. Is it not high time therefore for the Council to start putting those measures into effect? Also, are the allies of Portugal going to remain content to issue verbal condemnations of its colonial policy while at the same time continuing to deliver to Portugal the weapons of destruction? 64. In the eyes of Africa, and in the eyes, as well, of all countries devoted to justice and peace, to do so would mean making common cause with Portuguese colonialism. As a matter of fact, this is a grave threat to international peace, a threat which cannot be banished by words alone but only by firm action and the compIete isolation of the aggressor. The Council is thus once more facing a test, and it is to be hoped that Senegal, its illustrious President, its statesmen imbued with goodwill, and its valiant, noble and patient people have not placed their trust in this Council in vain. 70, We think it proper to recall those words today, when the Council is considering the recent continuous series of subversive acts committed by Portuguese colonial armed forces in the frontier regions of Senegal. The strongest condemnation of Portugal and a most solemn warning to it were issued by this Council in December 1970 (resolufion 290 (1970,J]. Yet, since that time we have continued to receive recurring complaints from Guinea, Senegal and Zambia indicating that the aggressive posture of Portugal has not changed, just as information received by other United Nations bodies from the colonial liberation movements in Guinea (Bissau), Angola and Mozambique indicates that Portugal’s policy of colonial domination and aggression in those territories has not changed. 65. Mr, KASPRZYK (Poland): We listened yesterday with the utmost attention to the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Gaye. 67. The aggressiveness of Portuguese colonial policies in Africa has been particularly evident recently. It has manifested itself in major attempts to re-establish and consolidate colonial rule in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea (Bissau) through the extensive use of military force through large-scale economic schemes, and through deceitful announcements of plans for constitutional reform. The accent has certainly been on the “military solution”, and the Portuguese colonialists have not stopped at any method or means that, in their opinion, would further their objectives. They have resorted to the massive and barbarous use of toxic substances, herbicides and defoliants in Angola, causing vast losses in human life and in crops in the areas controlled by the national liberation movement of that country. They do not hesitate to make use of the scourge of hunger in the Cape Verde islands as an instrument for fighting against the national liberation movement, And they have never stopped at subversion and aggression directed against independent African countries, attempting in this way, too, to tilt the balance in their favour in the struggle against the African peoples under their colonial domination. 68. The Portuguese aggression against Guinea last November demonstrated to the whole world the danger of these colonialist policies and evoked the anger of the whole of Africa and of all progressive and peace-loving forces throughout the wodd. “As a condemned historical phenomenon, colonialism cannot remain passive. To remain where it is, is for colonialism an imminent death sentence, It cannot maintain the status quo other than by continued acts of aggression against the liberation movement of colonial peoples in the first place, against the independent and anti-colonialist African States as a corollary.” (1561st meeting, para. 65.1 72. We wish to stress the wider truth that it is the maintenance of Portuguese colonialism in Africa and the continuation of colonial wars waged by it against the African peoples which generate the constant threat of aggression against independent African States. Only when Portuguese colonialism is finally liquidated and the peoples now under its rule are granted freedom and independencewhich they have the right to be granted immediately-will the threat to the security of African States be removed, The Council is in duty bound to note that fundamental truth. 73. Information provided to the Council indicates without any doubt that Portugal, in defiance of %Curity CounCil resolution 273 (1969), continues to violate with impunity the territorial integrity of Senegal. The repeated encroachment by Portugal on Senegal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity constitutes a threat to international peace and security. It is therefore my delegation’s opinion that the Security Council should take firm action to prevent further violations of Senegal’s territorial integrity. It should unequivocally condemn the Portuguese authorities and their acts of aggression against Senegal and take all necessary and effective measures to ensure that such acts are not repeated.

The next name on the list of speakers is that of the Charge d’affaires of Mauritania. I invite him to take a place at the Security Council table and to make his statement.

Mr.President, first of all I should like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to you and to alI the members of the Security Council for allowing me to participate in this debate, without the right to vote. I also wish to tell YOU how honoured I feel to speak here under the Presidency of a person of such high moral and intellectual attainments, attainments which are greatly appreciated by my country and my delegation; a representative of a country with which my own country maintains relations of friendship and co-operation. 76. MY delegation has requested permission to participate in this debate because of a moral obligation we have in the United Nations, an obligation to demonstrate our solidarity towards a fraternal country which, once again, has become the victim of aggression, an aggression that is at present being considered bY the Security Council, My delegation has asked to participate in this debate also because of a 78. Senegal has always concretely demonstrated its alle. giance to the principles of the Charter of our Organization, its desire to contribute to the maintenance of peace and ifs preference for negotiation and peaceful settlement of international disputes, 79. Distinguished representatives of the African continent have during the course of this debate stressed that the position of the African States in the face of an aggression against a State member of the Organization of African Unity derives from the charter of that organization. . . 80. It has become customary for the Security Council to see a representative of Portuguese colonialism sitting in the defendant’s dock. The chain of aggressions committed by Portugal against an African State is a very long one. Portugal is continuing its policies of provocation. Portugal is not a neighbouring State of Senegal nor of Guinea; Portugal is not an African country. Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau) are not and do not wish to be Portuguese provinces. Portugal continues to have its military arsenals renovated and modernized. Could Portugal carry out such a costly colonial war, a war which is in many respects a burden to its people without the support of NATO? I would answer “no” to that question. 81. It is time for the Security Council to stress clearly that if the fascist regime of Portugal persists in its policy of aggression and colonial oppression, the victims of which are the African people, it is thanks to the arms supplied by NATO, svhich gives Portugal all the logistic and-technical support necessary of its expeditionary force which operates against the courageous peoples of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau). 82. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal, in the statement he made yesterday afternoon, said: “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. “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 crush@ burden of repression it has carried for more than ten years now and erected into a system both within its own frontiers as well as in the African Territories,” [1569rh meeting, paras. 61 and 62.1 85. My country, the Islamic Republic of Mauritania, cannot and will not tolerate recurrence of such aggression, For us it is a matter of dignity and of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a country with which we are bound by many ties. 86, We seek peace, but this peace cannot truly exist on a continent where, in vast areas, men are fighting for their freedom, their dignity and the right of freely choosing their own destiny. In the face of these repeated aggressive acts of Portugal against the independent African States the Security Council should consider it its duty to take vigorous measures to halt this constant threat which weighs on peace and security in Africa.

Mr. President, I shall refrain from paying you the compliments that you have earned as an eminent diplomat. However, perhaps you will allow me briefly to greet His Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal who has joined us to submit a complaint on behalf of his country whose territorial integrity has been recently violated. With all due respect, I should like to pay a short tribute to Secretary-General U Thant who has now returned to us to resume the direction of our institutions which are endeavouring to preserve peace in the world. 88. That peace, to which I have just referred when greeting Secretary-General U Thant, has been breached. The Security Council was informed in two letters from the Permanent Representative of Senegal in Jdne [S/10221] and July /S/10251] of an evolution in terrorist practices, destroying both men and their possessions in a country, the Republic of Senegal, whose only crime has been to have an evil neighbour, whose only fault is to have common frontiers with a Portuguese possession, in this case Guinea (B&au). 89. The members of the Council will recall that this is not the first time that Senegal has come to the Security Council and submitted documents that are as precise as they are convincing, proving with facts, and even with figures, the grave consequences of the repeated aggressions by Portugal. 90. In the course of the meeting yesterday afternoon, the Security Council and Members of the United Nations heard from the very mouth of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal, Mr. Gaye, the complaints which had already been submitted in writing in his letters. The facts that were placed before us are clear and precise, and they recall painfully the recent and repeated aggressions against other independent African countries from Guinea to the United Republic of Tanzania, without sparing Zambia, the two Congas and Senegal, 92. The special missions that the United Nations sent to Africa, particularly to Guinea last December, which also went to Senegal in January of the same year, should convince you of the contempt that Portugal has for the independent countries of Africa, for the United Nations itself and for its institutions. At the beginning of last year the Human Rights Commission sent a fact-finding mission to investigate the crimes which Portugal had perpetrated in Senegal. That mission, as you know, was welcomed by bombs. 93. You are now confronted by a repetition of the facts that have already taken place, events which have recurred, and which will continue as long as Portugal fails to understand that it must respect not only human life and property but also the sovereignty of the independent African States. For a long time, both here in the Security Council and in other bodies of the United Nations, as you all know, the accusations levelled against Portugal have never been denied. Even today Portugal does not have the courage to defend itself. It is embarrassed to appear in public. It is ashamed of its crimes: it confesses. Indeed, the old saying teaches us that “silence is consent”. That is the case with Portugal. 94. Portugal cannot defend itself for it is undefendable, since it is accused by authorities who cannot be challenged. It is not only African, Asian, Latin American and European public opinion which condemn Portugal, but it is also the judgement handed down by numerous organizations and bodies of the United Nations. 95. If I were to limit myself only to the condemnations of Portugal formulated by political circles, the partners of Portugal would not believe me sufficiently, and would nbt believe the accusations levelled against it. For those who are still sceptical I would cite another condemnation, this time condemnation from the ecclesiastical world. Through press reports, all delegations here have heard of the rising of the European missionary priests in Africa-in Mozambique and in other Territories illegally held by Portugal. As a sign of protest, these men of the church have been waging open war against the colonialist and racist practices of Portugal. The very Catholic country of Portugal is accused by Catholics. Portugal, a Catholic country, is accused by the capital of Christianity, Rome, and by Pope Paul VI, the most Catholic of Catholics. Portugal knows that the Pope is infallible. Less than a year ago, Pope Paul VI welcomed the leaders of national liberation movements. The freedom fighters of Africa, Augostino Neto of Angola, Marcelino dos Santos of Mozambique, Amilcar Cabral, whom most here know, ,of Guinea (Bissau), were received by His Holiness 96. With the permission of the Council, I shall mention only two commentaries that refer to the stand taken by His Holiness. 97, There is the French newspaper which you all read,le Monde. On 6 July 1970, on its front page-to show the importance it attaches to this fact-when referring to the conflict between Portugal and Africa LeMo~de stated: “It is clear that the present dispute is serious for other reasons, The deliberate gesture of the Pope will not fail to influence Portuguese Catholics, many of whom already courageously denounce the waging of a costly and apparently endless war in African Territories considered by the leaders in Lisbon to be an integral part of the metropolitan country ,” 98. The second article I should like to mention is one from the Canadian newspaper Montrkal-Matin of the same date, in which on page 6 there is a very carefully weighed statement. It terms the Papal audience with the three leaders “a historic precedent for the third world” and states: “The highest moral authority of the West, the spiritual leader of 600 million Catholics of the world, by recent count, has dared to do what the highest political leaders have refused to do, although they vaunt themselves on their Church. ‘Pope Paul VI”-this Canadian newspaper itself goes on to say-and I am merely quoting it-“welcomed and blessed the three coloured revolutionary leaders who are outlawed and persecuted as communists and common criminals. “Furthermore,” we read later, “the three revolutionary leaders from Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau), in Rome, in the Papal city, denounced the very catholic Portugal and stigmatized the military assistance given it by NATO.” The declarations of the three leaders had been made a few days before the Papal audience. The Pope knew that the aims of the three leaders were serious and he did not hesitate to grant this audience, 99. The delegation of Burundi wishes to endorse what was said by previous speakers and give them and particularly Senegal, the victim of Portuguese aggression, all possible support MY delegation also adds its voice to those that have urged the Council to insist upon an immediate CeSSatiOn of aggression against Senegal. To meet the escalating provocations, murders and kidnappings engaged in by Portugal the Security Council should also escalate those sanctions provided for in the Charter.

My delegation will make a statement during a later stage of this debate outlining the position of the Somali Government on the grave charges made by the Government of Senegal against Portugal. Meanwhile, it would certainly help my delegation, and I am sure others, if the Secretary-General could make available to the Security Council the results of the investigation carried out by an AdHoc Working Group of Experts of the Commission on Human Rights in June 1970 on incidents involving the Portuguese colonial forces and the African populations both in Guinea (Bissau) and along the frontiers between that Territory and Senegal. Reference to this Group of Experts was made by the Foreign Minister of Senegal in his statement to the Council yesterday [1569th meeting]. 102. In a situation of this gravity it is most important that the Council should have at its disposal all pertinent information and facts that will help it to decide the appropriate measures necessary to safeguard the territorial integrity of Senegal, halt further acts of violence and lawlessness, and ensure for the African people of Guinea 2;;s~: the peace, justice and progress that must be theirs

1 cd upon the Acting Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs to make a statement regarding the request of the Ambassador of Somalia.

In accordance with the request made by the representative of Somalia, the report of the A@ Hoc Working Group of Experts established by the Human Rights Commission and any other relevant documents will be made available to the members of the Security Council before its next meeting.

1 trust that the representative of Somalia is satisfied with that reply.

I call on the Acting Under-Secretary-General.

When the documents are circulated to the members of the Security Council, attention will be drawn to the relevant parts of the report to which reference has been made. The meeting rose at 11.45 a.m. HOW TO OBTAIN UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATIONS United Natlonr publications may be obtained from bookstores ond distributors throughout the world. Consult your bookstore or write to: United Nations, Soles Section, New York or Geneva. COMMENT SE PROCURER LES PUBLICATIONS DES NATIONS UNIES ler publicotlons der Notions Unier rant en vente dons 18s libroirier et ler agences d&posltotres du monde ehtier. Informer-vow oupr&s de votre libroirie ou odrerrez-vour 8: Nationr Unier, Section des venter, New York ou Geokve. COMO CONSEGUIR PUBLlCAClONES DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS Las publicaciones de Ios Naciones Unidos eaten en vent-a en libreriaa y casas dirtribuidoms en lodor partes del mundo. Conrulte a II) librera o dirfjasc e: Nocionar Unidar, Saccibn de Ventos, Nueva York Q Ginebra. Litho in United Nations, New York Price: $U.S. 1.00 (or equivalent in other currencies) 8202%July 1973-2,030