Security Council resolution 294 (1971) [on Portuguese military actions against Senegal]
Symbol: S/RES/294(1971)
Date: 1971-07-15
Meeting record: S/PV.1572
Subjects: UN. Special Mission of the Security Council to Guinea (Bissau), 1971|DISPUTES|ARMED INCIDENTS|SENEGAL|PORTUGAL|SENEGAL|BORDER INCIDENTS|GUINEA-BISSAU|SENEGAL
Notes: Concerns Portuguese military actions against Senegal.
In: Resolutions and decisions of the Security Council, 1971. - S/INF/27. - 1972. - p. 2-3. - (SCOR, 26th year).

Resolution 294 (1971)
of 15 July 1971

The Security Council,

Taking note of the complaints by Senegal against
Portugal contained in documents S/10182 11 and
S/10251, 12
Taking note of the letter of the Chargé d’affaires
ad interim of Portugal, 13

Having heard the statement of the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Senegal, 14

Bearing in mind that all States Members of the
United Nations must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any
State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the
purpose of the United Nations,

Conscious of its duty to take effective collective
measures for the prevention and removal of threats
to international peace and security and for the suppression of acts of aggression,

Disturbed by the increasingly serious situation created
by acts of violence perpetrated by the Portuguese armed
forces against Senegal since the adoption of Security
Council resolution 273 (1969) of 9 December 1969,

Deeply distressed by the repeated laying of mines in
Senegalese territory,

Gravely concerned that incidents of this nature, by
threatening the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
Senegal, might endanger international peace and
security,

Bearing in mind its resolutions 178 (1963) of 24
April 1963, 204 (1965) of 19 May 1965 and 273
(1969) of 9 December 1969,

Having taken note of the report of the Ad Hoc
Working Group of Experts of the Commission on
Human Rights concerning Portuguese acts of violence
in Senegalese territory, 15

Noting that Portugal has not complied with the
provisions of paragraph 2 of resolution 273 (1969),

1. Demands that the Government of Portugal should
stop immediately any acts of violence and destruction
in Senegalese territory and respect the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and security of Senegal;

2. Condemns the acts of violence and destruction
perpetrated since 1963 by the Portuguese armed forces
of Guinea (Bissau) against the population and villages
of Senegal;

3. Condemns the unlawful laying of anti-tank and
anti-personnel mines in Senegalese territory;

4. Requests the President of the Security Council
and the Secretary-General to send to the spot, as a
matter of urgency, a special mission of members of
the Council assisted by their military experts to carry
out an inquiry into the facts of which the Council has
been informed, to examine the situation along the
border between Guinea (Bissau) and Senegal and to
report to the Council, making any recommendations
aimed at guaranteeing peace and security in this region.

Adopted at the 1572nd meeting by 13 votes to none, with
2 abstentions (United Kingdom of Great Britan and
Northern Ireland, United
States of America).


11 Ibid., Supplement for April, May and June 1971.
12 [bid., Supplement for July, August and September 1971.
13 Ibid., document S/10255.
14 Ibid., Twenty-sixth Year, 1569th meeting, paras. 14-72.
15 See E/CN.4/1050, chap. V.

Texto español (official Spanish version): En su 1570a. sesión, celebrada el 13 de julio de
1971, el Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes
de Malí, el Sudán y Mauritania a participar, sin voto,
en la discusión de la cuestión.

En su 1571a. sesión, celebrada el 14 de julio de
1971, el Consejo decidió invitar a los representantes de
Mauricio, el Togo y Zambia a participar, sin voto, en
la discusión de la cuestión.

Resolución 294 (1971)
de 15 de julio de 1971

El Consejo de Seguridad,

Tomando nota de las denuncias del Senegal contra
Portugal contenidas en los documentos S/10182!! y
S/10251??,

Tomando nota de la carta del Encargado de Negocios Interino de Portugal'3,

Habiendo oído la declaración del Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores del Senegal!*,

Teniendo presente que todos los Estados Miembros
de las Naciones Unidas deben abstenerse, en sus relaciones internacionales, de recurrir a la amenaza o al
uso de la fuerza contra la integridad territorial o la
independencia política de cualquier Estado, o en cualquier otra forma incompatible con los propósitos de
las Naciones Unidas,

Consciente de que tiene la obligación de tomar medidas colectivas eficaces para prevenir y eliminar amenazas a la paz y la seguridad internacionales y suprimir
actos de agresión,

Inquieto por la situación cada vez más grave creada
por los actos de violencia perpetrados por las tropas
portuguesas contra el Senegal desde la aprobación de
la resolución 273 (1969) del Consejo de Seguridad,
de 9 de diciembre de 1969,

Vivamente preocupado por la colocación reiterada
de minas en el territorio del Senegal,

Profundamente inquieto por el hecho de que los incidentes de esta naturaleza, al atentar contra la soberanía
y Ja integridad territorial del Senegal, pueden comprometer la paz y la seguridad internacionales,

Teniendo presentes sus resoluciones 178 (1963) de
24 de abril de 1963, 204 (1965) de 19 de mayo
de 1965 y 273 (1969) de 9 de diciembre de 1969,

Habiendo tomado nota del informe del Grupo de
Trabajo de Expertos de la Comisión de Derechos
Humanos sobre los actos de violencia portugueses
cometidos en territorio senegalés5,

Observando que Portugal no se ha atenido a lo previsto en el párrafo 2 de la resolución 273 (1969),

11 Jbid., Suplemento de abril, mayo y junio de 1971.

12 Ibid., Suplemento de julio, agosto y septiembre de 1971.
1 Ibid., documento S/10255.

14 Ibid., Vigésimo Sexto Año, 1569a. sesión, párrs. 14 a 72.
15 Véase E/CN.4/1050, cap. V.

1. Exige al Gobierno de Portugal la cesación inmediata de todos los actos de violencia y de destrucción
en el territorio del Senegal y el respeto de la soberanía, la integridad territorial y la seguridad del Senegal;

2. Condena los actos de violencia y de destrucción
perpetrados desde 1963 por las fuerzas portuguesas de
Guinea (Bissau) contra las poblaciones y las aldeas
del Senegal;

3. Condena la colocación ilegal en territorio senegalés de minas antitanques y minas antipersonales;

4. Pide al Presidente del Consejo de Seguridad y al
Secretario General que envíen urgentemente a la zona
una misión especial de miembros del Consejo acompa-
ñados de sus expertos militares a investigar los hechos
comunicados al Consejo, examinar la situación en la
frontera entre Guinea (Bissau) y el Senegal y presentar
un informe al Consejo en que se formule toda recomendación necesaria para garantizar la paz y la seguridad en esa región.

Aprobada en la 1572a. sesión por 13 votos contra
ninguno y 2 abstenciones
(Estados Unidos de América
y Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte).

Decisiones

En su 1586a. sesión, celebrada el 29 de septiembre
de 1971, el Consejo decidió invitar al representante del
Senegal a participar, sin voto, en la discusión del tema
titulado “Denuncia del Senegal: informe de la Misión
Especial del Consejo de Seguridad establecida en virtud
de la resolución 294 (1971) (S$/10308).

En su 1599a. sesión, celebrada el 23 de noviembre
de 1971, el Consejo de nuevo decidió invitar a los
representantes de Guinea, Malí, el Sudán, Mauritania,
Mauricio, el Togo y Zambia a participar, sin voto, en
la discusión de la cuestión.

Resolución 302 (1971)
de 24 de noviembre de 1971

El Consejo de Seguridad,
Considerando las denuncias del Senegal contra Por-

tugal que figuran en los documentos S/10182'7 y
S/10251'5,

Recordando sus resoluciones 178 (1963) de 24 de
abril de 1963, 204 (1965) de 19 de mayo de 1965
y 273 (1969) de 9 de diciembre de 1969,

18 Actas Oficiales del Consejo de Seguridad, Vigésimo Sexto
Año, Suplemento Especial No. 3

17 Ibid., Vigésimo Sexto Año, Suplemento de abril, mayo y
junio de 1971.

18 /bid., Suplemento de julio, agosto y septiembre de 1971.

Texte français (official French version): et de la Mauritanie à participer, sans droit de vote, à
la discussion de la question.

A sa 1571° séance, le 14 juillet 1971, le Conseil a
décidé d'inviter les représentants de Maurice, du Togo
et de la Zambie à participer, sans droit de vote, à la
discussion de la question.

Résolution 294 (1971)
du 15 jnillee 1971

Le Conscil de sécurité,

Prenant acte des plaintes du Sénégai contre le Portugal contenues dans les documents S/10182"! et
S/10251}*,

Prenant acte de la lettre du Chargé d'affaires ai. du
Portugal!'*,

Ayant entendu la déclaration du Ministre des affaires
étrangéres du Sénégal!s,

Ayant présent à l'esprit que tous les Etats Membres
de l’Organisation des Nations Unies doivent s'abstenir,
duns leurs relations internationales, de recourir à la
menace ou À l'emploi de la force contre l'intégrité terfitoriale ou l'indépendance politique de tout Etat ou
de toute manière incompatible avec les buts des Nations Unies,

Canscient de ce qu'il a la responsabilité de prendre
des mesures collectives efficaces pour prévenir et éliminer les menaces à la paix et à la sécurité internationales
et réprimer tout acte d'agression,

Inquiet de la situation de plus en plus grave créée
par les actes de violence perpétrés par les troupes portugaises contre lc Sénégal depuis l'adoption de la résolution 273 (1969) du Conseil de sécurité, en date du
9 décembre 1969,

Vivement ému par la pose répétée de mines sur le
territoire sénégalais,

l'rofondément inquiet de cc que des incidents de
cette nature, en portant atteinte à la souveraineté et à
l'intégrité territoriale du Sénégal, risquent de compromettre la paix et la sécurité internationales,

Avant présentes à l'espris ses résolutions 178 (1963)
du 24 avril 1963, 204 (1965) du 19 mai 1965 et 273
(1969) du 9 «décembre 1969,

Ayant pris note du rapport du Groupe spécial d'’experts de la Commission des droits de l'homme sur Jes
actes de Violence portugais commis en territoire séné-
galais!?,

Constatant que le Portugal ne s’est pas conformé aux

dispositions du paragraphe 2 de la résolution 273
(1969),

V1 fhid., Supplément d'avril, mui et juin tV7F

14 Fhicd. Supplément de Juillet, août et septembre 1971
!*Jhét, document S-1028$

14 ibid, vingr miième année, 1568 seance, par. 14 à 72
‘* Vou E/CN.4,1050, chap. V.

1. l'emande au Gouvernement portugais la cessation immédiate de tous actes de violence et de destruction sur le territoire sénégalais et le respect de la souveraineté, de l'intégrité territoriale et de la sécurité du
Sénégal;

2. Condamne les actes de violence et de destruction
perpétrés depuis 1963 par les forces portugaises de
Guinée (Bissau) contre les populations et les villages
du Sénégal;

3. Condamne la pose illégale sur le territoire séné-
galais de mines antichars et antipersonnel;

4. Prie le Président du Conseil de sécurité et le Secrétaire général d'envoyer d'urgence sur place une
mission spéciale composée de membres du Conseil.
assistés de leurs experts militaires, pour faire une enquête sur les faits portés à la connaissance du Conseil.
examiner la situation à la frontière de la Guinée (Bissau) et du Sénégal et faire rapport au Conseil en formulant toute recommandation en vue de garantir la
paix et la sécurité dans cette région.

Adoptée à la 1572° Game pue
13 voix contre zéro, avec 2 ehs
tentions (Etats-Unis d'Amen
que ct Royaume Um de Gran
de-Bretngne et d'Ilande <u
Nord).

Décisions

À sa 15Ro* séance, le 29 septembre 1971, le Conseil a décidé d'inviter le représentant du Sénégal à
participer, sans droit de vote, à la discussion sur la
question intitulée “Plainte du Sénégal : rapport de la
Mission spéciale du Conseil de sécurité créée conformé-
ment à la résolution 294 (1971) [S/10308"]".

A sa 1599" séance, le 23 novembre 1971. le Conseil
a de nouveau décidé d'inviter les représentants de la
Guinée, du Mal. du Soudan, de la Mauritanie. de
Maurice, du Togo et de la Zumbie à participer. sans
droit de vote, à la discussion de la question.

Résolution 302 (1971h)
du 24 noverabre 1971

Le Conseil de sécurité,

Considérant les plaintes du Sénégal contre le Portugal contenues dans les documents S/101827 et
S/102SU**,

16 Documents officiels du Conseil de écurie vinet sixième
annee, Supplément (pécial ne à

17 Ihid., Supplement d'acril mai et juin 1971.

14 fhid, Supplément de juillet, août et septembn 197!

Русский текст (official Russian version): 18 июля 1971 года Совет на своем 1570-м
заседании постановил пригласить представите-
лей Мали, Судана и Мавритании принять уча-
стие без права голоса в обсуждении этого во-
проса.

14 июля 1971 года Совет на своем 1571-м за-
седании постановил пригласить представителей
Маврикия, Того и Замбии принять участие без
права голоса в обсуждении этого вопроса.

Резолюция 294 (1971)

от 15 июля 1971 года

Совет Безопасности,

принимая во внимание жалобы Сенегала на
Португалию, содержащиеся в документах 6/
101824 и 8/10251*?,

принимая к сведению письмо Временного по-
веренного в делах Португалии",

заслушав заявление Министра иностранных
дел Сенегала**,

принимая во внимание, что все государства-
члены Организации Объединенных Наций долж-
ны воздерживаться в своих международных от-
ношениях от угрозы силой или от её примене-
ния как против территориальной неприкосно-
венности, или политической независимости лю-
бого государства, так и каким-либо иным обра-
зом, несовместимым с целями Объединенных
Наций,

сознавая, что он несет ответственность за
принятие эффективных коллективных мер для
предотвращения и устранения угрозы между-
народному миру и безопасности и подавления
актов агрессии,

бадучи встревожен постоянным обострением
обстановки, создавшейся в результате актов на-
силия, совершенных португальскими войсками
против Сенегала со времени принятия резолю-
ции 273(1969) Совета Безопасности от 9 де-
кабря 1969 года,

глубоко обеспокоенный по поводу постоянно-
го минирования сенегальской территории,

будучи серьезно озабочен по поводу того, что
подобные инциденты, нанося ущерб суверени-
тету и территориальной целостности Сенегала,
ставят под угрозу международный мир и безо-
пасность,

принимая во внимание свои резолюции 178

11 Там же, дополнение за апрель, май и июнь 1971 года.

12 Там же, дополнение за июль, август и сентябрь 1971
года.

18 Там же, документ $/10255.

14 Там же, двадцать шестой год,
пункты 14—72.

1596-е заседание,

(1963) от 24 апреля 1963 года, 204 (1965) от
19 мая 1965 года и 273 (1969),

приняв к сведению доклад Специальной рабо-
чей группы экспертов Комиссии по правам че-
ловека!°, об актах насилия, совершенных пор-

тугальцами на территории Сенегала,
отмечая, что Португалия не выполнила поло-
жений пункта 2 резолюции 273 (1969),

1. требует, чтобы правительство Португалии
немедленно прекратило все акты насилия и
разрушения на территории Сенегала и уважало
суверенитет, территориальную целостность и
безопасность Сенегала;

2. осуждает акты насилия и разрушения, со-
вершаемые с 1963 года португальскими войска-
ми в Гвинее (Бисау) против населения и дере-
вень Сенегала;

3. осуждает незаконное минирование сене-
гальской территории противотанковыми и про-
тивопехотными минами;

4. просит Председателя Совета Безопасности
и Генерального секретаря немедленно направить
на место специальную миссию из членов Со-
вета, которым будут оказывать помощь их во-
енные эксперты, для того чтобы провести рас-
следование фактов, ставших известными Со-
вету, изучить обстановку на границе между
Гвинеей (Бисау) и Сенегалом и представить
Совету доклад, разработав любые рекоменда-
ции, направленные на обеспечение мира и без-
опасности в этом районе.

Принята на 1572-м засе-
дании 13 голосами при
двух воздержавшихся (Со-
единенное Королевство
Великобритании и Север-
ной Ирландии, Соединен-
ные таты Америки),
при этом никто не голо-
совал против.

Решения

29 сентября 1971 года Совет на своем 1586-м
заседании постановил пригласить представите-
ля Сенегала принять участие без права голоса
в обсуждении пункта, сформулированного сле-
дующим образом: «Жалоба Сенегала: доклад
специальной миссии Совета Безопасности,
учрежденной в соответствии с резолюцией 294
(1971) (8/10308)»1$.

23 ноября 1971 года Совет на своем 1599-м
заседании постановил пригласить также пред-
ставителей Гвинеи, Мали, Судана, Мавритании,
Маврикия, Того и Замбии принять участие без
права голоса в обсуждении этого вопроса.

15 См. Е/СМ№.4/1050, глава У.

16 Официальные отчеты Совета Безопасности, двадать
шестой год, специальное дополнение № 3.

中文文本 (official Chinese version): 塞内加尔 的 控诉 、

决 是

一 九 七 一 年 七 月 十 二 日 ， 理 事 会 第 一 五 六 九 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 塞内加尔 及 几内亚 代表 参加 讨论 下 列 项
目 ， 但 无 投票 权 , “塞内加尔 的 控诉 ， 一 九 七 一 年 七 月
六 日 塞内加尔 驻 联合 国 常任 代表 致 安全 理事 会 主席 函
(《S/1102517?。10

一 九 七 一 年 七 月 十 三 日 ， 理 事 会 第 一 五 七 口 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 马里 、 苏 丹 及 毛里 塔 尼 亚 代表 参加 该 问题
的 讨论 ， 但 无 投票 权 。

一 九 七 一 年 七 月 十 四 日 ， 理 事 会 第 一 五 七 一 次 会
议决 定 邀 请 毛里 求 斯 、 多 哥 及 赞比亚 代表 参加 该 问题
的 讨论 ， 但 无 投票 权 。

一 九 七 一 年 七 月 十 五 日
第 二 九 四 号 决议 (1971)

安全 理事 会

各 语文 件 S/1018211 及 文件 S/1025112 内 载 塞 内
加 和 尔 所 提 对 葡萄 牙 的 控诉 ，

鉴 态 葡萄 牙 临 时 代办 的 来 函 ,1
业已 听取 塞内加尔 外 交 部 长 的 陈述 ,14

9 一 九 六 三 年 、 一 九 六 五 年 及 一 九 六 九 年 理事 会 也 曾 就
本 问题 通过 决议 或 决定 。

10 参看 安全 理事 食 正 式 纪录 ， 弟 二 十 六 年 ， 一 九 七 一
年 七 月 、 八 月 及 九 月 份 补 编 。

11 同上 ， 一 九 七 一 童 四 月 、 五 月 及 六 月 份 补 编 。

312 间 上 ， 一 九 七 一 年 七 月 、 入 月 及 九 月 份 补 编 。

13 同上 ， 文 件 S/10255。

14 同上， 第 二 十 六 年 ， 第 一 五 六 九 次 会 议 , 第 一 四 至 第

念 及 本 组 织 各 会 员 国 在 其 国际 关系 上 应 吉 免 为 侵
害 任何 国家 领土 完整 或 政治 独立 的 目的 ， 或 以 与 联合
国 宗旨 不 符 的 任何 方式 ， 使 用 威胁 或 武力 ，

念 及 职责 所 在 ， 必 须 采取 有 效 集体 办 法 ， 以 防止
且 消 除 对 于 国际 和 平 及 安全 的 威胁 ， 并 制止 一 切 侵略
行为 ，

对 于 安全 理事 会 一 九 六 九 年 十 二 月 九 日 第 二 七 三
号 决议 1969 通过 后 因 葡 萄 牙 军 队 对 塞内加尔 共和
国 的 暴行 所 造成 的 日 益 严重 的 情势 ， 感 到 关切 ，

对 于 在 塞内加尔 领土 内 一 再 布设 地 雷 一 事 ， 深 沉
忧 虐 ，

对 于 此 等 损害 塞内加尔 的 主权 与 领土 完整 的 事件
足以 危及 国际 和 平 与 安全 ， 感 到 严重 关心 ，

念 及 理事 会 一 九 六 三 年 四 月 二 十 四 日 第 一 七 八 号
决议 〈1963)， 一 九 六 五 年 五 月 十 九 日 第 二 〇 四 号 决
议 〈1965) 及 一 九 六 九 年 十 二 月 九 日 第 二 七 三 号 决议
《1969)，

各 悉 人 权 委 员 会 专家 工作 小 组 关于 塞内加尔 境内
葡萄 牙 暴 行 所 提出 的 报告 书 ,15

察 筷 葡萄 牙 并 未 遵行 第 二 七 三 号 决议 〈1969) 第
二 段 的 规定 ，

1.， 和 要 求 葡萄 牙 政 府 立 刻 停 止 在 塞内加尔 领土 的
一 切 暴 力 及 破坏 行为 ， 尊 重 塞内加尔 的 主权 、 领 土 完
整 与 安全

2， 谴责 几内亚 《〈 比 绍 ) 的 葡萄 牙 军 队 自 一 九 六
三 年 以 来 一 再 对 塞内加尔 人 民 及 乡村 进行 暴力 及 破坏
行为 ;

3 谴 页 在 塞内加尔 领土 非法 布设 防 战 车 地 雷 及
杀伤 地 雷 ;

4 请 安全 理事 会 主席 及 秘书 长 立即 派 遗 一 个 由
15 参看 E/CN. 4/1050， 第 五 章 。
安全 理事 会 理事 国 组 成 的 特派 团 前 赴 当地 ， 由 其 军事
专家 训 助 ， 调 查 已 向 理事 会 报告 的 事实 ， 研 究 几 内 亚
〈 比 绍 ) 及 塞内加尔 边界 的 情况 ， 向 安全 理事 会 具 报 ，
并 就 保证 该 地 区 的 和 平 及 安全 作成 建议 。

第 一 五 七 二 次 会 议 以 十 三 村
对 零 通 过 ， 弃 权 者 二 〈 大 不
列 颠 及 北 爱 尔 兰 联合 王国 ，
美利坚 合众国 )

决 定

一 九 七 一 年 九 月 二 十 九 日 ， 理 事 会 第 一 五 八 六 次
会 议决 定 邀 请 塞内加尔 代表 参加 讨论 下 列 项 目 ， 但 无
投票 权 : “塞内加尔 的 控诉 ， 依照 第 二 九 四 号 决议
《1971) 设立 的 安全 理事 会 特派 团 报告 书 3$/10308 及
Corr.1)”。16

一 九 七 一 年 十 一 月 二 十 三 日 ， 理 事 会 第 一 五 九 九
次 会 议 再 度 决定 邀请 几内亚 .马里 .苏丹 ,毛里塔尼亚 、

毛里 求 斯 、 多 哥 及 针 比 亚 代表 参加 该 问题 的 讨论 ， 但 -

无 投票 权 。

一 九 七 一 年 十 一 月 二 十 四 日
第 三 O 〇 二 号 决议 (1971)

安全 理事 会 ，

考虑 到 文件 S/1018217 和 文件 S/1025118 中 记载
塞内加尔 对 葡萄 牙 的 控诉 ，

回顾 理事 会 一 九 六 三 年 四 月 二 十 四 日 第 一 七 八 号
决议 (1963) 、 一 九 六 五 年 五 月 十 九 日 第 二 〇 四 号 决议
《1965) 和 一 九 六 万 年 十 二 月 九 日 第 二 七 三 号 决议
(1969)，

已 经 审议 依照 一 九 七 一 年 七 月 十 五 日 第 二 九 四 号
决议 (1971) 所 设立 安全 理事 会 特派 团 的 报告 书 ,19

16 ”安全 理事 会 正式 纪录 ， 第 二 十 六 年 ， 特 别 补 编 第 3 号 。

17 同上 ， 第 二 十 六 年 ， 一 九 七 一 年 四 月 、 五 月 及 六 月
份 补 编 。

18 同上 ， 一 九 七 一 年 七 月 、 八 月 及 九 月 份 补 编 。

19 同上 ， 第 二 十 六 年 ， 特 别 补 编 第 3 号 。

对 这 一 地 区 内 和 平 与 安全 人 饱 受 威 胁 的 不 安全 和 不
稳定 气氛 ， 深 感 关 切 ，

断定 照 特派 团 在 报告 书 中 所 建议 ， 必 须 确 殿 消除
这 一 地 区 内 紧张 局 势 的 根 由 和 建立 信和 赖 和 平 及 安全 的
气氛 的 先决 条 件 ，

1. 对 依照 第 二 九 四 号 决议 〈1971) 设立 的 安全
理事 会 特派 团 所 完成 的 工作 表示 感 您 ;

2 注意 到 特派 团 在 报告 书 第 一 二 八 段 中 所 提 的
建议 ， 表 示 满 意

3 重申 理事 会 第 二 九 四 号 决议 (1971) 的 规定 ，
其 中 诞 责 几 内 亚 〈 比 绍 ) 的 葡萄 牙 军 队 自 一 九 六 三 年
以 来 一 再 对 塞内加尔 人 民 和 村 庄 进 行 的 暴力 和 破坏 行
为 ;

4. 强 屯 忱 惜 葡萄 牙 政府 不 和 特派 团 合作 ， 使 特
派 团 不 能 充分 实施 第 二 九 四 号 决议 〈1971) 第 四 段 给
它 的 任务 ;

5. 要 求 将 萄 牙 政府 立即 采取 有 效 措施

《a) 使 塞内加尔 的 主权 和 领土 完整 充分 受到 尊
重 ;

b) 阻止 对 塞内加尔 领土 和 人 民 进 行 暴力 和 和 破
坏 行 为 ， 以 求 对 于 保障 这 一 区 域 的 和 平 与 安全 作出 贡
献 ;

6. 要 求 葡萄 牙 政府 充分 尊重 几内亚 〈 比 绍 ) 人
民 的 不 可 剥夺 的 自决 和 独立 权利 ;

7 和 要求 葡萄 牙 政 府 不 再 延迟 采取 必要 措施 ， 使
得 几内亚 ( 比 绍 ) 人 民 能 够 行使 这 种 不 可 剥夺 的 权利 ;

8 请 安全 理事 会 主席 和 秘书 长 经 常 检查 这 个 问
题 ， 并 在 适当 时 期 内 向 安全 理事 会 报告 本 决议 执行 情
况 ， 但 最 迟 不 得 超过 六 个 月

9 宝 市 葡萄 牙 如 不 遵行 本 决议 的 规定 ， 安 全 理
事 会 将 集会 考虑 局 势 所 需要 的 行动 和 步 驹 !

10. 决定 继续 据 有 本 问题 。
第 一 六 口 一 炊 会 议 以 十 四 和 标
对 零 通 过 ， 痉 权 者 一 〈 美 利
晨 售 众 国 )


Draft resolution (S/10266):
UNITED NATIONS

Distr.
SECURITY GENERAL
§/10266

COUNCIL 15 July 1971
ENGLISH

" ORIGINAL: ' FRENCH

Burundi, Japan, Sierra Leone, Somalia and Syria:
joint draft resolution

The Security Council,

Taking note of the complaints of the Republic of Senegal against Portugal
contained in documents S/10182 of 27 April 1971 and 5/10251 of 6 July 1971,.

Taking note of the letter of the Chargé d' Affaires a.i. of Portugal
(8/10255% and Corr.l),

Having heard the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Senegal,

Bearing in mind that all States Members of the United Nations must refrain

in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations (Article 2,
paragraph 4, of the Charter),

Conseious of its duty to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removal of threats to international peace and security and for the
suppression of acts of aggression (Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Charter),

Disturbed at the increasingly serious situation created by acts of violence
perpetrated by the Portuguese armed forces against the Republics of Senegal since
the adoption of Security Council resolution 273 (1969) of 9 December 1969
(E/CN.4/1050 of 2 February 1971), oo

Deeply distressed by the repeated laying of mines in Senegalese territory,

Gravely concerned that incidents of this nature, by threatening the

sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal, might endanger international

peace and security, RE
Bearing in mind its resolutions 178 (1963) of 2k April 1963, 204 (1965) of

19 May 1965 and 273 (1969) of 9 December 1969,

T1-14201 | RA
5/10266
English
Page '2

Having taken note of the report of 2 February 19T1 of the Working Group of

Experts of the Commission on Human Rights concerning Portuguese acts of violence
in Senegalese territory (E/CN.4/1050) ,

Noting that Portugal has not complied with the provisions of operative
paragraph 2 of resolution 273 (1969) of 9 December 1969 (E/CN.4/1050),

1. Demands that the Government of Portugal should stop immediately any acts
of violence and destruction in Senegalese territory, and respect the sovereignty,
territorial integrity and security of Senegal;

2. Condemns the acts of violence and destruction perpetrated since 1963 by
the Portuguese armed forces of Guinea (Bissau) against the population and villages
of Senegal (E/CN.4/1050);

3. Condemns the unlawful laying of enti-tank and anti~personnel mines in
Senegalese territory;

Ly, Requests the President of the Security Council and the Secretary-General
to send to the spot, as a matter of urgency, a special mission of members of
the Security Council assisted by their military experts, to carry out an inquiry
into the facts of which the Council has been informed, to examine the 'situation |
along the border between Guinea (Bissau) and Senegal and to report to the
Security Council, making any recommendations aimed at guaranteeing peace and

security in this region.

Meeting record:
UNITED NATIONS { Y
S27

SECURITY COUNCIL
OFFICIAL RECORDS

CWENTY-SIXTH YEAR DEPT. OF POLITICAL AND
SECURITY COUNCIL AFFAIRS
nd BYAINE fETQ
1572 MEETING: 15 JULY 1971 ARCH li Vv EO
RETURN WITHOUT DELAY
NEW YORK
CONTENTS
Page
Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1572) ........... 1
Adoption of the agenda

Complaint by Senegal:
Letter dated 6 July 1971 from the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the
United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (8/10251). 1

S/PV.1572 and Corr. 1
NOTE

Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with
figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.

Documents of the Security Council (symbol S/. . .) are normally published in quarterly
Supplements of the Official Records of the Security Councll, The date of the document
indicates the supplement in which it appears or in which information about it is given.

The resolutions of the Security Council, numbered in accordance with a system
adopted in 1964, are published in yearly volumes of Resolutions and Decisions of the
Security Council. The new system, which has been applied retroactively to resolutions
adopted before 1 January 1965, became fully operative on that date.
FIFTEEN HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SECOND MEETING

Held in New York on Thursday, 15 July 1971, at 3 p.m.

President: Mr. J, KOSCIUSKQ-MORIZET (France).

Present: The representatives of the following States:
Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, China, France, Italy, Japan,
Nicaragua, Poland, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Syria, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America.

Provisional agenda (S/Agenda/1572)
1. Adoption of the agenda.

2. Complaint by Senegal:
Letter dated 6 July 1971 from the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations addressed to

the President of the Security Council (8/10251).

Adoption of the agenda

The agenda was adopted,
Complaint by Senegal

Letter dated 6 July 1971 from the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations addressed to the
President of the Security Council (8/10251)

1. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): In
accordance with the previous decision of the Security
Council, I shall invite the representatives of Senegal,
Guinea, Mali, Sudan, Mauritania, Mauritius, Togo and
Zambia to participate, without the right to vote, in the
debate on the item before the Security Council,

2. I invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal to
take a place at the Council table.

At the invitation of the President, Mr. A. K. Gaye
(Senegal) took a place at the Security Council table.

3. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): In view
of the limited number of places at the Council table, I
invite, in accordance with the Council’s practice, the
representatives of Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Sudan, Mauritius, Togo and Zambia to take the places reserved for
them in 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. B. Diabate
(Guinea), Mr. S. Traoré (Mali), Mr. M, E. M. Bal (Mauri
tania), Mr. A. Eisa (Sudan), Mr. R. K. Ramphul (Mauritius),

Mr. M. Y. Eklo (Togo) and Mr, XK. S. B. Nyirenda (Zambia)
took the places reserved for them in the Council chamber.

4, The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): The
Security Council will now resume consideration of the item
on its agenda. The first speaker is the representative of
Japan, on whom I now call.

5. Mr. OGISO (Japan): Mr. President, in accordance with
the new tradition which seems to be in the making in the
Council, 1 would simply like to pay to you, as President of
the Council this month, the respects of my delegation.

6. My delegation has noted with great regret and sympathy the numerous incidents which have occurred in Senegal
over a considerable period of time and which have resulted
in the substantial loss of Senegalese lives and damage to
Senegalese property. We fully sympathize with the Senegalese people, who, as eloquently explained by the Foreign
Minister of Senegal in the Council last Monday /15691th
meeting], have been suffering over the years from similar

incidents,

7. Japan, as a matter of basic principle, is strongly
opposed to recourse to the threat or use of force by any
State against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other State. We fully regret, therefore, that
the Council has had to deal repeatedly with situations
which, as charged by African States bordering the Territories under Portuguese administration, threaten their
territorial integrity and political independence.

8. The Security Council, it is quite obvious, must now
consider most carefully the present charges brought against
Portugal by Senegal. We believe that the first step we
should take in this case is an inquiry into the facts, I recall,
in this connexion, last year’s precedent of the special :
mission sent by the Council to Guinea to report on the

© situation! which had been brought to the attention of the

Council by the Government of Guinea.

9. My delegation is of the view that a similar fact-finding
mission should be established immediately in the present
case for the purpose of an on-the-spot investigation of the
charges made by Senegal against Portugal. The mission
should be given a broad mandate and should be able to
conduct its business freely and independently, with the full
co-operation of the authorities concerned. My delegation,
in principle, would favour a proposal along these lines,

1 For the report of the Special Mission, see Official Records of the
Security Council, Twenty-fifth Year, Special Supplement No. 2.
10. 1think it is very relevant and pertinent to remark, before
concluding, that one basic underlying cause of incidents
such as those we are considering is the perpetuation of the
outmoded and retrogressive colonial presence of a European country in Africa. We are convinced that the
Government of Portugal should adopt—and we have said on
a previous occasion that we would like to see it adopt—an
enlightened and forward-looking policy that would acknowledge the right to freedom and independence of the African
Territories. Such a policy would enhance, to the great
advantage of Portugal, its relations with the peoples both of
the Territories and of the African countries, Undoubtedly,
we feel, such a policy would also greatly contribute to a
lessening of tensions and an avoidance of incidents such as
we have been considering.

11. Mr. ORTIZ DE ROZAS (Argentina) (interpretation
from Spanish): Mr, President, conforming to the newly
established practice of the Council, I shall limit my opening
remarks to congratulating you, on behalf of the Argentine
delegation, on assuming the presidency of the Security
Council. Your conduct in these last few days has only
confirmed most eloquently the eminent qualifications
which we all knew you to possess.

12. I would also like to welcome back our Secretary-General, who has returned to assume his delicate and
burdensome tasks after a slight indisposition, which 1 am
happy he has overcome.

13. This is not the first time that Senegal has turned to the
Security Council to safeguard its sovereign rights. At
previous meetings we were called upon to examine other
denunciations of a like or very similar nature to that which
has led to this present meeting. We, therefore, are not
confronted by a new or isolated case but by a dangerous
recurrence of events,

14. It is in the light of those circumstances that we must
approach the present prtblem because the incidents of the
past and of the present might well recur in the future, with
the increasingly serious consequences that can easily be
foreseen. I do not think anyone can doubt that this state of
affairs was brought about by the maintenance of a colonial
situation in Africa despite the numerous resolutions approved by the United Nations and by the contempt shown
for the condemnatory stand taken by the immense majority
of countries composing the international community.

15. It is truly serious that the inevitable tensions caused

by the existence of colonialism should affect a country like -

Senegal, which in every way has given proof of its
legitimate aspirations for peaceful coexistence with all its
neighbours and which, in order to defend its sovereignty
and territorial integrity, as stated a few days ago by its own
Foreign Minister, “possesses as an essential weapon only its
rights and the faith that it has placed in the United
Nations” [1569th meeting, para. 14]. :

16. In that same statement, Mr. Amadou Karim Gaye gave
us a complete and detailed narration of the incidents that
constantly, and almost without interruption, have for the
last decade victimized the population and caused considerable losses in the villages located in the frontier regions of

Guinea (Bissau). Those statements were neither challenged
nor answered. It is to be regretted that Portugal did not see
fit to be represented in this debate and to make known the
views of its Government. The only element for a judgement
that we have from that side is contained in the letter dated
10 July 1971, from the representative of Portugal to the
President of the Security Council [§/10255] in response to
the letter sent by the representative of Senegal on 6 July

[8/10251].

17. In that letter responsibility for the problems that have
arisen in the frontier zone is attributed to the activities of
the PAIGC? movement, which is accused of deliberately
trying to create an atmosphere of tension and to provoke
friction between Senegal and Portugal. The argument is not
very convincing. It is in fact difficult to believe that the
Senegalese authorities should be ready to agree to the loss
of the lives of many of their compatriots and considerable
material damage as the price for the activities of such
groups. Furthermore, it is quite reasonable to believe that
were that the case, it would not be the Government of
Senegal itself that would come to the Security Council to
ask for clarification and be willing to submit to the

Council’s decisions.

18. On this matter it is extremely interesting to read the
report of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts of the
Commission on Human Rights circulated as document
E/CN.4/1050 and Corr.1 on 2 February 1971, Paragraph
481 contains a statement made to the experts by the
President of Senegal, Léopold Sédar Senghor. That wellknown and highly respected statesman made the following

remark, among others:

“Since 1963 —since the beginning of the conflict—we
have publicly and officially affirmed two concepts. The
first is the right to self-determination and therefore to
independence of the people of Guinea (Bissau). The
second is that the conflict between the people of Guinea
and the Portuguese Government can and must be resolved

peacefully, through negotiation”.

19. Later in that statement, pointing out that there were
no bases of or attacks from the PAIGC, President Senghor

said: .

“It is our view that the PAIGC fighters are free to adopt
any attitude on their home ground, in Guinea (Bissau),
but not in Senegal, We are a sovereign country. We allow
no interference in our internal affairs.”

20. Once against demonstrating its peaceful philosophy
the Government of Senegal has placed in the hands of the
Security Council the possibility of adopting adequate
measures to ensure the inviolability of its frontiers and the
protection of its rights. The Argentine delegation believes
that any course of action this Council may adopt to meet
that request should be primarily directed to the avoidance
of a repetition of the events that made these meetings

necessary in the first place.

21. It is true that it would be most appropriate and
convenient to observe, in situ if possible, the events that

2 Partido Africano da Independéncia da Guiné e Cabo Verde.
gave rise to the complaint submitted to us by the Foreign
Minister of Senegal, and here I should like to express our
admiration for the flexible and constructive stand he has
adopted. But even more important is to weigh what steps
we may take in order to avoid a recurrence of similar

events,

22. We trust that the Security Council will unanimously
adopt a solution adequate to achieve that end.

23. Mr, FARAH (Somalia): The charges that have been
made by Senegal against Portugal are grave ones which
deserve the Security Councils most serious consideration
and its most authoritative action. The escalation of acts of
aggression committed on Senegalese territory by Portuguese
armed forces and mercenaries since January this year would
be a serious enough matter had this been the first time such
violations had occurred. But the incidents now being
considered are the most recent of a series of aggressions
that have been directed over the past ten years against
Senegal and against other independent African States
bordering on the African Territories under Portuguese
domination. Those acts of aggression threaten the peace
and security of Africa and cannot and must not be allowed

to continue,

24. The pattern of Portuguese aggression that has emerged
is one of callous disregard for human life and property and
of indifference to the provisions of the Charter, which call
for respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all
States,

25. On the international as on the national scene a
breakdown of law and order is the result when the
perpetrators of acts of lawlessness are not brought to
justice. The international community cannot ignore or
dismiss perfunctorily violent acts of aggression against
independent African States.

26. The attitude of Senegal towards the particular series of
aggressions now under study is one of marked restraint in
the face of extreme provocation and of respect for the
proper procedures the Charter demands of States involved
in disputes. Retaliation in kind is within the capability of
the Senegalese Government, but it has not resorted to
force. As on the many previous occasions when Senegal has
been the object of armed incursions or air attack resulting
in the death of citizens and the destruction of villages, the
Government of Senegal has brought the matter before the
Security Council. The Security Councils response to
Senegal’s current complaint must show an equal regard for
the principles of international law and for the modalities
the Charter provides for supporting those principles.

27. Senegal’'s complaint must be viewed, however, not
only with reference to the particular acts of aggression that
are the subjects of this debate but also in a wider context.
That context is Portugal's refusal to recognize the right to
self-determination of the native people of Guinea (Bissau),
Mozambique and Angola in accordance with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries
and Peoples [General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)] and
the consequent struggle for liberation undertaken by those
peoples. Their struggle, it is pertinent to note, has been

recognized as a legitimate one by the United Nations, since
the avenues of peaceful and meaningful change have been
closed to them by the Portuguese authorities. It is no
digression to recall here that the right to self-determination
and the principle of human equality are written into the
United Nations Charter. It states the obligation of Member
States to “develop friendly relations among nations based
on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” It also states the obligation of
nations administering colonial Territories to recognize that
the interests of the inhabitants of such Territories are
paramount and that due account must be taken of their

political aspirations.

28. Portuguese aggressions against independent African
States in all their forms—whether it be the invasion of
Guinea, incursions into Zambia or the United Republic of
Tanzania or the two Congo Republics or the recent laying
of anti-personnel mines in Senegalese territory—are all
expressions of Portuguese arrogance and anger over the
continued existence of the liberation movements directed
against their unjust rule and over the support given to those
movements by the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
The States members of the OAU are deeply concerned over
Portugal’s determination to deny the right of selfdetermination to the people of Guinea (Bissau), Mozambique and Angola; hence their strong support for the
liberation movements of those Territories. That support
was reiterated in June this year by the summit conference
of African States and Governments of the OAU3 which
also condemned the repeated and flagrant violations of the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Senegal by Portuguese armed forces. The tense and dangerous situation on
the borders of the Territories under Portuguese domination
has to be seen as the result of the struggle between the will
to achieve freedom and the deterrnination to subjugate.

29. A further dimension is added to the situation by the
fact that the Portuguese employ the services of foreign
mercenaries. These ruthless adventurers, who serve as hired
assassins for the highest bidder, have already exploited and
aggravated situations in the Congo, in Nigeria during the
civil war, in the Sudan and in other parts of Africa, They
are now operating together with Portuguese forces in the
cross-frontier hostilities along the borders of Guinea (Bissau). Ridding Africa of their evil presence itself is a task
towards which the Security Council might well direct the
force of its peace-keeping authority.

30. Yet another dimension of the dangerous situation we

are considering is the support which Portugal receives as a
consequence of its membership of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization. This support enables Portugal to
violate the territorial integrity of African States and to
suppress the political aspirations of the people under its
contro! with impunity and marked contempt for international opinion, There is no question but that these hostile
acts could not be perpetrated without the arms supplied by
this military bloc. Portugal itself produces no arms, so there
can be no question but that the military aid it receives is
directly applied to the subjugation of the African peoples
under its control and for intimidating acts against neigh-

3 Held at Addis Ababa from 21 to 23 June 1971.
bouring African States, No member of that regional alliance
can escape the charge of culpability in Portugal's aggressions and subversions of justice. There is no distinction
between the weapons it receives from its allies, supposedly
for defence purposes, and those which it uses against
freedom-fighters of Africa. They come from one source;
they are used for one purpose. A regional organization—
whether it be the Organization of African Unity, the
Organization of American States, NATO or the Warsaw
group of Powers—has an obligation to assist the United
Nations with its peace-keeping responsibilities, In this case
we find that the alliance is contributing to a situation where
peace and security are threatened,

31. The Security Council is now faced with the responsi
bility, which it cannot shirk, of dealing with acts of
aggression which are violations of the Charter. Articles 33
and 34 in Chapter VI of the Charter offer clear guidelines
for dealing with disputes that threaten peace. Article 33
emphasizes that solutions to disputes should be sought by
negotiation and other peaceful means, as Senegal has done.
Indeed, the commitment of the Head of State of Senegal
for a negotiated settlement of all international disputes is
borne out by his statement to the 4d Hoc Working Group
of Experts of the Commission on Human Rights on 17 June
1970, as reproduced in paragraph 481 of its report
contained in document E/CN.4/1050 and Corr.1 of 2 Febrary 1971.

32. Article 34 of the Charter indicates the importance of
fact-finding machinery, My delegation believes that the
Security Council should use to the full its investigative
powers so that any action it may deem necessary may be
undertaken on a sound and informed basis, While my
delegation is convinced from the evidence of past years of
the veracity of Senegal’s complaint, we believe that an
on-the-spot investigation by the Council is necessary in
order that the facts can be clearly established for the
benefit of those who entertain any doubts about whether
there is a proper basis forthe charges against Portugal. A
good precedent of this kind was established last December
when the Council decided to send a fact-finding mission to
Guinea, which was then the subject of another kind of
Portuguese aggression from forces based in Guinea (Bissau).

33. Because of the importance which my delegation
attaches to procedures based on factual surveys, we
requested, on 12 July [1570th meeting], that the 1971
report of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts of the
Commission on Human Rights be circulated to Members,

since it contains some revealing evidence obtained at -

firsthand about the situation on the border between
Senegal and Guinea (Bissau). The report reveals that the

Group of Experts toured extensively the region of Casa-

mance in Senegal and actually saw several Senegalese border
villages that had been destroyed by bombardment. The
Group also heard testimony from several prominent citizens
of Senegal concerning casualties suffered by the civilian
population as a result of Portuguese acts of violence. In the
opinion of the Group of Experts, the acts of violence
against Senegal committed by the Portuguese forces consti-

tuted a serious violation of the principles of the United

Nations Charter.

34, 1 am sure that members who read the eminently
reasonable statement of Senegalese policy made to the
Group of Experts by the Head of State of Senegal will be
impressed by the moderation of the Senegalese people and
Government in a difficult and provocative situation.

35. The latest series of hostile acts which form the
substance of Senegal’s complaint to the Council and which
precipitated these meetings requires our urgent attention, if
we wish to prevent the situation from developing into open
conflict. The character of the hostile acts complained of by
Senegal requires both political and military expertise. My
delegation therefore believes that the Security Council
should send a special mission to investigate the charges
made by Senegal against Portugal and to report fully to the
Council on the situation prevailing along that troubled
frontier of Senegal. The mission’s report should clarify the
nature and extent of military activities that have taken, or
are taking, place there and should suggest measures necessary to prevent a recurrence of the hostile acts alleged by
Senegal and, finally, to preserve peace in the region. The
military experts could be provided by the States that would
be appointed to the special mission.

36. An investigation carried out by such a mission would
help the Security Council to arrive at a decision on the kind
of peace-keeping machinery needed for the situation and on
the kind of political action which should be applied to
ensure a return to peace and stability in the area,

37. Before concluding my statement 1 should like to
inform the Council that members of the Afro-Asian Group
of the Security Council have carefully studied this question
and have now reached agreement on a draft resolution
which is at the moment being prepared for circulation. It is
sponsored by the delegations of Burundi, Japan, Sierra
Leone, Somalia and Syria. The draft resolution is selfexplanatory and requires no comment by my delegation.

38. Mr. LIU (China): Mr. President, let me begin by
congratulating you, not so much, perhaps, on your assumption of the Presidency as on your so aptly putting an end to
the expression of the usual compliments, especially at a
time when the Council is confronted with issues of urgency.

39, May I alsp say how happy I am to see the Secretary-General return in time for thése meetings and with renewed

vigour?
40. The other day [1569th meeting] the Foreign Minister
of Senegal told the Council in some detail of a series of

border incidents, My delegation is able to understand the
serious concern with which the Government of Senegal

" views those incidents as they affect its sovereignty and

territorid] integrity and the safety of its inhabitants. That
concern is shared by other Africah States and, indeed, by
all members of this Council, It is clear that all is not well on.
the frontier between Senegal and the neighbouring Terri
tory under Portuguese administration, There have been
constant frictions since 1963, frictions which have numerous and deep roots and which have to be viewed against the
background of colonialism and racial relations,

41. In recent years, Territories under Portuguese administration in Africa have been the subject of frequent debates
in the various organs of the United Nations. In the present
case, the Council is immediately concerned with the
specific complaint of Senegal. My delegation is gratified to
note that by bringing its complaint once more before the
Council the Government of Senegal intends to prevent the
border incidents from assuming more alarming dimensions.

42. Asa matter of fact, the Council has remained seized of
the Senegalese complaint for a number of years. It is
deplorable that acts of violence involving loss of life and
property have not ceased to occur at intervals since the
adoption of Security Council resolution 273 (1969). The
first task for the Council now, I think, is to seek the
relaxation of existing tension and to encourage the possibility of restoring peace and stability on the border
between Senegal and Guinea (Bissau), Portugal has, in a
letter addressed to the President of the Council under the
date of 10 July (S/10255], denied participation in and
responsibility for the recent incidents involving the laying
of mines within Senegalese territory. While there is no
reason to question the good faith with which the Foreign
Minister of Senegal has so eloquently presented his case, in
the view of my delegation it would be judicious and useful
to have a special mission investigate the conditions on the
spot, as urged by the representative of Sierra Leone
yesterday and as echoed by several other representatives
today. My delegation will support any proposal calculated
to accomplish those purposes.

43. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): I have
only one other speaker inscribed on my list for what we call
the general debate before discussion of the draft resolution,
and that is the representative of France. 1 shall therefore
now speak in my capacity as representative of FRANCE.

44, For the fourth time in five years the Council has
received a complaint by Senegal, whose citizens have been
killed or wounded in the area bordering on Guinea (Bissau).

45. Up to the present occasion, we have had to consider
incursions into Senegalese territory and bombardment of
villages. Today in addition to an already long list of acts of
violence and destruction mines have been laid, resulting in
explosions causing casualties first among official and
military personnel and then among the civilian population.
Other mines were detected and disarmed in time but the
growing frequency of these intolerable incidents is obviously creating a danger to freedom and safe transportation
in Casamance and causes the legitimate concern of the
Senegalese Government.

46, When villagers, to reach their marketplaces, and
administrative officials, to carry out their daily duties, must
proceed under the protection of mine-detection personnel,
business is hampered, the supplying of communities is
hindered and medical care can no longer be ensured.

47, The internal security of an entire region has been
disrupted, The situation is all the more serious since we
know that the events of recent months are not isolated
ones. The Foreign Minister of Senegal, Mr. Karim Gaye,
reviewed Monday [1569th meeting], in impressive detail,
the escalation of attacks against the territorial integrity and
security of Senegal, and the report of the Group of Experts

of the Commission on Human Rights had already pointed
to the increasing number and gravity of those attacks. It is
therefore quite understandable that the populations in the
areas involved are living in a state of uncertainty, apprehension and fear. They ask that normal living conditions be
restored so that they may at long last live in peace—that
peace which they so richly deserve, that peace to which the
Senegalese are so passionately devoted. May I be permitted
as the representative of a country, France, that has enjoyed
long and fruitful friendship with Senegal, fervently to
testify to that devotion.

48, When the people of Senegal were called upon to go
beyond the seas to the aid of those whose freedom was
threatened, they covered themselves with glory. Their
history shows that they have furnished Africa the most
valiant of its most valiant warriors, Their recent past shows
too that they have not abandoned their military traditions.
However, the nature of the Senegalese people draws them
towards peace. And that people has given its entire energy
to the task of economic and social development since
regaining its independence. This is particularly true of the
people of Casamance. I can say this because 1 know them
well. I have seen them, I have travelled through that region;
it is an area of broken terrain and mighty hydrographical
features; living far removed from the capital city, the local
population works hard to improve its standard of living, It
is therefore quite natural for us to be keenly alive to the
anxiety of the Senegalese farmers and we understand the
concern of the Government of Dakar and we categorically
condemn the misdeeds at the root of this concern. It is
inadmissible that the insecurity of the neighbouring Territory should spill over into Senegal.

49. There may be doubts as to the identity of those who
have laid those mines and who have perpetrated the most
recent incidents. It is not impossible that they may be
certain foreign bands seeking to foment and spread disorder
and distress in the Casamance region. However, 1 would
certainly not make conjectures based on the origin of the
explosive devices that have been discovered. We would not
dare to make hasty deductions. We would not assert that
the nationality of the manufacturer of mines or other
weapons reveals ties of friendship or even of complicity
with those who utilize them.

50. What is important—and we are quite sure that this is
indeed the case—is that those responsible for the attacks
came from outside the country. We are convinced that
these tragic events which occur all too often in the southern
provinces of Senegal originate abroad. They are attributable
to a situation with which we are all familiar and of which
Portugal—as much as anyone amongst us—should be mind-

ful.

51, The Council, I have said, should not allow movements
which create turmoil in a Territory and which cause
insecurity there to become a dangerous factor leading to
death and devastation for the population of a neighbouring
State. Unfortunately, we know the reason for those
difficulties which affect the region neighbouring Casa-

" mance, to be more frank and specific, Guinea (Bissau). We

feel we know the solution to these difficulties.
52. We say this as much from conviction as from
experience. In Africa, as elsewhere, peace is based on the
recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination
and the freedom to exercise that right. The ties of
friendship are stronger than any bonds of constraint, We
cannot but hope that Portugal in its turn will learn that
lesson and, following the path of co-operation, will pursue
its long and fine humanistic tradition, a tradition which has
flourished for so long outside Europe.

53. Indeed, has not Senegal made just such an appeal to
Portugal? As the Ambassador of Belgium recalled, President Senghor has been far-sighted enough not to refuse any
possibility to hold a reasonable dialogue.

54. These very possibilities in our view should guide our
thinking rather than polemics, acrimony and a fruitless
inguiry into the exact identity of those responsible for the
latest incident. What is important is to protect the
population of Casamance against a repetition of such
tragedies. We owe that to Senegal, if we wish to remain
loyal to the obligations which devolve upon us under the
Charter. We owe that to Senegal if we are to encourage its
peaceful example since Dakar has resisted the easy temptation of reprisal and blind counterblows rather, it has the
preferred legal and peaceful means consisting of an appeal
to our Council.

55. What we must do for the time being is see to it that
this intolerable situation ceases, A State Member of our
Organization, as peace-loving as any other, has the right
that its population be protected against acts of violence.
Senegal must be assured that the international community
will give it support.

56. But, over and above an expression of solidarity, we
should do more. Senegal must obtain the assurance that its
sovereignty, its security and its territorial integrity are and
will be respected.

57. In keeping with that view we believe there is a need to
send to the area—quite naturally, with the approval of the
States concerned—a mission consisting of Council members,
assisted by their military experts, to carry out an inquiry,
study the situation and formulate recommendations in
order to protect the security of that region.

58. By obtaining this assurance the Government of Dakar
would more than have fulfilled its duty as a Government
towards its sorely tried people. By requesting the convening
of the Council, by alerting the world community and by
apprising it of the dangers of a situation to which the
United Nations is attentive, the Dakar Government will
have once again served the cause of freedom and of the

dignity of the African continent. It will have carried out its
mission with serenity and with determination. This example
of wisdom and firmness, the only one to open the road to
progress and peace, is the one which the Council is
duty-bound to encourage.

59. At this point I can already tell members that my
delegation will be in a position to vote in favour of the
draft resolution presented by Japan, Sierra Leone, Burundi
and Somalia. No draft is perfect, but this text seems to us

to be in harmony with what we consider to be the duty of
the Council and it seems to meet the needs of the situation.

60. Speaking again as PRESIDENT, I wish to say that the
draft resolution is, I understand, now being translated. For
technical reasons, 1 think it would be desirable to suspend
the meeting so that the translation of the text into the

various languages may be completed.

The meeting was suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at
540p.m

61. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French). The
Council will now consider draft resolution S/10266. Two

delegations have asked to speak before the vote.

62. Mr. VINCI (ltaly) {interpretation from French): Before explaining my delegation’s vote on the draft resolution, 1 should like to make a few introductory comments.
To reassure all my colleagues around this table 1 wish to
declare that, following your example and the practice my
delegation has followed since this year’s first meeting, I
shall refrain from congratulating your predecessors and you
yourself, Mr. President, but that in no way diminishes our
sincere appreciation of the way in which your predecessors
conducted their business or our confidence in your presi-

dency.

63. But I should not like to impose too many restrictions
on myself. I should like to thank you, Mr. President, for the
very cordial welcome you addressed to the Secretary-General on his happy return to us and to endorse your
words of sympathy to King Hassan II and your expression
of condolence to Belgium on the loss that country, so
closely linked to mine, has just suffered. My delegation
fully shares the feelings you have expressed on behalf of the

Council.

64. To return to the problem before the Council, I should
like to state that it was with concern and sorrow that the
Italian Government heard of the incidents that have taken
place repeatedly in Senegal in the course of the past few
months and which, put to the Council by the representative
of Senegal, Mr. Boye, were also tabled with great eloquence
and scrupulous precision by Mr. Amadou Karim Gaye, the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal [ibid]. Those
incidents have caused damage and casualties among the
civilian population and have afflicted a country whose
peaceful attitude has been highly appreciated and which,
under the enlightened leadership of President Senghor, has
played and continues to play a very constructive role both
in the United Nations and in the more general field of
international relations. May 1 take advantage of this
opportunity to express to the Government and people of
Senegal, which are tied to my country by many strong
links, the sympathy of the Government and people of

Italy!

65. The incidents I have mentioned indicate or rather
confirm the existence on the African continent of a
situation of tension provoked by anachronistic vestiges of
colonialism. The Italian Government's position on these
matters is well known. We are deeply convinced that
colonialism has been irrevocably condemned by history and
has no place in the international arena today. It is
outmoded, and any hope of keeping it is bound to be
dashed sooner or later--preferably sooner, for the benefit of

all,

66. This being the case, the Italian Government understands how intolerable colonialism must be to the countries
of Africa, young and justly proud of their acquired
independence, an independence based upon self-determination and the justified aspirations of the African peoples
to forge their own futures according to their own wills and
their desire to play a role in the international arena on an
equal footing with all other nations, thus making their own
original contribution to the progress of mankind in all
fields, We arc convinced that the implementation of the
principle of self-determination will finally achieve the
liberation of all Africa, and we trust that all States, without
exception, will unreservedly take note of new reactions in
the international field and thus give themselves to the more
immediate undertaking: co-operation in the economic and
political stability of Africa. These are the reasons that led
laly actively to participate in the process of decolonization, which developed so successfully after the Second
World War. We contributed to that end both politically and
materially, with all the means at our disposal.

67. In that respect may I refer to the Foreign Munister of
Italy, Mr. Aldo Moro, who, during the twenty-fourth
session of the General Assembly, speaking of decolonization and the Lusaka Manifesto? in particular, said:

“... we hope [it] will not go unheard. In the same spirit
we look forward to the completion, in all parts of the
world, of that irreversible historical process which requires the elimination of the political and economic
structures of colonialism.”s

68. The Italian Government is also convinced that all
States must in their conduct abide by the principles of the
Charter of the United Nations and therefore refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any State. Furthermore, the General Assembly, at its
twenty-fifth session, when approving the Declaration on the
Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the United Nations [resolution
2627 (XXV)] and the Declaration on the Strengthening of
International Security [resolution 2734 (XXV)], the General Assembly furthermore solemnly reaffirmed those obli-

gations,

69. The Italian Government hopes that a constructive

dialogue can commence between the parties concerned and -

that they can thus find a peaceful solution to the problem
confronting them. On that point I should like to express
our warmest appreciation for the far-sighted proposals
made by President Senghor, contained in his plan of
pacification for Guinea (Bissau), and which have been
voiced in this hall by the Foreign Minister of Senegal. In

4 Manifesto on Southern Africa, adopted by the Conference of
Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African
Unity, held at Addis Ababa from 6 to 9 September 1969.

5 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fourth
Session, Plenary Meetings, 1783rd meeting, para, 20.

fact, the strengthening of friendship and co-operation
between Africa and Europe based on mutual respect and
confidence constitute, in the eyes of my Government, a
basic element of the political stability, economic development and social growth of the international community as a

whole.

70. We trust that the draft resolution on which the
Council will scon be voting will helpfully prepare the
ground for such an outcome. We feel that that draft
contains all the potential elements to that effect, If is for
those reasons that my delegation has decided to vote in
favour of the draft resolution submitted by Burundi, Japan,
Sierra Leone, Somalia and Syria in its entirety. We do so
despite certain doubts concerning operative paragraph 2,
which passes a judgement based upon the report of a group
of experts whose nomination and mandate were not
decided upon by the Security Council.

71. In hoping for positive results from these meetings, I
should like to congratulate the sponsors of the draft
resolution and you, Mr. President, for your vital role in its
preparation. At the same time I would pay a tribute to the
spirit of conciliation and statesmanship shown by
Mr. Karim Gaye, without which, I am sure, we could not
arrive at a constructive conclusion to our work.

72. Mr. BUSH (United States of America): Inasmuch as
there is no twenty-four-hour rule in the Security Council,
and inasmuch as we sense that the will of the Council is to
act today on this draft resolution, we shall not ask for an
adjournment. Frankly, we should have liked to have an
adjournment in order to study the draft resolution, which
we received only a little while ago—~although I should say,
out of courtesy to every member of the Council, that we
have been consulted about this text.

73. 1 think that the best procedure would have been to
allow a little more time for consultations with Governments. But, as | have just said, we sense that the will of this
meeting is to get on with the business at hand and to take
action on a draft resolution that has been hammered out
with great understanding and compromise. I understand
that it is out of fashion, for reasons of procedure and in
order not to waste time, to commend the President of the
Security Council, but in this case we have been tremendously impressed not only with your leadership, . Sir, in
getting this draft resofution before the Council but also
with the leadership demonstrated by the Foreign Minister
of Senegal, Mr. Gaye, and by his associate Ambassador
Boye; they have most courteously consulted us at each step
of the way, as they have also every one of our colleagues

here.

74. Before making a request to the President, may I say
that we are totally convinced of the sincerity of the
Senegalese complaint? One simply has to sit with the
Senegalese Minister and the Senegalese Ambassador and
hear the eloquent testimony given by them and many of

their African colleagues to be deeply impressed and.

convinced of their sincerity. Of course, our Government
always takes that position.

75. Without becoming argumentative I feel that I should
say a few words about a statement that was made here to
the effect that anyone that is a member of NATO is
complicitous—is indeed guilty —in these occurrences along
the border. On behalf of my Government, 1 wish to say that
we of course reject that contention. Yet we can understand
how strongly emotions run; we can understand the strength
of the feelings that would lead one to such a conclusion,
eel though we must respectfully and forcefully disagree
with it,

76. We strongly regret the continuing acts of violence. But
my Government has one problem with this draft resolution
and that problem is that—perhaps innocently, perhaps
unintentionally —it violates a concept that is near and dear
to the citizens of my country, That concept is that no
matter how guilty a person appears to be, under our laws he
is considered innocent until tried and found guilty. That is
what troubles us philosophically about this draft resolution.

77. In the sixth preambular paragraph and in operative
paragraphs 1 and 2, there are certain determinations of guilt
before the special mission, which we strongly support, takes
even one step into the field to view for itself what the
problem is. So let me set forth our position very clearly. It
is with some reluctance that we take this position and,
again, it is also with tremendous respect for the integrity of
those who differ with us. We expect that we shall be in the
minority, but our position is simply this: we do not want to
see this Council go down the track—no matter how obvious
the complaints may appear—of saying: “You are guilty
before this special mission that is being established to
determine your guilt even goes into the field.”

78. I am perhaps approaching this too much through the
eyes of my countrymen, as it is on that premise that our
whole system of justice is founded. Even in cases that seem
more obvious to some than this one, we revere this point of
view and we revere jt greatly.

79. So I would agree with the reservation expressed by the
Italian Ambassador—although we must regretfully reach a
different conclusion. I would simply ask—so that we can be
on record as being in favour of the mission so eloquently
carried out by the Senegalese Foreign Minister, who has
taken so much of his time to bring his country’s conscience
to this forum—that a separate vote be taken on operative
paragraph 4, which we shall enthusiastically support. If the
draft resolution as a whole is adopted, or if only this
paragraph is adopted, although we doubt that the latter will
be the case, our Government will study with the fullest
attention the facts as determined. We think that at that
point it will be more appropriate for the members of the
Council to sit in judgement on a people whose guilt has not
yet been firmly determined, no matter how obvious that
guilt may now appear to be.

80. Mr. President, I appreciate your permitting me to
explain the position of my Government before the vote. I
should like to reiterate our request for a separate vote on
operative paragraph 4. In the vote on the draft resolution as
a whole, the United States will abstain,

81. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): As
President of the Council I am most grateful to the United
States representative for not insisting on an adjournment,

and I am sure that the members of the Council are also
appreciative of his spirit of understanding.

82. There are no further speakers before the Council
proceeds to vote on this draft resolution. As I understand
it, a request has been made by the United States representa.
tive for a separate vote on operative paragraph 4. In
conformity with rule 32 of the rules of procedure, that
request shall be granted “unless the original mover objects”,

83. Therefore, if 1 hear no objection we shall proceed first
to a separate vote on paragraph 4 and then on the draft
resolution as a whole.

84. I now put to the vote operative paragraph 4.
A vote was taken by show of hands.
Paragraph 4 was adopted unanimously.

85. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): 1 shall
now put to the vote the draft resolution as a whole.

A vote was taken by show of hands.

In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Burundi, China, France,
Italy, Japan, Nicaragua, Poland, Sierra Leone, Somalia,
Syria, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Against: None,

Abstaining: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland, United States of America,

The draft resolution was adopted by 13 votes to none,
with 2 abstentions. ¢

86. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): 1 shail
now call on those members who wish to speak in

explanation of their votes.

87. Sir Colin CROWE (United Kingdom): I listened with
great attention to the speech of the Foreign Minister of
Senegal at the beginning of our debate. I should like to
express the profound sympathy of my Government and my
delegation for the tragic loss of life, injuries to persons and
damage to property that have taken place as a result of the
incident that he described. We deeply deplore the violence
that leads to such harm being done to innocent men,

women and children.

88. The debate, however, has ranged far beyond the
incidents in question and many of the speeches have been’
directed to the general issue of Portuguese policies in
Africa. The views of my delegation on Portuguese policies
in Africa are well known. They have often been stated in

the Council and in other United Nations bodies and I do

not intend to restate them on this occasion. The colonial

policies of Portugal and the United Kingdom have differed
and are different, As we have often said, we do not feel tha
the policies pursued by Portugal in its colonies are in the
best interests of either Portugal or the territories concerned,

6 See resolution 294 (1971).

89. But we are met to consider the specific complaints
made by the Government of Senegal in its representative's
letters of 27 April /§/10182], 16 June [S/10227] and
6 July 1971 [5/10251/, and subsequently we are asked to
consider and condemn the series of incidents itemized in
the report of the Ad Hoc Working Group of Experts
contained in document E/CN.4/1050 and Corr.}. It is
difficult to form a clear judgement on the basis of the
reports that are before us in respect of many of these
incidents. When the Council met in December 1969 to
consider complaints against Portugal brought by the representative of Senegal, the Government of Portugal did not
deny them, and it was for this reason, amongst others, that
we felt able to support resolution 273 (1969). But this is
not the case here. The resolution we have considered asks
us, in its second operative paragraph, to allocate responsibility for the incidents catalogued in the documents to
which I have just referred, although the responsibility for
them was denied by the representative of Portugal in a
letter dated 8 March 1971 to the Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights contained in document E/CN.4/
1064. There are thus conflicting statements about what
happened. There has been no investigation by or under the
authority of this Council, and there exists ground for doubt
as to what really occurred. In these circumstances, operative paragraph 2 and some other paragraphs of the resolution seemed to my delegation to go too far in making a
condemnation, and we therefore abstained.

90. There is an important general point at issuc here, My
Foreign Secretary made it quite clear when he spoke in this
Council at the 1555th meeting last October that there is
too often a tendency in the Security Council to indulge in
condemnation of a country or a particular act before it has
been possible to establish the truth of what has been
alleged. Too often, emotion, however genuine and deeply
felt, in relation to a particular line of policy is permitted to
cloud the attitude of the Council and to push us into
judgements for which we really do not have the basis in
fact. Governments, no less than people, should not be
assumed to be guilty until they have proved their innocence. This is a tendency that we must safeguard ourselves
against, and it is important that we should resist it as far as
we can.

91. In line with this attitude, my delegation considers the
proposal in operative paragraph 4 constructive, but for the
reasons [ have given, the condemnation in paragraph 2 and
implications of some other paragraphs were not justified,
and we felt constrained to abstain,

92. Before I close, however, I must make one further
point. A number of speakers have seen fit to make
accusations against NATO and its members and have made
accusations about the part allegedly played by NATO in
support of Portuguese policies in Africa. My delegation has
rejected such allegations before, and I do so again. I said
last year to the Council, and 1 repeat again, that NATO is a
defensive alliance to preserve the freedom and independence of the countries that belong to the alliance within the
NATC area, which does not include any part of the African
continent; NATO has no responsibility for the defence
outside its area of the various territories of any of its
members, it has no responsibility for the defence of

Portuguese overseas territories; NATO, as such, does not
supply arms or military aid to Portugal; any arms supplied
to Portugal are on a bilateral basis, As regards the United
Kingdom, for which alone I can speak, no arms or military
equipment have been supplied by us for use in Portuguese
overseas territories since the adoption of Security Council
resolution 180 (1963) of 31 July 1963. In spite of the
accusations which are often made, no evidence has ever
been furnished that arms supplied to Portugal by the
United Kingdom in recent years are being used against
African territories.

93. Mr. LONGERSTAEY (Belgium) (interpretation from
French): My delegation voted in favour of the resolution
contained in document S/10266, We did so because we are
in favour of sending a mission of inquiry of the Security
Council to enlighten us fully on all the elements adduced in
our debate by the parties concerned, however, we would

"have preferred another wording for operative paragraph 2.

My delegation’s vote does not, of course, prejudge the
findings of the mission of inquiry to be designated.

94, The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): 1 call
on the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal.

95. Mr. GAYE (Senegal) interpretation from French):
Mr. President, on behalf of my Government, I should like
to tell you how moved I have been by the reaction to the
acts of aggression and violence of which my country has
been a victim since 1963 that was evinced in the statements
of all delegations around the table.

96. It is because we have faith in the mission of the United
Nations that my Government addressed itself to the
Security Council, which has ptimary responsibility for the
maintenance of order and international security, The
Security Council also has as one of its responsibilities the
prevention and, if necessary, the repulsion of any acts of
aggression committed by Members of the Organization
against other Members. But our aim when we brought the
matter to the Security Council was less the repulsion of the
acts of aggression than the immediate and total halting of

those acts of aggression,

97. It is true that my Government would have wanted to
see the Security Council adopt more decisive measures
against a country which did not see fit to be represented in
the Security Council-but the Security Council will judge
the courtesy of such conduct, My Government wishes most
sincerely to thank all the delegations which have contributed their support and shown their friendship and sympa-

"thy towards my country, both around this table and

elsewhere. I wish to assure the members of the Council that
the Senegalese authorities will offer the special mission to
be dispatched all available facilities to assist it in carrying

out its task.

98. Once again, on behalf of the Government of Senegal, I
wish to express our thanks to the members of the Council,

and especially to you, Mr, President,

99. Mr. MALIK (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
(translated from Russian): For the record, I should like to
state on behalf of the Soviet delegation that I cannot share
the views expressed here concerning the blamelessness of
NATO.

100. The Soviet delegation was the first member of the
Security Council to speak and it drew attention to the fact
that Africa has unmasked and exposed Portugal, a member
of NATO, in its aggressive activities. We all know that
NATO was established as an aggressive spearhead directed
against the Soviet Union. The late Sir Winston Churchill
played an extremely important-and negative—part in the
establishment of NATO. I have already had occasion,
speaking here in the Council, to describe my personal
conversation with Sir Winston Churchill in 1953, when he
explained why he had sought to set the United States of
America against the Soviet Union and to depict the
situation in the way which suited him. For a quarter of a
century the Western world has been living under the
impression given by Churchill's Fulton speech. For a
quarter of a century the peoples of the West and the East
have been spending thousands and thousands of millions on
militarism, on the arms race,

101. The establishment of NATO has forced the socialist
camp to set up its own defensive alliance, the Warsaw Pact.
As a result, the world has spent over 1 million million
dollars on the arms race; these funds have been thrown to
the winds, in pursuance of the policy of the rulers of the
Western world. To justify NATO as a defensive alliance at
this stage is strange, to say the least.

102. The leaders of the Soviet Union proposed at the most
recent meeting of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
that both these alliances, NATO and the Warsaw Pact,

10

should be abolished, but we have as yet had no response
from the Western side to this proposal. We believe,
however, that the people of the world support this
proposal. The sooner these military blocs are abolished, the
better it will be for the cause of peace and for the peoples
of the whole world. The millions and millions of dollars
spent on the arms race as the result of this policy will then
be diverted towards constructive, productive purposes,
towards providing assistance to nations which need such
resources to accelerate their development,

103. The Soviet delegation thought it necessary to make
this comment at today’s meeting.

104. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from French): The
meeting of the Security Council is now coming to an end.
As President, 1 should like to thank all the delegations
present for the assistance they gave me in securing the
successful conclusion of our work. In particular, I should
like to thank the sponsors of the resolution and .the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal for their spirit of

co-operation,

105. In accordance with the resolution which has just
been adopted, as President of the Security Council I intend
to hold consultations as soon as possible with the Secretary-General and the members of the Council with regard to
the establishment of the special mission that it has been
decided to create. 1 hope to be able to communicate to the
Council members at the beginning of next week the

decisions reached on this subject.

The meeting rose at 6.25 p.m.

Litho in United Nations, New York

Price:$U.8. 0.50 (or equivalent In other currencies)

82035—~July 1973-2,050

Voting Summary
Yes: 013 | No: | Abstentions: 002 | Non-Voting: | Total voting membership:
Y ARGENTINA
Y BELGIUM
Y BURUNDI
Y CHINA
Y FRANCE
Y ITALY
Y JAPAN
Y NICARAGUA
Y POLAND
Y SIERRA LEONE
Y SOMALIA
Y SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC
Y USSR
A UNITED KINGDOM
A UNITED STATES