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

“In our opinion, the following preventive action is required: firstly, suspension of the Constitution granted to Southern Rhodesia in 1961 and under which all discriminatory laws are passed and promulgated; secondly, the release of all persons arbitrarily held in detention; and thirdly, a constitutional conference to be attended by all parties in Rhodesia. 134. If such measures were not taken and if the Government of Rhodesia, or rather Ian Smith, decided to proclaim independence unilaterally, that would amount to outright secession, justifying the use of force — and I mean the use of force, because the United Kingdom deems reluctant to use force in spite of the French example and the fact that the Algerian pieds noirs were obliged to yield. If the United Kingdom declined to resort to force, it would bear a heavy responsibility.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Is he asking to be a member of the Commonwealth for which, try his own admission, he apparently does not — pardon the expression — give a damn? Will he apply for membership in the United Nations knowing beforehand that he will be exposing himself to a rebuff? 133. Ian Smith has published a White Paper in which he shows that he has weighed all the consequences of his action and in which he concludes that the results of a unilateral declaration of independence will not be as disastrous as some people suppose. In the circumstances it is the inescapable duty of the United Kingdom to consider forthwith what preventive action is called for in the foreseeable event of a break-down in the negotiations with the Salisbury Government.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“I shall spare you a recital of the impressive list of all the discriminatory legislation that has been passed by the settler régime under a Constitution granted by the United Kingdom. It is time for Her Majesty's Government to act before it is too late. 132. What we find so disturbing, however, is the United Kingdom's failure to consider taking any preventive action. It merely says to Ian Smith: "If you proclaim independence unilaterally, not only shall we not recognize you and not only will you be banned from the Commonwealth, but the economic consequences of your action will be disastrous for Rhodesia." But is Ian Smith, who has assuredly weighed all the consequences of his action, asking to be recognized by the United Kingdom?”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“I had occasion, when instructed to do so by the Organization of African Unity and jointly with my Algerian colleague, to bring this problem to the notice of the Security Council. Ian Smith wishes Rhodesia to re-enact what happened in South Africa. He is threatening a unilateral declaration of independence which, in that country's legal and political context, would undoubtedly place its 3 million Negroes in the bondage of a white minority. We said in the Security Council and we solemnly repeat here in the Assembly: the responsibility for such a situation, if it were to arise, would rest squarely upon the United Kingdom which is internationally responsible for Southern Rhodesia. In Southern Rhodesia, democracy is a mockery and public liberties and political rights are trampled underfoot and buried.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“African solidarity could undoubtedly assert itself in such an eventuality and such a conflict might assume proportions far exceeding the limits of bilateral relations between Portugal and Senegal. That is why we are asking the General Assembly categorically to condemn the incursions by Portuguese military forces into Senegalese territory, to prohibit any such incursions in the future, and to recommend that the Security Council should take appropriate action to that end. 130. Portugal not only refuses to decolonize in Africa; it even encourages Ian Smith to persevere in the adventurous policy which he has chosen to pursue in Southern Rhodesia. The trade agreements signed between Portugal and Rhodesia and the proposed exchange of diplomatic representatives between the two Governments are rather significant. 131.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Senegal's independence is obviously an embarrassment to Portugal which does everything to provoke its neighbour and tries to foment insecurity and instability in Senegal to prevent the latter from serving as an example. We have on several occasions informed the Security Council of the violation of our territory by the Portuguese Government. In the last two years, seventeen clear violations of our territory have been established and reported to the Security Council. Sometimes, the Portuguese, not content with infringing the integrity of our territory, have committed acts of violence on our people. Such a situation is likely to endanger international peace and security, for Senegal certainly cannot continue to let such deliberate violations of the Charter, of international law and of its own legitimate rights go unpunished.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Portugal has already been expelled from a number of international bodies, including those of a technical character. As decolonization is a political problem and a fundamental objective of the United Nations, we can only express our astonishment at the hesitation of certain Members to apply a penalty duly provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. Nevertheless, we hope that this session will provide an opportunity to resume the debate and bring it to a conclusion. 129. I would like particularly to draw the General Assembly's attention to certain aspects of Portugal's action in Africa. Portugal constantly provokes all the African countries neighbouring on the territories which it administers. Senegal is a neighbour of so-called Portuguese Guinea.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“My delegation has often stated its views on decolonization. Therefore we shall not repeat everything that has been said already. Decolonization has made progress and that is a fact we acclaim every day. Nevertheless, centres of tension still remain, notably in Africa, due to the stubbornness of Salazar and the recklessness of Ian Smith. My delegation, with the support of almost all the Afro-Asian countries, earlier asked for Portugal's expulsion from the United Nations. Need I repeat our reasons for so doing? A country cannot remain a member of an organization and deliberately violate its principles. Portugal's attitude is not only an insult to Africa; it is an insult to the United Nations and a blatant defiance of all human conscience.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Coming back to the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations, which I mentioned just now, I contend that, if the horizon is overcast, it is not to be blamed on the Charter or on the United Nations, nor is it a reason to feel discouraged. On the contrary, we must embark on moral rearmament to steel ourselves to the problems and difficulties. Above all, we must become the champions of a new international order born of twenty years of change and transformation in the world. We can no longer look at the world of today with the same eyes as twenty years ago. Immobility is mankind's greatest enemy. 127. I would like very briefly to refer now to two questions which are among those of major concern to the United Nations and to sum up our position on them: decolonization and economic development. 128.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Yet we could have, like others, entertained dreams of restoring Senegal's ancient frontiers or laying claim to a certain territory that forms an enclave within our own. On the contrary, as you have seen, we warmly applauded the Gambia's independence. Secondly, Senegal wishes to make its contribution by unreservedly supporting the principle of peaceful co-existence. Thirdly, by contributing to the consolidation of peace through the policy of non-alignment, which limits the disastrous consequences of the policy of rival blocs. Finally, by advocating negotiation as a method of approach to international problems. We sincerely believe that there is no other way to peace. 126.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It is of course the duty of all men of goodwill to help bring this about but it is our duty also, I believe, to find a method of settling territorial disputes in future. My Government gave its support to a USSR proposal for the signing of an international agreement for the peaceful settlement of territorial disputes. We think that now is the time to revive this idea and to embody it in an international treaty binding on all States. 125. Senegal, for its part, will continue to make its contribution to the maintenance of peace in the following ways: firstly, by trying to set a good example. We are not engaged in a dispute with any country in the world. We maintain good relations with our neighbours, however different our political opinions are or may appear to be. We make no territorial claim.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“India, which is the homeland of the apostles of non-violence, a country that has become one of the champions of non-alignment, a country that has always advocated peace and made it one of the cardinal points of its international policy, must find in the principles which it has always defended and in the age-old wisdom of its people the sources of a solution worthy of India to a dispute in which India itself is involved. In any case, we earnestly beseech India and Pakistan not to fritter away the non-aligned countries' moral capital which we all share in common and which none has the right to waste to our common detriment. The way to a peaceful solution of the dispute between the two countries lies in negotiations.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“We must return to those sources which replenish the human spirit and we must harness the forces at man's disposal in the service of a noble ideal. This is a contribution which the non-aligned countries can and must make. Indeed, I would say that their primary role is to place all the moral capital which they abundantly possess in the service of this lofty cause. That is why India and Pakistan should be invited to show greater wisdom, and we can derive some satisfaction from the restraint they have shown. We would ask them to set an example of wise conduct by remaining faithful to the fundamental values and principles of the United Nations. 124.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“123. Much has been said about the growing influence and even about the weight of the non-aligned countries in international affairs. Personally, I have always held, and so declared here, that the weight which the non-aligned countries are generally thought to possess could only be of a moral kind. In a world where man endures rather than controls the destructive forces unleashed every day, and as the threat of annihilation looms terrifyingly over our planet, wisdom urges us to rededicate ourselves to. the ennobling moral values. People are only too inclined in the world today to believe that force alone brings salvation. But of what value is force uncontrolled by human conscience? We must rekindle within ourselves the dying embers of values without which the world may well become more and more demented and inhuman.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Let us therefore have the courage to face up to the real problems before us so that we may find the solutions that common sense demands, namely, recognition of the People's Republic of China and its admission to membership of the United Nations; application of the principle of self-determination to all divided countries which desire reunification, and as regards the Viet-Namese question, a request addressed to all outside forces confronting each other there to withdraw. The opposing sides should be asked to heed the proposals of men of goodwill who wish to help the Viet-Namese people to decide their future in liberty. Territorial disputes should be settled by peaceful means and having regard to the will of the peoples concerned. For that reason while welcoming the recent cease-fire, we deplore the conflict embroiling India and Pakistan.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The fault, of course, lies in ourselves — in our distrust, in our intolerance, in our dogmatism, in our belief in dangerous myths such as that of racial superiority and in our dreams of hegemony, but decisive progress can be achieved, we feel, especially through our efforts to create a new outlook, to restore confidence and to develop a sense of human solidarity. Unless we do this, legal formulas are all in vain. Just as the League of Nations collapsed through impotence, so too the United Nations might become impotent and discredited. 122.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“But the clash of interests, the conflict of hegemonies, and the de facto division of our planet into spheres of influence controlled by the great Powers, all make the system of collective security almost unworkable. A State may invoke a given provision of the Charter when it considers that it may derive some advantage therefrom but rejects it as soon as the application of the provision is prejudicial to its friends of the moment. 120. Apart from Chapters VI and VII of the Charter, the Preamble enunciates principles and moral precepts compliance with which would, in every case, guarantee an era of stability and peace: principles of tolerance, human solidarity, fundamental rights of men and nations, self-determination, sovereignty of peoples, etc. 121.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Of course, it is not we who represent small Powers who would oppose a revision of the Charter,, particularly if that revision took into account the fact of this century, namely, the appearance on the international scene of many African and Asian countries. It would be only just to grant these countries a more important place in the various international forums. But, once again, the guarantee of peace does not lie in a legal instrument, however perfect it might be. 119. Legal reforms alone are incapable of solving the political problems of the moment. After all, whatever the imperfections of the Charter, it must be admitted that it contains in many of its provisions, and particularly in Chapters VI and VII, all the elements for preventing or putting an end to an armed conflict, if only the parties concerned were prepared to invoke it.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“It is precisely because of a stubborn refusal to recognize this new situation that the difficulties have increased. Actually the crisis in the United Nations is linked to deep-seated causes connected with the development of the international situation and with the emergence, day by day, of new facts which give it a completely different aspect from that known to the authors of the Charter. The Charter was based on the theory that the situation which existed in 1945 would be perpetuated but it is obvious that, since international life is in a constant state of flux, the hypothesis is untendable. Where, then, does the remedy lie? 118. Some believe that salvation lies in a revision of the Charter. That has just been said.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Finally, when the clouds continued to gather on the horizon and the difficulties were mounting. Articles 17 and 19 of the Charter were invoked; the International Court of Justice was brought into the picture and the debate was thus turned into a legal and financial one. Yet it was easy to understand that the question, as I have just said, was essentially a political one. 117. Over the past twenty years the world situation has developed: circumstances in Europe have changed considerably; on the Asian continent, a new régime has been installed in China. Certain Asian countries, moreover, have found themselves divided on the north and the south by the 17th and 38th parallels. Decolonization has made impressive progress which was doubtless not foreseen at the time the Charter was drawn up.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The difficulties experienced by the United Nations in recent months are neither financial difficulties nor legal difficulties connected with the interpretation of the Charter. To consider them as such would be to look at them from the wrong angle. It is, to be very precise, a political problem. Because that was not understood, other remedies were sought: complicated machinery and procedures were set up. First of all, the General Assembly established an Interim Committee to watch over the maintenance of peace between sessions [see resolutions 111 (II), 196 (III) and 295 (IV)]. Then, in 1950, it adopted its famous resolution entitled "Uniting for peace", which was an attempt to reassign responsibilities between the General Assembly and the Security Council [resolution 377 (V)].”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“The Covenant of the League of Nations was unable to solve it and the world was engulfed in the most terrible war ever known. Twenty years ago a system of collective security was worked out. But it has not taken long for that system, as we see today, to show alarming signs of failure. Last year the nineteenth session of the General Assembly was cut short. Delegations dispersed without having had an opportunity to consider the items on the agenda. They prudently postponed consideration of them to this year’s session, hoping to find by this time a magic formula which would offer a way out of the impasse. But even though the financial deadlock seems today to have been broken, it would be an illusion to think that the problem of peace has been solved as well.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“Then the Asian continent blazed up in its turn. Africa itself, which had barely emerged from its wars of national independence, was the object of many covetous glances. 114. As a result, we saw the emergence of a fantastic military arsenal which swallowed up our material resources and recruited the best brains for destructive purposes. Finally, and this was only to be expected, wretched mankind paid for that insane adventure and everyone now agrees that what should have been done for mankind was not done. 115. This session, which coincides with the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations, should give us an opportunity to meditate once more on the problems which mankind must face. 116. The problem of peace seems to be as difficult as squaring the circle.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“But, as may well be imagined, that celebration barely concealed our distress at the wars and tension flaring up here and there throughout the world. And we meditated on our Organization, its raison d'être, its successes and its failures. We asked ourselves what progress had been achieved by mankind in the twenty years since the signing of the Charter at San Francisco. And we thought: has this noble ideal now vanished? Is humanity now irrevocably doomed to the inevitability of war? We might be somewhat discouraged if we were to draw up a balance-sheet of these twenty years of experience. Once the joy at the return of peace had passed, mankind continued its stumbling progress in the midst of innumerable difficulties. The struggle between hegemonies resumed. Europe was the first scene of the struggle between spheres of influence.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“111. Mr. President, may I first of all offer you the congratulations of the Senegalese delegation on your election to the office of President of our Assembly. At a time when so many complex problems confront the United Nations, we hope that your authority and ability will enable us to consider them with all the necessary wisdom and clear-sightedness. 112. I am the first representative of a developing country to speak in this debate and this is no accident. We feel that the developing world must, from the very beginning of the debate, make its voice, heard, even if that voice is not perhaps in complete agreement with those we have heard so far. 113. Less than three months ago, we solemnly celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the United Nations.”
1965-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 20 (1965)
“If there is a financial crisis in the United Nations, it is because we have not clearly defined the principles and established the methods to be applied to peace-keeping operations; instead of becoming excited over such crises, we would do better to try to find effective means of preventing them. 133. Since the year 1965 is to be International Cooperation Year, let us try to co-operate for a better future for mankind under a new international order.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“So long as we have not solved the great problems of our time by applying new principles, we need not be surprised if the Chance events we call "crises" occur on the eve of each session. 132. If the bomb was exploded in China, it is because we were unable to find a successful solution to the disarmament problem, that is, the problem of peace. If a crisis developed in the Congo, it is because we were unable to draw up a charter for decolonization acceptable to the international community as a whole and providing in advance for methods and processes. If blood is flowing in Viet-Nam, it is because not everyone accepts the principles of peaceful coexistence, and because the principle of self-determination of peoples has not been rigorously applied.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Diversification of our production, stabilization of commodity prices, the opening of markets in developed countries to industries in our countries, a reciprocal concern for our interests, assistance and co-operation progressively organized on a multilateral basis and involving the collective commitment of the developed countries as well as the efforts of the countries receiving aid — such, I believe, are the means whereby we may gradually establish a new order, which will guarantee peace and equality among peoples through economic justice. 131. I have now finished. The whole problem, whether examined from a political or an economic point of view, is one and the same; it is the problem of reorganizing our world on the basis of a new morality.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Many countries which have never had any colonies are in the category of developed countries; while some countries which were never colonized are still under-developed; so that some of the blame must be laid on international economic relations as a whole. If we wish to bridge the gap between rich and poor countries, we must build a new system. 129. We are pleased that the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development approached this problem in a spirit appropriate to our time. Although no immediate results were achieved, that Conference gave us reason to hope. At least, it enabled us to sound the alarm, and we hope that the patient efforts of the promoters of that important Conference will be followed up. 130.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“That is precisely our dispute with our former colonizers, although they have remained our friends, at times even good friends. Since our situation and the present structure of our economy are the results of their deliberate policy, the colonizers cannot be bound, in their relations with us, only by a duty of human solidarity. They are bound by a definite specific responsibility which has nothing to do with the simple duty of human solidarity. But that is only one side of the problem, and, in any case, we cannot force the former colonizers to do something they do not wish to do. 128. Moreover, it is only fair to say that colonialism is not the sole cause of economic dislocations and inequalities.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“I quoted from a recent document describing the effects of decolonization as seen by a Western country which has made honourable efforts to decolonize and for that reason deserves our esteem. But in that document, the opinion is expressed that one of the consequences of decolonization must be that a newly-independent country should no longer be able to demand the help of another people in invoking the natural and permanent right it enjoyed under the extension of national solidarity to the colonial territories. For a rich people, the report says "to extend aid to a poor people, it must be prompted in so doing either by a selfish expectation of the advantages it stands to gain as regards its own prosperity, prestige, defence or power, or by an ethical sense of human solidarity". 127.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“For centuries, they systematically maintained among us a one-crop trading economy to satisfy their own needs for raw materials. It is true that in existing regional organizations, such as the European Common Market, timid attempts are being made to correct that injustice. But as I said last year, to the displeasure of our friends, aid in diversification and production is not aid, strictly speaking; it is a reparation, imperfect in character and insufficient in volume, for the harm which was done us. 125. An elementary duty of justice and humanity demands that the former colonizers should not withdraw and leave us to foot the bill. But the responsibility of the former colonial Powers is based not only on ethical and humanitarian considerations; it is an objective responsibility, deriving from a situation of their own making. 126.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“In the days of the colonial regime, the effects of fluctuations in the commodities market were offset by compensatory mechanisms, in both the sterling and the dollar zones; no doubt those mechanisms were imperfect, but at least they existed. Today, they are gradually being dismantled, and as yet no systems have been established to replace them. While we await the establishment of these new systems, we are being asked to align our prices with world prices, bring about diversification in our production here and now, and find markets for our young industry within the framework of free competition. That is what we are being asked to do. 124. The situation is serious, and we must have the courage to say that the responsibility rests first of all, and principally, on those who embarked on the colonialist venture.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“We knew all this, but the new and certainly encouraging fact is that a developed country should officially recognize it. The price index published by FAO is also significant. In ten years, the index for primary commodities dropped from 113 to 82, while the index for manufactured products coming from the industrialized countries rose from 83 to 110 and even, in the case of some products, to 134. 123. Has decolonization improved this situation? Was the previous economic order upset when we obtained our independence? We do not think so; or rather, if it was upset, it was to make our situation worse. Yet the purpose of decolonization was to improve, not worsen, the living conditions of the peoples concerned.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“So as not to give rise to suspicion, I shall cite from sources not our own. In a recent document on the problems of co-operation published by the French Government this is textually what we find: "During the last fifty years, the eighteen principal products representing 90 per cent of tropical products have experienced average annual fluctuations of 14 per cent in price, 19 per cent in volume and 23 per cent in export revenue ... For exporting countries the deterioration in the terms of trade has led to losses of revenue equivalent to part of, and even, for some countries, more than, all the aid they receive. The fall in price of the primary commodities exported by the poor countries is aggravated by the rise in price of the industrial products they import.” 122.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“But if anomalies exist in international political relations, they exist equally, and indeed to a greater degree, in economic relations. The establishment of a new international order cannot but effect the economic sphere. Fortunately, everyone has become aware of this, and it is recognized unanimously that the greatest problem of our time is the problem of reviewing economic relations, especially between rich countries and poor countries. 120. Internal revolutions are always caused by injustices, abuses and social inequities. But this time, such upheavals threaten to affect the international order itself. We are menaced by a vast confrontation on a global scale, in which the rich would oppose the poor, to their mutual peril. 121. What is our situation as non-aligned peoples?”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Our duty as non-aligned countries is to advise, conciliate, and help to find an acceptable compromise. We feel, moreover, that once a compromise has been found to the present situation, we must not rest on our laurels. We must attack the basic problem, that of finding ways in which the United Nations may undertake peace-keeping operations with the commitment of all its Members. 118. Once again, I have tried to speak as the representative of a non-aligned country, consistent with itself. My delegation can do so all the more easily in that our country is not engaged in any conflict, and is practicing a policy of peace and negotiation, the only policy which may make it possible to bring about, without conflict, the new world which we so fervently desire. 119.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Instead of quarrelling about the impossible and undesirable application of Article 19, we would do better to stress the direct responsibility of Portugal and South Africa, and of all those who are now tempted by neo-colonialism, so as to let them know that the establishment of a new international order is irreversible and that they must bid farewell to the dead past. We say frankly that it would be undesirable and inadvisable to apply Article 19 of the Charter. To deprive the Soviet Union of its right of vote would create an imbalance fatal to the United Nations and, in the end, fatal to peace. The United Nations cannot live with the United States alone or the Soviet Union alone. These two great Powers have been condemned to coexist and to cooperate in the interest of peace.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“But the situation in the Congo is truly so exceptional that we must examine it with sympathy and even with humility, in view of our own failures as Africans in this affair. 116. The Congolese problem deserves to be deeply pondered. Tomorrow, we may face a similar situation in the Portuguese colonies, especially if Portugal does not at once take the necessary steps to train technical, administrative, and political leaders capable of taking over. 117. We have long been calling on the United Nations to shoulder its responsibilities.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“But for such interventions to cease, we must make an effort to solve our internal problems ourselves. We in Senegal can say this all the more freely because, since we have achieved independence, two very serious crises have shaken our country, to such a point as to bring about changes of government. We did not call on any foreign country to solve our difficulties. We settled them ourselves. Of course, no one can deny that a country enjoying its sovereign rights is entitled to appeal to a foreign Power to help it in solving its difficulties. But that country does so at its own risk. We cannot condemn it for doing this; the most we can do is regret it. That is our attitude as regards the Congo.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“It presupposes the equality of all African States and mutual respect for their sovereignty. The Congolese problem is serious, but let us Africans begin by ourselves refraining from any interference in the internal affairs of the Congo if we want to have the right to judge and criticize other interventions. 114. We do not feel it would be useful to say anything further and we hope we have been understood. But my delegation could, if necessary, revert to this question. 115. In any case, it is dangerous to create some precedents in Africa, all the more dangerous because decolonization is as yet incomplete. Foreign interventions, even when we invite them, often offer an opportunity for reopening the question of our independence and sovereignty.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Instead of charging into the Security Council chamber to debate a question on which we are far from unanimous, I think we Africans should rather begin by examining our consciences. Have we done all we could to help the Congolese people? We have often carried our internal disputes into the Congo; often, consciously or unconsciously, we have helped to sow anarchy there. We approve or condemn interventions depending on whether they come from the right or the left, from Washington or Moscow. 113. We wish to speak as a truly non-aligned country; non-aligned with regard to the blocs, of course, but non-aligned within Africa as well. What binds African people together is their solidarity, and sometimes the identity of their situations. But solidarity does not mean subjection or submission.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“We, for our part, abstain from any interference in the Congo’s internal affairs. 112. Senegal desires to remain faithful to certain principles, come what may. Any policy not abased on respect for principles is doomed to failure. But in this Congo affair, we must admit, we do not always see what principles are being observed, but sometimes we can guess what interests are being pursued. The recent American-Belgian intervention in the Congo aroused much excitement in Africa, and often, we must say, false indignation. Only recently, African Governments appealed for the intervention of European Powers to put down uprisings, and nothing was said. We must be consistent with ourselves. There cannot, in any case, be a double standard.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“That is what the Secretary-General said in his report when the United Nations troops were about to be withdrawn. Afterwards, Mr. Adoula resigned. Mr. Tshombé replaced him. It is not for us to evaluate the causes or the manner of that change in the internal politics of the Congo. Countries change governments every day, sometimes according to constitutional procedure and sometimes, unfortunately, in the wake of revolutions. Those are internal questions which are not within our competence. 111. The surprising thing is that attempts have been made in Africa, even some persistent attempts, to challenge the legality of the present Congolese Government. That is a dangerous precedent and we Senegalese cannot accept it. Whether Mr. Tshombé has made mistakes or has acted in the interest of the Congo is for the Congolese people alone to decide.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“The Secretary-General's report on the work of the Organization, confirms how justified that apprehension was. The report says: "The United Nations military advisers agreed that the Congolese army and police were still lacking the ability to assume full responsibility for law and order in the country and that therefore a case could be made for a need of military assistance from outside beyond 1963." [A/5801, p. 1.] 109. In other words, if the United Nations withdrew, the Congolese National Army would be unable to maintain order and public security, all the more so, the report went on to say because: "... there would appear to be little basis for optimism about the prospects for significant progress in the training and modernization of ANC by June 1964" [ibid., pp. 1 and 2], 110.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“There was also unquestionably pressure from financial groups, which had no intention of quitting the Congo and which worked for the dismemberment of the country. That was the cause of the secession of Katanga. But have we Africans really facilitated a solution of the problem by coherent and concerted action? I do not think so. 107. My delegation feels perfectly free to discuss the Congolese problem, because we condemned the secession of Katanga from the outset, we sent troops to help to undo it, and we defended the territorial integrity of the Congo here at that time. Last year, although we appreciated the financial reasons which were given for withdrawing the United Nations troops from the Congo we faced that development with some apprehension. 108.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Attempts have often been made to have that Organization play a role which does not belong to it, making it a supranational body, as though States, by acceding to its Charter, had surrendered their own sovereignty. Let us not go too quickly. African unity is, at present, a trend, an aspiration; it is not yet an institutional reality. All these contradictions paralyse us and give others the impression that we have no principles and no rules. The Congo is a typical example of this. 106. Since 1960, that unhappy country has been floundering in difficulties without number. It is the worst example of decolonization that can be found. Of course, the original fault lay with the Belgian colonizers, who were less concerned with educating men than with exploiting wealth.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Although the colonialists bear a heavy responsibility, the formerly colonized peoples are also not entirely blameless. Very often, it is we ourselves who introduce the cold war into our countries. Because of internal rivalries between individuals and political factions* we invite outsiders to interfere in our affairs. Again, being in dispute with a neighbour, we appeal to a third country, in many cases a great Power, to intervene in the dispute, and this impels our adversary to do likewise. We establish the Organization of African Unity, but we allow factions to arise within it, so that problems can scarcely be solved objectively, but only on the basis of alliances, sympathies, rivalry and sometimes enmity.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“This year, once again, new Members have been or will be admitted to the United Nations. We offer our sincere congratulations to the delegations of Malawi, Zambia and Malta, whose countries have now achieved full national sovereignty. Yet, although decolonization has made progress, one cannot fail to note the shocks which accompany it and, at times, the spectacular setbacks it suffers. 104. In both Asia and Africa, the colonizers have withdrawn, only to leave the stage free for new masters, although often not acknowledged as such. In some cases, the colonizers themselves have attempted by indirect means to embroil matters anew. There has been talk, for some years past, of neo-colonialism. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that the word stands for a painful reality. 105. However, we wish to be fair and to make allowances.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)
“Another anomaly of the international order is the existence of divided countries. In our view, the principle of self-determination must be allowed to operate. Let the peoples of those countries decide either to unite in a single State, or to separate once for all. In either case, we should simply note what is done and give it legal sanction. 102. A third anomaly is the structure of the United Nations, which is not adapted to the international realities of today. We have for long been demanding changes in this structure. Everyone agrees on the principles, but no one agrees to its realization in practice unless it is done in the way he wishes. 103. A final anomaly of the existing international order is colonialism. We are pleased, of course, at the progress of decolonization.”
1964-09-24 · UN General Assembly · General Debate, Session 19 (1964)