YouSaid · the spoken record

THIAM

lines on the record: 305
first: 1961-09-24
most recent: 1967-09-24
sittings or episodes: 7
sources: un-general-debate

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“Whether one speaks of mining or agriculture, the production of the under-developed countries is at a very satisfactory level. In 1963 the under-developed countries alone produced exactly half of the world petroleum supply (and the figure has risen since then), nearly half of the copper and manganese ore, 70 per cent of the diamonds, one fourth of the natural phosphate, and so on. It is interesting to note that since that date mining production has increased considerably. The World Economic Survey, 1965 confirms that it rose 7 per cent between 1964 and 1965. 218.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Yves Lacoste has published an interesting study on the geography of under-development, in which he said: "If under-development and its causes were eternal, then the countries which are developed today — supposedly favoured by nature or by some inherited factor, truly God's chosen people — should always have had an indisputable advantage over the rest of the world. But the superiority of Western Europe has been established only since the eighteenth century. For thousands of years the Middle East, India and China enjoyed a technical, scientific and cultural level undeniably superior to that of Western Europe, which was then a kind of backward 'Far West'." 217. Furthermore, one need only glance at United Nations statistics to be convinced that the so-called poor nations are not as poor as they are said to be.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Furthermore, everyone knows today that under-development is a mobile phenomenon, which has often shifted from one part of the earth to another, and which has moved about in time and space. Those who have pondered this problem have shown that through the centuries the parts of the world that are most highly developed today have experienced their period of under-development. Mr. Pierre Moussa has observed that "the progress of the West in the area of economic development is a comparatively recent phenomenon" and he adds that it is probable that "in the seventeenth century the Egyptian fellah and the French peasant had much the same level of living". More recently, Mr.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“If the gulf continues to widen, by the year 2000 one fourth of the earth's population will have an income forty times higher than that of three fourths of this same population. 215. Now for the crux of my argument: must the under-developed countries accept the idea of some sort of fatality which condemns them to remain in this state of poverty forever? If under-development were caused by some kind of determinism, linked either to geography or to race, such resignation would be understandable. But we know that it is nothing of the sort. The 2,500 million human beings who make up the third world live in very varied geographical areas that extend over nearly two thirds of the earth's surface. They live in very different natural conditions and physical environments. 216.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“This proportion may be expressed even more strikingly, as follows: 25 per cent of the world population enjoys 85 per cent of the world output; the remaining 75 per cent shares only 15 per cent of this same output. Out of a population of over 3,000 million inhabitants, more than 2,000 million share only 15 per cent of the earth's riches; fewer than 1,000 million enjoy the lion's share, 85 per cent. This fact is all too well known and perhaps there was no need to dwell upon it. What is most disturbing is the fact that, despite the denunciations and condemnations to which the situation has given rise, it is growing worse and worse. We are aware that in 1938 the ratio between the income of the developed world and that of the under-developed world was fifteen to one. This ratio is now thirty-five to one.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Let us first consider the nature of the imbalance. It has often been said that imbalance arises from an unfair distribution of the total income from men's labours throughout the world. 214. Eight per cent of the world's population enjoy a per capita income of over $1,500; 17 per cent have an income of between $1,500 and $500. Considering that the world average per capita income is approximately $500, we must admit that only 25 per cent of the world's people enjoy an income sufficient to maintain a decent life. The proletariat constitute 75 per cent of the world population, with an individual income of below $500, and even as low as $50 in the most backward areas.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The concept of independence would be strangely distorted if it were ascribed only a political or legal nature. A few years of independence have brought us into contact with problems of an altogether different scope. They are those which concern the economic and social development of mankind. We have learned to look upon independence less and less as a simple act of political emancipation, and more and more as a vehicle for the flowering of all man's faculties, in the context of the smooth and balanced development of all the peoples of the world. Is the world of today really balanced? Rather, it presents the picture of a body in which some organs are hypertrophied, while others have become anaemic or atrophied. The United Nations is trying to determine the nature of this imbalance, so that it may then seek the causes and remedies. 213.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We should also study the Statute of the International Court of Justice, examine the composition of the Court and call for its enlargement, in order to ensure a more equitable representation of the non-aligned countries and the forces of progress. 211. However that may be, and to conclude this discussion on decolonization, we feel that henceforth we must concentrate our efforts on the southern part of our continent, the last outpost of colonialism, where the concerted action and active complicity of several Powers not yet converted to new ideas — particularly South Africa and Portugal — threaten to undo all the progress achieved thus far. 212. But even if political decolonization were completed, the task of the United Nations would be far from over. Independence should not be analysed merely in terms of political sovereignty.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Has the United Nations no interest in trying to achieve the ideal which it has set itself and which justifies its existence and represents its raison d'etre? Well, if no one cares to act, we must let things take their course. The only interest deemed worthy of legal protection, according to the logic of the Court — a logic that was not formulated, but logic just the same — is the interest of South Africa. We shall have to see, during subsequent debates, what solutions can be contemplated. But it seems to us that we should reflect here and now on the composition of the International Court of Justice. We have requested and obtained the expansion of the specialized organs of the United Nations, such as the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“South Africa now has only to dispose of that Territory as it sees fit, under the powerless eyes of the United Nations, under the powerless eyes of Africa, under the powerless eyes of all who are struggling to impose the values without which mankind would be a prey to the blind forces of evil and destruction. What? Is it possible that it is not in the interest of anyone, not even of the inhabitants of South West Africa — especially those inhabitants, according to the implacable logic of the Court — to ensure that this Territory is administered in accordance with the principles and rules governing civilized mankind? Is it not in the interest of Africans that the principles of freedom, equality and non-discrimination, to which all peoples of the world aspire, should be applied within our continent? 210.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We all know, of course, that the International Court of Justice is above all a political organ, by virtue of the very manner in which its members are selected. But it might have been thought that certain general principles that have been repeatedly affirmed, particularly that of the right of peoples to self-determination, were so widely accepted by the universal conscience that they were now part of the unwritten law of international society. 209. Yet now all that seems to have been challenged. The most obvious result of the Court's decision is that South Africa is freed from any obligation to account to anyone for its actions in Southwest Africa.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The Organization of African Unity nevertheless hopes that common sense will finally prevail and that the United Kingdom, which on other occasions has given evidence of realism, will realize that the international conscience has progressed and that what was possible when the State of South Africa came into being is no longer possible today. 208. Yet in spite of everything how can we fail to feel somewhat pessimistic in the face of the recent Judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice in the case of Southwest Africa? This problem will certainly be taken up again during the special debate. But we cannot help drawing attention, in passing, to the actual denial of justice that we are witnessing.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Today the damage is done and for almost a year we have been led to hope that economic sanctions would have some effect. We thank all the States Members of the United Nations who have respected the recommendations of the General Assembly and the Security Council. The co-operation they have given Africa testifies to their devotion to the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations and their feelings of international solidarity. But we still say that the primary responsibility — and I am speaking on behalf of the entire Organization of African Unity — lies with the United Kingdom.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It follows from these discussions that the Government of the United Kingdom was willing to grant a negotiated independence to Southern Rhodesia, subject only to certain principles being safeguarded, in particular that of the continuous progress of the majority of the population towards accession to power. That was nothing but a pious wish. Furthermore, on 29 October at Salisbury, less than a month before the unilateral declaration of independence, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom advised Mr. Smith that he had just informed the African leaders that there would be no military intervention in the event of a unilateral declaration of independence. What more did Mr. Smith need to recognize that he had just been implicitly given the green light? 207.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Since then, despite some statements of principle, no real pressure has been brought to bear by the mother country on this privileged group, nor has any effective measure been applied to change the direction taken in 1923." In the circumstances, how can we be surprised that Mr. Tan Smith saw fit to make a unilateral declaration of independence? It is also important to note that the United Kingdom was already prepared to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia before the political majority was transferred to the Africans. How else can we explain the negotiations undertaken in October 1965 between the Governments of the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia?”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The Federation broke up but Southern Rhodesia, alone once again, was given a Constitution in which the United Kingdom gave up the rights it had held in 1923, i.e., the right to oppose any legislation of a discriminatory nature. From that time onwards, and until the unilateral declaration of independence in November of last year, a whole code of apartheid was gradually drawn up consisting of measures of political, economic and social discrimination. All that went on under the indifferent eyes of the mother country. 206. We must, moreover, admit what was recently pointed out by the author of a penetrating study of the problem of Southern Rhodesia: "In 1923 the United Kingdom granted virtual independence to the European settlers.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The Constitution of 1923, which was granted to Southern Rhodesia after the referendum we have just mentioned, theoretically left the United Kingdom the right to oppose any discriminatory measure against the indigenous inhabitants. The United Kingdom, however, never made use of that power, despite the many discriminatory measures introduced in Southern Rhodesia. When the Central African Federation, which included Southern Rhodesia, was created on 3 September 1953, these discriminatory measures survived. More than three fourths of the seats in the Federal Parliament were reserved for Europeans, Moreover, the Africans, who were in the majority, constituted only 7 per cent of the Federal electorate. 205. In 1961, with the decolonization movement under way in Africa, the problem of Southern Rhodesia was again raised.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“From that moment Southern Rhodesia was offered the choice of becoming either a colony of the British Crown with internal self-government or a territory attached to South Africa, It was not thanks to the United Kingdom that Southern Rhodesia was not attached to South Africa at that juncture, it was not attached to South Africa because in a referendum held in 1922 the white settlers of Southern Rhodesia voiced their preference for maintaining their privileges and domination over the African majority, rather than merging with South Africa, where the Boer majority dominated. 204. Thus at that time the United Kingdom laid down the policy it intended to follow in South Africa and Central Africa.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Twice during the past year I have had occasion to address the Security Council on behalf of the Organization of African Unity, which had authorized me to do so, in order to defend our continent's point of view on the dramatic question of Southern Rhodesia. I need not go over the facts again, for you are well aware of them. I should like, however, to emphasize the direct responsibility of the United Kingdom in this matter. The fact is that the unilateral declaration of independence on 11 November 1965 was simply the logical result of a policy undertaken by the United Kingdom in Southern Rhodesia from the moment when, in 1923, that country was released from the administration of chartered companies — in this case, the British South Africa Company. 203.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We have had occasion to indicate at this rostrum all the efforts and achievements of the United Nations with regard to decolonization. In the southern part of our continent, however, much remains to be done. We must not shut our eyes to this fact. The concerted actions of Portugal and South Africa threaten to jeopardize the entire situation. It is as if a recolonization movement were under way, with South Africa and Angola as the point of departure. But I should like to draw your attention very briefly to only two developments, because they are the most recent. The first concerns Southern Rhodesia, the second concerns South West Africa. 202.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We are firmly convinced, however, that to make the Viet-Namese conflict an international problem would be prejudicial to the cause of peace. The Viet-Namese problem must be reduced to its proper proportions. It must be regarded as a strictly national problem of primary concern to the Viet-Namese themselves and to be solved by them by virtue of the principle of self-determination. This seems to us to be the wisest course, and the one required for the maintenance of world peace. 199. We have said that while the first purpose of the United Nations, as stated in its Charter, is the maintenance of peace, its second purpose is decolonization. 200. I take this opportunity to express my delegation's congratulations to Guyana on its independence and admission to the United Nations. 201.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Such problems find their solution in the conscience of each of us, in the importance we attach to the principles which should guide our actions, in our sense of fairness and in our constant concern to reconcile interests that are often contradictory, particularly in relations between Nations. 198. In the case of Viet-Nam, too many interests are at stake. There is the interest of the Viet-Namese people themselves, who have been at war for twenty years and want peace. There is the interest of Viet-Nam's immediate neighbours, in particular Laos and Cambodia. And —why deny it — there is the interest of world peace. Consequently, it is through our joint efforts and our common understanding that we shall be able to help in the quest for a solution.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“If we wish our distinguished Secretary-General to remain at his post — and we all fervently hope that he will — we must examine the immediate and long-range measures which will enable him to carry out his task effectively, and which will revivify the United Nations, giving it a breath of new life, so that it may cope with the responsibilities entrusted to it twenty years ago. 197. The problem of peace-keeping, however difficult it may be — and precisely because it is difficult — must be the subject of our constant concern. We do not really feel that its solution necessarily lies in a revision of the Charter. Legal formulas have never provided serious solutions to political problems.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It has avoided going to the heart of the problem and seeking a political solution which would henceforth enable the United Nations to accomplish its task of maintaining peace. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the United Nations has been unable to undertake any measures whatsoever that might represent a valid settlement of the Viet-Namese conflict. At this stage, not only does the Organization seem powerless, but the war in Viet-Nam threatens its very existence. 196. We ourselves fully understand the disillusionment of our courageous Secretary-General, Despite the unanimous desire of all the delegations, including our own, that he will remain at his post, we must agree that his attitude will have the merit of producing a salutary shock which will make each of us come to grips with his responsibilities.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“No solution has been found to the problem of how the United Nations, faced with a given conflict, may objectively take the steps necessary to safeguard the peace, without its action being challenged or paralysed by any Member State. We must realize that such a solution has not yet been found. Even the provisions in the Charter for the establishment of a Military Staff Committee and the signing of special agreements allowing armed forces to be made available to the Security Council have not yet been implemented. 195. The Committee of Thirty-Three, set up to study the problem of peace-keeping operations, has limited itself to seeking a provisional solution to the financial deadlock resulting from the United Nations operations in the Congo.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The peace-keeping operations in the Congo, decided on by the Security Council, were subsequently challenged in their application, and the nineteenth session of the General Assembly was cut short because of a dispute between the great Powers about the apportionment of the costs of this operation. 194. All the discussions undertaken with regard to peace-keeping operations have thus far failed to produce an agreement and the question of how the United Nations can fulfil its task of preserving international peace and security remains untouched. Let us set aside the circumstantial solutions proposed by some Powers, depending on whether or not these were in their interest, which consisted in shifting responsibility for peace-keeping from the Security Council to the General Assembly, or vice versa.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The Security Council, which under the Charter has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace, unfortunately cannot act without the unanimous consent of the great Powers. Needless to say, this agreement is rarely possible. In the case of the Korean war, the Security Council was able to act only because one of the great Powers was temporarily absent. When it returned to the Council, everything was again deadlocked. The ceasefire at Suez was ostensibly the result of a United Nations recommendation, but everyone knows that it was actually the result of an ultimatum from two great Powers who chanced to meet on the path of goodwill.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“One might be tempted to say that the United Nations has retreated from its responsibilities, but that would be too harsh a judgement and undoubtedly too unjust. It is true that the Geneva Agreements provided for bodies which were to be responsible for seeking to settle any disputes that might arise from the implementation of those Agreements. But does this mean that the United Nations is by that very fact released from its responsibility in the specific case of Viet-Nam, when, as we are all aware, the Viet-Namese problem, because of the new dimensions it has taken on, threatens to endanger world peace? Certainly not. 193. The truth is simply that the United Nations lacks the means necessary to carry out effectively its task of safeguarding the peace.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“In short, we see no way to reduce tension in South-East Asia except by allowing the People's Republic of China to exercise its legitimate rights as a member of the international community, and by loyally accepting the right of the people of Viet-Nam to self-determination. 192. We should like very briefly to examine the Viet-Namese problem as it affects the life of our Organization. One fact stands out: the paralysis and inactivity of the United Nations. Apart from the commendable efforts of the Secretary-General to establish the groundwork for a discussion among the parties concerned — efforts which have unfortunately been fruitless up to now — no United Nations organ has taken any initiative whatsoever to try to settle the conflict.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We are in danger of seeing the great Powers confront one another in this part of the world, at the risk of touching off a third world war. We feel that the time has come to settle the Viet-Namese conflict by recourse to the principles of the Charter. The parties must silence their weapons and return to the conference table. All foreign troops must be asked to withdraw. Indeed, in accordance with the Geneva Agreements, they should never have been there. The entire Viet-Namese people, without excluding any of the present currents of opinion, must be permitted to decide their fate freely and to adopt the political system of their choice. 191.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It is obviously urgent that the Viet-Namese problem should be solved. We do not wish to assess the high-level official or secret reasons which lead a great Power to decide that it has an interest in the problems of South-East Asia, particularly in the Viet-Namese situation. But we feel that the crisis in Viet-Nam threatens the policy of peaceful coexistence. We need hardly say that we are anxious for this policy to be maintained. The Soviet Union and the United States have a particular responsibility for the preservation of world peace. At the time, we hailed the elaboration and implementation of the policy of peaceful coexistence. But how can this policy survive, unless the situation that has been brought about in South-East Asia, and especially in Viet-Nam, is altered as soon as possible?”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“Without specifically examining the reasons which led China to revolution, and without passing judgement on the ideology which inspired that revolution, can one reasonably challenge a people's right to be governed by the regime which suits it — which is none other than the exercise of the right to self-determination? Even if these moral arguments are not convincing enough in themselves, a certain realism should prompt us to agree that 750 million men cannot be denied the right to a share in international life. Besides, it seems clear that the crisis now shaking South-East Asia is directly linked to the Chinese problem. 190. In all honesty, we must say that we see no possible solution to the Viet-Namese problem as long as the rights of the People's Republic of China continue to be denied.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“I should like to begin with the first of these objectives: the maintenance of international peace and security. It is obvious that peace cannot be maintained on the basis of injustice. It cannot be maintained by systematically denying the rights of others, by denying people their sovereignty, and particularly by trying to impose any situation on them by force. Now what could be more unjust than the fate that has been imposed on the People's Republic of China for more than ten years? What could be more artificial than the fate imposed on the divided countries, on Germany, Korea, Viet-Nam? 189. I should like to dwell for a moment on the question of the People's Republic of China.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“We need only recall the crisis in the Congo in which the Organization was directly involved and which had financial, and above all political, consequences that were at the root of last year's crisis. 186. Indeed, if mankind has been stumbling along amid growing difficulties since the post-war period and since the Charter was drawn up, it is because — and we must have the courage to admit it — we have often turned our backs on the lofty and noble principles that prevailed when the United Nations was established. 187. The only remedy for our present difficulties is to return to the source, to revive and strengthen the principles that inspired us at the outset, in order better to ensure that the objectives of the United Nations will be attained. 188.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“All the difficulties encountered in one part of the world or another had direct repercussions on the United Nations, In Europe, the cold war between East and West had far-reaching effects on the life of the Organization. The European representation within this Assembly testifies to that fact. In Asia, the Chinese revolution and the Korean war have profoundly influenced our Organization, as is also reflected in its present composition. We need not even mention the Viet-Namese war, which is the real source of the crisis through which the United Nations is passing. In Africa, the decolonization initiated in the early 1960's has also shaken the United Nations, to the extent of Jeopardizing its very existence.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“The authors of the Charter wished to devote their efforts to the establishment of a new world, to the creation of a new international order. 183. In our remarks, which will be brief, we shall seek to determine how far we have come after twenty years, and in so doing we shall discuss the major problems in the forefront of the international scene today. 184. It is no exaggeration to say that the Charter was no sooner signed than there appeared one crisis after another. Every continent has had its upheavals. The first theatre of the cold war was Europe. The East and the West on this continent confronted each other dangerously, Next, it was Asia, after the Chinese revolution and finally Africa, when the decolonization movement started in that continent. 185.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“180. Mr. President, I should first like to offer you the heartfelt congratulations of my delegation upon your brilliant election to the office of President of this Assembly, at a most critical moment in the life of the United Nations. We are certain that your experience will greatly help us to get through the difficult moments that we are experiencing. 181. Some twenty years ago, the signatories of the Charter of the United Nations assigned a triple objective to our Organization: first, the maintenance of peace; secondly, the liberation of the colonized peoples; and thirdly, the economic and social development of mankind. 182. This was a vast and noble design, which seemed to be an expression both of great wisdom and of great confidence in the destiny of man.”
1966-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 21 (1966)
“It is already no mean achievement that, in spite of the difficulties experienced and the failures recorded in certain spheres, mankind has managed, for the first time in ages, to live for twenty years without a world war to jeopardize all the progress that has been made. Let us hope that the next twenty-year period will be less fraught with difficulties than the first. Then we shall be able to say that, with the continuing growth of international solidarity, mankind will certainly be saved.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“What we need is a resurgence of confidence among all the peoples of the under-developed world, not in order to wage a systematic campaign against the developed world — for that would be against our philosophy — but because we know that the goal of world peace must be reached by way of economic justice. 147. I should like to conclude at the point where I began. However meagre the results achieved by the United Nations during the past twenty years, and however distressing the problems which we face today, we must remain staunchly optimistic. The chances of success depend on ourselves. Everything depends on the will to take them. In spite of everything, that will is there. It is simply a matter of galvanizing it, of giving it greater strength and determination.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“A country which manufactures, or which is in a position to manufacture atomic bombs is not, to our mind, an under-developed country; the atomic industry is a luxury industry. The Algiers conference, which we wish every success, would have done well to concentrate more on the problems of the underdeveloped countries, not only by making underdevelopment the central theme of this important gathering, but also by allowing the under-developed countries — and them alone — to attend; not only the under-developed countries of Africa and Asia but those of Europe and Latin America as well. However, all hopes of such a meeting have not vanished and Senegal, for its part, is ready to attend any conference, wherever it is held, provided that it is organized on the lines I have just indicated.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“We in Senegal believe that Afro-Asian solidarity is a good thing. It is simply an aspect of universal solidarity, but it does not provide a sufficiently large platform for joint action by all the countries affected by underdevelopment. It is the campaign against under-development which should be our chief concern, and I am afraid that the Afro-Asian framework is ill suited for such a purpose. 146. In Asia, there are some developed countries. The Soviet Union has every right to attend the conference of African and Asian countries — in fact we feel that it should attend it — but the USSR is not an under-developed country. The People’s Republic of China has no claim — and I have made this quite clear — to belong to the under-developed world.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“This has not yet been done in spite of a proposal adopted by the General Assembly [see resolution 1522 (XV)]. The second condition is the adoption of a maximum interest rate of 3 per cent for development loans. 144. The various proposals that we have just made can hardly be considered unreasonable demands. They would simply help to ensure justice and equality in international economic relations. They would also reflect a solidarity for which the need is becoming increasingly apparent. 145. If the main theme of the Algiers conferences has been economic development, we would have gone to it. But there is still time, and Senegal, for its part, would like to meet the under-developed countries — not only the Afro-Asian countries but all the under-developed countries, including those of Latin-America — at an economic Bandung.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“These are what I feel should be the guidelines for a new trade organization, having due regard to the interests of the developing countries, and I believe that within the group of seventy-seven countries we shall emphasize these principles and do our utmost to see that they prevail. Only if these two conditions are fulfilled: first, that an effort should be made by the developing countries themselves, and, second, that there should be a change in the world trade laws — only then will it be possible to introduce the third element, which is aid, and which we feel should be subject to two conditions. 143. The first, as we have said, is that the rich countries should undertake to contribute 1 per cent of their national income towards aiding the developing countries.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Indeed, if any action is to be taken, it must be taken in connexion with raw materials, which make up 90 per cent of the developing countries’ exports. Next, remunerative prices must be guaranteed so as to increase the resources of the countries exporting raw materials. Lastly, the industrial development of the poor countries must be promoted by devising a system of preferences to help them to market their industrial products abroad, at least during the take-off stage of their economies. At the same time, the developing countries must be allowed to institute a system for the protection of their infant industries by preventing unfair competition locally from the .production machines of the highly developed countries. 142.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“For half a century we have been witnessing a gradual decline in the prices of raw materials and a corresponding rise in the prices of manufacture of goods. A continent like Africa, to take only one example, sells practically all the raw materials it produces and imports practically all the finished products which it consumes. We are in no position to put an immediate end to this situation for the simple reason that our home consumer market is not sufficiently large for us to escape the arbitrary laws of world prices. We are drained by international trade. If trade is to be a factor in development, it should be organized, henceforth, in accordance with the following principles. 141. First of all, naturally, the market for raw materials must be properly organized.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“But who can fail to appreciate the fact that the efforts of the developing countries alone are not enough to solve the problem? We are living in a world in which economic relations pit the strong against the weak, the rich against the poor, the great against the small, sound economies against shaky economies. Consequently, if the principle of freedom in international economic relations is allowed free play, there is no doubt that this token freedom will turn into a mounting burden of servitude for the developing countries. Our efforts will be wasted within a context of free international economic relations. And here we come to the second key factor for our development: the reorganization of international trade. 140.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Our Assembly will have to pronounce on the recommendations of that conference. Some of the institutions recommended by it are already in existence and have set about seeking the best machinery for a world trade organization. But in order to eradicate under-development no stone must be left unturned and our efforts must be pursued in three different directions. 138. First of all, as the representative of Brazil, pointed our a moment ago, the will and the effort for development must come primarily from the parties concerned themselves. We believe that the under-developed countries have fully grasped this fact, A general effort — perhaps uneven but certainly growing — is being made to find within our own boundaries the necessary resources for our development. 139.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“For these vestigial problems of decolonization must not become a fixation which causes us to forget the essential—the crucial problem of the moment. They must not become the tree that prevents us from seeing the wood. 137. Now the real problem, the only problem that warrants mobilizing all our strength is, as we can never repeat too often, that of mankind's economic and social progress. For years the United Nations has been doing commendable pioneer work and has gone to the root of the problem, assembling material and making a systematic theoretical study of the phenomenon of under-development. The net result has been to bring about an international awareness of this problem. Two years ago it entered on the operational phase, organizing a widely publicized conference on trade and development.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“We urge the General Assembly to give strong support to the Security Council in this matter, not only by condemning the inhuman racialist régime of Ian Smith, but also by asking the United Kingdom to consider, as soon as possible, taking suitable action to prevent, by every possible means, — I repeat, by every possible means — a unilateral declaration of independence. If the Assembly did this, it would show that, in spite of the difficulties it is encountering or may have encountered in the past, it intends to live up to its principles and strive unremittingly to accomplish a task that has been entrusted to it and which, in so far as decolonization is concerned, has been carried out with considerable success so far. 136.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“We have carefully read the statements made by Mr. H. Wilson, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. We have heard the statements made by Mr. Bottomley, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth relations, during a recent visit he paid to Africa. Allow me to voice our legitimate apprehensions. 135. Once again, as I had occasion to say in the Security Council, the United Kingdom must realize that the problem of Southern Rhodesia is a vital concern to us. It is also a test of the prestige and sincerity of a great nation like the United Kingdom, whose efforts to decolonize need no further stressing, but whose past attitude may well stand in strange contrast to the one it is adopting in the particular case of Rhodesia. At our request, the Security Council decided to retain the question as an item on its agenda.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)