50.	 Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to express my most sincere congratulations to you on your highly deserved election to preside over the deliberations of the twenty-sixth session of this august Assembly. You have given much of your time to the work of the United Nations, especially when you served as chairman of your country's delegation to the regular sessions of the United Nations General Assembly from 1966 to 1970 and as special envoy of your President to the commemorative twenty-fifth session of the General Assembly. Sir, the remarkable skill you have displayed as a negotiator, especially in difficult situations, attests to your expert mediating capability. We are confident that the work of the Assembly will progress with much expertise during your tenure of office.
51.	My delegation also wishes to record its deep appreciation of the excellent leadership given by the outgoing President, Edvard Hambro of Norway, during the historic twenty-fifth session of the Assembly and throughout the year that has just elapsed.
52.	To be topical, may I also take this opportunity of recording my Government's sincere appreciation of the sterling services rendered by Mr. Ralph J. Bunche, Under-Secretary for Special Political Affairs, whose retirement on health grounds has just been announced. We fondly remember his historic visits to Africa in the 1950s and we testify to his devotion to the cause of international peace since the founding of this Organization. My delegation prays for his speedy return to perfect health and for his happy retirement.
53.	For my part, it gives me particular pleasure to come here this year as leader of the first delegation to arrive from Sierra Leone since it matured into a Republic on 19 April 1971.
54.	Our sincere congratulations go to the Governments and peoples of Bhutan, Bahrain and Qatar, whose delegations are now seated among us and from whose wisdom we hope to benefit in the work of the various committees of the Organization. We are proud to have recommended their admission to the General Assembly in the first place, and to have voted in their favor when the matter was decided in this august body a few days ago [1934th meeting).
55.	One of the uncertainties now hovering over the future of this Organization is the appointment of a successor to the Secretary-General, who has indicated his intention to retire after completing, at the end of this year, a most illustrious term of office.
56.	Secretary-General U Thant has given towering leader-ship, greater in scale and longer in time than any of his predecessors. He has occasionally suffered frustrations because of the intransigence of disputing parties. In spite of all this, however, he has steered the Organization along a course which has brought peace, prosperity and progress to, millions of people all over the world. My Government wishes to thank this very great international civil servant for the successful endeavors in which he has been involved over the past 10 years, and we should like to give him our best wishes for his future which, we hope, will always be linked in some way with this Organization in its struggle for international peace and security.
57 Perhaps our greatest tribute to this distinguished international statesman after a decade of dedicated service to humanity is to pause and re-examine with critical determination the major problems bedeviling our Organization, so that from his successful record we may derive new inspiration to seek satisfactory and lasting solutions.
58.	In this process of re-examination we cannot adequately review all the problems confronting us. Nor do we need to concentrate, at this crucial period of our Organization's history, on problems that are narrowly regional, Our concern is the larger interest of all mankind, and it is against this background that I wish to make brief comments on the international scene and the role of this Organization within it.
59.	Perhaps one of the most serious threats to the success, if not the very existence, of the United Nations is to be found in the Middle East conflict. The struggle between the Arabs and the Jews has rocked the Organization to its very foundations and given much cause for alarm. As my Government sees it. solutions must be found to five interrelated problems before this conflict can be resolved.
60.	The first problem is what we believe to be the genuine fear by Israel that its Arab neighbors want to throw the last Israeli into the sea and to obliterate any trace of the existence of the territory of Israel from the map of the Middle East. Secondly, there is the equally genuine fear by the surrounding Arab countries that Israel is only interested in pursuing an expansionist policy which will ultimately threaten the very foundations of Arab existence. Thirdly, there is the grave question of the resettlement of the Palestinian Arabs. Fourthly, there has recently arisen the complaint about the Judaizing of Jerusalem. And finally, it is of paramount importance to secure the joint co-operation of both parties to the conflict if a lasting solution is to be found within the framework of Security Council resolution 242 (1967).
61.	I need not elaborate upon the first three problems, namely, the fear expressed by the Israelis, the equally genuine fear of the Arab States, and also the resettlement of the Palestinian Arabs. The fourth point concerning the Judaizing of Jerusalem calls for some elaboration, since it is so topical.
62.	Jerusalem has been for quite a long time now the center of important religious faiths of the world, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam. To the Jews, Jerusalem is the city of promise. Judaism, however, is practiced by only a very limited sector of the world's population. To the Christians, Jerusalem embodies the very heart of their religion. Christians are found in practically every quarter of the globe, and the city of Jerusalem houses a number of their Holy Places. In like manner, Islam, which is practiced by the vast majority of southern Asians, Africans, the inhabitants of the Arab world, and also by some Europeans and Americans, sees in Jerusalem the center of much of its holiness. Jerusalem, therefore, has an international significance which practically no other city of the world can ever have.
63.	Since the six-day war and the occupation of the whole of Jerusalem by Israel, the world has witnessed the Judaizing of Jerusalem. It is reported that the serenity of the Holy City is fast losing its charm by unrestricted measures to urbanize and populate the hitherto sacred areas with Jewish settlements. This process, in the opinion of my
Government, is taking the Arab-Israeli conflict further afield to affect the conscience of many people practicing the international religions of Islam and Christianity.
64.	This Judaizing process must be controlled and even brought to an end if the entire Christian and Moslem world is not to rise up and proclaim a holy war against Israel. For the preservation" of international peace it is therefore important that Israel should immediately desist from this Judaizing process and restore to the Holy City of Jerusalem its peaceful and sacred surroundings and above all its sanctified charm, which should not be marred by tall residential Jewish edifices, factories and other constructions completely alien to religious worship and the sacred character of the Holy City. It is our hope that Israel will agree to make Jerusalem not only accessible to adherents of all three faiths but also expressive of the atmosphere built up by Christianity and Islam over the centuries.
65.	As regards the fifth basic problem-that is to say fostering joint co-operation by the two parties concerned to work out a programme for lasting peace-the Government of Sierra Leone is conscious of the part being played by various institutions to assist the parties to reach an amicable settlement. The Secretary-General appointed the 'Jarring mission to get the parties to talk to one another. After the near stalemate of a year ago, when Israel withdrew from the talks, hopes were restored in January of this year with their resumption.
66.	The great Powers have themselves-singly sometimes, but often jointly-tried to devise or even to impose a settlement. More recently, the Organization of African Unity added its own initiative by the appointment of a 10-man mission to mediate between the parties to the dispute.
67.	All these efforts do not seem to have borne much fruit, Israel has persistently refused to withdraw from the occupied territories as required by resolution 242 (1967), and neither the United Nations nor the great Powers have been able to shift it from that position.
68.	It is the view of my Government that Israel should make a move. Sierra Leone cannot endorse the acquisition of territory by war during this latter half of the twentieth century. Israel should, therefore, agree in principle-I repeat, in principle-to remove or withdraw to the boundaries that were defined by the mandate.
69.	It will then be up to Israel to utilize the Jarring mission to work out whatever modifications of its borders it considers necessary because of recent experience so as to ensure its future defense, particularly by suggesting adjustments in the Gaza Strip, by putting forward proposals about the future of Jerusalem, by securing essential guarantees for access to the Gulf of Aqaba from the port of Elath, and by pressing for the carving-up of possible neutral territory in the Sinai peninsula. It is even understandable that it may want some assurance that Sharm El Sheikh will not again be used to close the Gulf of Aqaba. But these are details to be negotiated with its Arab neighbors and with the assistance of the Jarring mission, and they ought not to stand in the way of Israel accepting the principle of withdrawing from all occupied territories.
70.	At the same time the Sierra Leone Government would counsel that the surrounding Arab States should continue to exercise patience and understanding. We welcome the formation of the new Federation of Arab Republics. We note that one of its principles is unanimity in matters pertaining to defense. My Government fervently hopes that the newly formed Federation will actively continue the policy of seeking a non-military solution rather than putting an end to all hopes of solving the conflict by preparing for an imminent and inevitable battle. For the past three years-or even longer-the entire world has been witnessing the many concessions the Arab States have been making to reach a solution. Thanks to their continued patience and understanding the cease-fire has been in existence for over a year now. It is the fervent prayer of the Sierra Leone delegation that that statesmanlike patience will continue to be exercised until a just and lasting solution is achieved.
71.	We are particularly happy to record that the Organization or African Unity has tried to assist in finding a solution by recently adopting a resolution to set up a goodwill committee to act as mediators. A special 10-man mediation team of eminent Presidents of African States has accordingly been formed and has started upon its arduous but inspiring task by designating four African Heads of State to act on behalf of the members.
72.	My Government looks forward to the support of that mediation team by the United Nations General Assembly. It is, indeed, our belief that this small beginning might be expanded into a United Nations team to embrace the entire United Nations family. We shall accordingly propose that during this twenty-sixth session of the General Assembly we may decide to establish a top-level United Nations mediation commission of, say, 16 eminent Heads of State to contact the parties to this dispute and see how best they can bring them to the round table to settle their differences. Without in any way going at this stage into the details of this proposal, we hope that we shall be able to find, say, four Asian leaders, two East European leaders, two West European leaders, and four American and Latin American leaders none of them coming from the great Powers to join forces with the four African leaders already selected, all 16 of whom may be commissioned to mediate this stubborn problem with a view to bringing the parties together at the round table and so make the work of the Jarring mission fruitful and successful without any further delay.
73.	It is, of course, essential not only to create conditions for peace but also to bring about peace and make it lasting. It is therefore the hope of my delegation that the General Assembly will give urgent consideration to constituting another peace-keeping force, to be deployed along the explosive sections of the Arab-Israeli borders for a minimum period, on the condition that no single State of the area can unilaterally have the right to request its partial or total withdrawal during the predetermined period. This peace-keeping force should be removed only if all I repeat, all the parties agree its presence is no longer necessary in any particular area.
74.	I now turn my attention to the doctrine of the universality of the United Nations, a doctrine which has gained much in importance during the term of the present Secretary-General, There are signs that most of the icy obstacles to the full implementation of this doctrine are now thawing. It is the hope of my delegation that we shall this year give concrete expression to this doctrine by restoring to the 850 million inhabitants of the People's Republic of China their lawful rights in the several organs of the United Nations.
75.	My delegation has over the years advocated the right of the People's Republic of China to membership in this world Organization. We have stressed the importance of having within its fold a country which represents a quarter of the earth's population and which is also a nuclear Power. Time and again we have stressed the injustice and lack of political realism which keeps 850 million people from being represented in this body. We have drawn attention to the fact that Peking's absence from the United Nations has severely weakened the Organization's ability to grapple realistically with the major problems of the world. We welcome the change of heart on the part of many important and influential Members of this Assembly who have realized the injustice of their policy vis-a-vis the People's Republic of China over the years and are not afraid to set the record straight. As a matter of fact, we heartily congratulate them for their courage in correcting this narrow, partisan and discriminatory policy which has existed for 21 long years.
76.	In terminating the exile of the People's Republic of China, we must avoid creating further Chinese problems, such as two Chinas or one China and one Taiwan, at this stage. For several years, the voting results in the General Assembly have demonstrated that our Members have endorsed the principle of one China. The regime of the Republic of China in Taiwan has, at the same time, always alleged that it is the true Government representing the entire Chinese people. Similarly, the Government of the People's Republic of China has maintained that it represents the whole of China, Taiwan being merely a province of China. Neither party appears to have changed its policy regarding one, and only one, China.
77.	The policy of the Sierra Leone Government, then, can be only that of recognizing one, and only one, China, while at the same time realizing that two separate Governments have been competing for sovereignty over that one China. We, as a non-aligned nation, consider that we would be meddling in the internal affairs of the single friendly country of China if we were to start promulgating or advocating that there were two Chinas, one on the vast mainland, and the other in the territory of Taiwan. And. unless one or both competing Chinese Governments shift their position from one China to two Chinas, we fail to see on what justification the outside world, or the United Nations for that matter, can arrogate to itself the right to impose the doctrine of two Chinas. After much consideration, it is now the policy of the Sierra Leone' Government to recognize the Government of the People's Republic of China as the de jure Government of the whole of China, and we therefore advocate that the Government in Peking should take the Chinese seat in the General Assembly, in the Security Council and in every other relevant organ of the United Nations.
8
78.	The Government of the Republic of China has for the past 25 years been permitted to sit in this Organization as the Government of China, Now, the view of the Sierra Leone Government-and, we trust, of the great majority of the Members here-is that the Government of the Republic of China no longer has the right to be admitted here as the de jure Government of the entire country known as China, a country for which certain express provisions are laid down in the Charter of the United Nations. Under such circumstances, it is OUT hope that the representatives of the Government of the Republic of China will agree to retire with the same grace with which they have hitherto been permitted to attend previous sessions. And if they refuse to retire peacefully, then they may have to be expelled.
79.	The doctrine of universality does not concern only China at this moment of United Nations history. A related and similar problem which has for quite a long time now exercised the United Nations is the problem of the divided States of Germany, Korea and Viet-Nam. The hope has always been entertained by my Government that these divided States would become unified,
80.	In the case of Germany, the problem is the t it was divided as a result of the last world war. However, we from the developing countries are satisfied that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Government of the German Democratic Republic as well have pursued internationally acceptable policies relating to peace, progress and the development of the world community. We feel that the isolation of Germany from this international forum ought to be brought to an end.
81.	We have followed with keen interest the progress of the four-Power talks on Berlin which commenced on 26 March 1970. We welcome the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin of 3 September 1971, and we wish to commend the efforts of the Powers concerned, particularly the spirit of give-and-take exhibited during the discussions without which the aforementioned agreement would not have been possible. This agreement marks a welcome beginning, and it should be the hope of all of us that the current discussions between the two German States relative to implementation of the principles in the agreement will be successfully completed.
82.	One needs hardly restate that a solution of the Berlin question is necessary, not only for the German people but also for all mankind, as this would greatly contribute to the achievement of European security and world peace. With the evident entente in East-West relations, my Government hopes that all obstacles in the way of the admission of representatives of the people of Germany to this world assembly will soon be removed so that we can welcome them to their rightful places.
83.	As regards the great country of Korea, I must also emphasize that my Government wishes to see the peaceful reunification of both parts within the shortest possible period of time. The war in Korea has long come to an end and we share the view that all foreign troops must be removed from the country, so that the reunification process can be worked out by the Koreans themselves at official levels just as welcome social exchanges are now taking place at the Red Cross level.
84.	My Government is happy to note that, after several years of armed conflict in the Indo-China peninsula at the cost of the lives of hundreds of thousands of people- combatants and civilians alike-enlightened world opinion has now reached the conclusion that the war cannot be won without a resort to massive doses of nuclear arms. This realization has led to a deescalation on the part of the war efforts of the foreign Power mainly involved. We have advocated a cessation of the bombing of North Viet-Nam, which has caused so much suffering and deprivation to an entire generation in that land, and we have stressed the usefulness of negotiations. Therefore the cessation of bombing by the United States and the resumption of talks in Paris, coupled with the gradual withdrawal of contingents of foreign troops from Viet-Nam, offered the right type of atmosphere for serious parley.
85.	We are, however, disturbed at the lack of progress being made at the Paris peace talks, and we urge all parties concerned to approach the problems involved with a fresh outlook of reasonableness and goodwill. Above all, we urge that there should take place as speedily as possible a complete exchange and repatriation of all prisoners of war captured by either side.
86.	But little will be achieved that is lasting unless the settlement takes into account the political realities of the situation. It must give due consideration to the close kinship between North and South Viet-Nam, the community of language, civilization and interest that exists. Unless such a step is taken and carried out, peace in that area will be difficult to come by.
87.	But while hopes are raised that at last the war is being deescalated in Viet-Nam and that the next 12 months will see the gradual reduction of United States military personnel and combatants in that area, a sudden turn of events seems to give the lie to these hopes and to raise serious doubts in the minds of many that the United States seriously intends to withdraw its presence completely.
88.	Under the pretext of reducing or virtually eliminating all threats to the safety of United States combatants, and in order to help speed up their withdrawal, the United States Government has thought fit to extend the conflict to Laos and Cambodia two neighboring countries which it accused of providing sanctuaries for the Viet-Cong and North Viet-Nam regulars. Parts of Laos are being subjected to intensive bombing and gun-fire which take a toll of the lives of innocent men, women and children and sometimes animal and vegetable life without discrimination. We consider it unjustifiable that the Kingdom of Laos should be denied the actual exercise of sovereignty over parts of its own territory. What is true of Laos is also true of Cambodia, where foreign intervention is causing irreparable loss to life and property, and basic human rights and respect for human life and dignity are being trampled underfoot by all sides. It is our hope that good sense will prevail, and that the United States Government will leave the people of those countries to pursue life in the way they think best.
89.	No examination of present-day world problems will be complete if we do not express our concern about the possible escalation of the current India-Pakistan tension in the Bengal region and the constant flow of refugees who continue to flee from East Pakistan into India.
90.	We congratulate the Secretary-General for the masterly way in which he has faced up to the realities of the situ? "on. His memorandum of 20 August to the President of the Security Council provides that body with a balanced assessment of the situation. His quiet diplomatic move and his great concern for the sufferings of the refugees resulted in increased international assistance and, within the Secretariat, in the' setting up of the Office for Inter-Agency Affairs as a focal point.
91.	There have been conflicting reports as to the root- cause of the present tension. Our friends in India blame it on repressive policies within Pakistan, whereas our friends in Pakistan insist that the trouble has continued because India has been encouraging dissident elements in East Bengal.
92.	It seems to us that there is a definite need for a United Nations observer goodwill mission to be sent to the area to find out the facts and inform this Organization about what is really happening, since this event is of a scale worse and more disastrous than anything which has occurred in that area since the founding of the United Nations. There is a definite danger of a violent eruption which could be averted by such an observer goodwill mission. Here we believe that the way out may be found by the Secretary-General's utilizing the joint efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. My delegation would commend both Commissions for the admirable services they are rendering in the cause of humanity.
93.	I have indicated that I do not intend to be parochial. I shall, however, mention some of the endemic political ills of Africa, which are all well known.
94.	On the question of decolonization, we had hoped that the change of Government in Portugal would have led to a reappraisal of that country's policies of colonialism concerning Guinea (Bissau), Cabinda, Mozambique and Angola. It is with regret that we observe, however, that entrenched interests in Portugal have prevented the taking of the steps necessary for the realization of African independence in those Territories. We condemn in the strongest possible terms the military attacks being made by Portugal against our neighbors in the Republics of Guinea and Senegal. We cannot be passive onlookers while Portugal uses its association with certain Western nations as a cloak to continue to live in the glories of art imperialistic past, when other nations in Western Europe have long ago abandoned this negative policy,
95.	We continue to be concerned by the help being given to Portugal and to South Africa by their NATO allies in supplying arms which are used for the subjugation of Africans and for making unprovoked attacks on African States. Although members of NATO have denied this, yet it is known that arms given for the defense of Western Europe are being used in Africa under the foolish and untenable idea of the Portuguese Government that this is an extension of the defense of metropolitan Portugal and Western Europe against world communism.
96.	We have noted with keen interest the statement of the Government of West Germany in frankly admitting that some of the arms supplied for NATO defense have been used for wrongful purposes in southern Africa. We look forward to the same frankness from other members of the Western European alliance, and hope that they will take immediate steps to halt the flow of military aid to Portugal.
97.	Rhodesia has reared its head again in a new and ugly guise, and the initiative of the Government of the United Kingdom in reopening talks with the illegal regime in Rhodesia has some rather disquieting undertones, particularly .as the United Kingdom is now seeking admission to the European Economic Community. There should be no excuse whatever, in our opinion, for the lifting of sanctions against Rhodesia until self-government by majority rule has been established in that territory.
98.	In Namibia we are faced with a new type of colonialism in which a people is held in subjection not only in defiance of the concepts of human justice and equality, but also in flagrant breach of international law.
99.	My Government has noted with great interest the decision reached by the International Court of Justice on the question of Namibia.  We have observed some dissenting views, but it would be less than just if the Republic of South Africa and its friends do not take immediate steps to implement the handing over of Namibia to the United Nations for its rapid preparation for independence. The British have done this in the case of the Cameroons and Tanzania; the French have done so in the case of Togoland and the Cameroons; the Italians in the case of Libya and Somalia; and the Belgians in that of Rwanda and Burundi. The proximity of Namibia to South Africa does not mean that it should fall into a separate category. It means rather that the South African Government should long ago have transformed the Mandated Territory into an independent, friendly and allied Government, rather than keeping it indefinitely under a ruthless dictatorship.
100.	By maintaining an illegal presence in Namibia in defiance of the decision of the General Assembly, by holding on to that Territory in complete disregard of the decision of the International Court of Justice, by dismembering the territory into homelands, by introducing apartheid into territory that is truly international and by refusing to co-operate with the United Nations Council for Namibia, the South African regime has not only proved itself unworthy of all trust, but has clearly called into question its own qualification for continued membership in the United Nations. We can only renew the constant annual appeal to the friends of South Africa to co-operate with the rest of the enlightened world by isolating South Africa economically, politically and culturally as a means of bringing it to its senses. We further appeal to those "friends" to ensure an immediate and an effective United Nations presence in Namibia.
101.	My delegation wishes to stress that there can be no solution of the problem of Namibia unless an effective
United Nations presence is assured. We are convinced that this is the essential next step and that it cannot be taken without the joint effort and co-operation of the permanent members of the Security Council. We therefore appeal to them to close their ranks on this issue, to respect the recent advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, to facilitate the inception of United Nations administration of the Territory, and thus help to bring the benefits of independence to the Namibians in the shortest possible time.
102.	If the United Nations wants to administer the Territory effectively this cannot be done by remote control. The United Nations must be present as administrator either through some agency it has created or through an administering authority it has appointed, so that the vacuum created by South Africa's departure is immediately filled.
103.	The information available to my delegation reveals that certain of the permanent members of the Security Council already have sizable investments in Namibia. It is only right that those investments should be protected, particularly if the Governments concerned respect the authority of the United Nations and are willing to co-operate with this Organization.
104.	My delegation will therefore propose that the Security Council should take urgent steps to ensure the appointment of an administering authority, under the direction of the United Nations Council for Namibia, to take over immediately from the South African Government. This administering authority would, in my delegation's opinion, be much more effective if it includes all the permanent members of the Security Council.
105.	The envisaged termination of the South African administration should involve the simultaneous withdrawal of South African troops and police officers from the Territory. In order to safeguard good administration, it is essential to consider the creation of a United Nations police force to take over from the South Africans, which would be directly responsible to the administering authority. It is our belief that serious attention should now be given to the creation of such a United Nations police force with the assistance of the Member States of the international community. Countries which might render such assistance would no doubt include the permanent members of the Security Council, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Egypt, Ethiopia, the United Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Nigeria, the Republic of Guinea, the Central African Republic, India, Japan, Mexico, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, and Canada.
106.	My delegation wishes to stress that we have no complaint against individual South Africans residing in Namibia, only against the racist regime of South Africa. Accordingly, my Government does not envisage that the transfer of the administration of Namibia from South Africa to the United Nations should involve any expulsion of individual South Africans, whether they are in business, in agriculture, in railways, in trade and industry, in mines or even in their own individual enterprises. Individual South Africans can remain and contribute to the development and welfare of the Territory as long as they accept and respect the over-all responsibility of the United Nations administration.
107.	The United Nations administration cannot operate in a vacuum. It will be essential for it to be supplied with the funds to ensure efficient administration. My delegation is satisfied that the economic resources of Namibia, if properly utilized and managed, can provide sufficient revenues for the maintenance of this administration until it is, in the near, future, transferred to the Namibians. However, certain development projects ought to be undertaken quickly such as the infra-structural improvement of the areas populated by the indigenous Namibians, as well as the implementation of policies aimed at developing the political consciousness of the Namibians. For the attainment of these objectives, it will be necessary to provide adequate funds which can also be utilized in meeting to some extent the expenses of the United Nations administration. My delegation appeals, therefore, for the provision by the United Nations of adequate funds for Namibia from the general budget.
108.	The ultimate objective of this exercise must be to prepare the peoples of Namibia for nationhood within the shortest possible period of time. To this end it is our belief that free elections should be undertaken in the Territory within a period of, say, one year after the United Nations assumes administrative control. For such elections to be really free, basic human and democratic rights should be guaranteed. All political prisoners banished from Namibia and now serving sentences in Robben Island and other prison fortifications in South Africa should be released and sent back to their country. All political leaders now in exile from Namibia should be encouraged, if they so desire, to return home. The people of Namibia should be enabled freely to cultivate their political consciousness along democratic lines as they themselves think fit. There should be a period of political tutelage so as to allow the population to settle down and forget the repressive era of South African rule. It is the firm belief of my delegation that the Namibians will, under such conditions, freely develop and express their own ideas about self-determination.
109.	On the question of apartheid my delegation wishes to emphasize that the question of race relations is one which concerns almost every State Member of this Assembly, whether in the form of outright racial discrimination or discrimination against certain groups. It has, however, reached the point in South Africa where the official Government of that country has adopted it as an active measure of policy. We cannot reconcile the expressed desire of the Prime Minister of South Africa to forge alliances with African Member States with the inhumane and brutal methods of torture and repression being used within his own country against the non-white population. We know through our contacts that there are wise and progressive black leaders in South' Africa who are willing to enter into dialog with its Government. "Charity begins at home", and we should see evidence of this in South Africa before those of us from outside engage in any meaningful negotiations or dialog with the minority Government of that country.
110.	No discussion of the South African problem would be complete without a reference to the policy of the sale of arms to that country by some major Powers in the United Nations. By its own actions, South Africa has already forfeited all claims to international trust and respect.
Consequently, in spite of whatever assurances may be given by that Government, there is every reason to conclude that all arms supplied to such a regime will, directly or indirectly, contribute to the strengthening of apartheid and encourage that regime to embark on further repressive and military adventures against the gallant fighters of the liberation movement.
111.	The maintenance of international peace and security is a grave problem confronting the world at this time of history.
112.	When the Assembly in 1969 decided to proclaim the 1970s as the Disarmament Decade [resolution 2602 E (XXIV)J, my delegation gave the move its whole-hearted support. It did so in the hope that the grave dangers of the arms race, both nuclear and conventional, which have continued to afflict our world, would be checked, with the added benefit that the vast amount of money badly needed for development purposes would be released from arms purchases.
113.	Some progress, however modest, has been made in the field of nuclear disarmament. Additional progress has also been made in declaring Latin America a nuclear-free zone by the adoption of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America.  We note with relief the progress made in the field of controlling the production and use of chemical and biological weapons, and note that a growing number of nations have ratified or ? seeded to the Protocol.  We likewise welcome the progress that is being made by NATO and Warsaw Pact groups to eliminate the unnecessary arms burden in Europe, and are encouraged by the decision taken by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America to concentrate this year in the bilateral Strategic Arms Limitation Talks on effecting an agreement for the limitation of the deployment of anti-ballistic missiles. We also support the proposal for a world disarmament conference at the level of the United Nations. After all, a nuclear holocaust would affect not only the super-Powers but also all the other nations of the world. We therefore advocate that the super-Powers should recognize that the peace-loving nations of the earth have an equally potent interest in disarmament and peace research.
114.	Finally, having reaffirmed the Sierra Leone Government's faith in the capability of the United Nations to handle many problems in the political sphere, I wish to speak in similar terms about our hopes for economic and social development.
115.	My Government warmly endorses the proposal to establish an international university,  and has suggested that consideration should be given to setting up such an institution at the graduate level. Our reasons for this are principally to prevent a duplication of existing institutions and, at the same time, to be able to study in depth problems which are capable of being solved only at the international level-especially those of the environment, development and population expansion. Such an institution, if carefully planned and administered, with campuses in a number of countries, could become "centers of excellence" and help to prevent problems of "brain drain" so common in many of our developing nations.
116.	In the wider context of world trade, the Sierra Leone Government is profoundly disturbed by the wide gulf still existing between the developed and the developing worlds. While it must be our aim to reduce that gulf and to integrate all the economies of the world into a functioning system of world production and trade in which all can play their full part, the trade of developing countries continues to fall as a proportion of world trade. This is not a subject on which we can complacently let events take their course; so it is the view of my Government that this endemic problem should receive the fullest attention. Ways and means should be investigated to formulate effective policies end reach meaningful solutions.
117.	As a result of the somewhat disappointing achievements of the First United Nations Development Decade, much thought has been given during the last few years to ways in which the United Nations development system can be made more effective. In this connexion, we welcome the genesis of the new country programming system on which future technical aid will be based. We all must hope that the objectives of country programming will be achieved. Let us be resolved to co-operate to the full with the United Nations system and with bilateral donors to obtain the greatest benefits from the aid provided.
118.	However, the heart of the matter, as far as my Government is concerned, is the amount of the aid which is available for the developing countries. It is our hope that the target set for the aid contribution of the donor countries of 1 per cent of their gross national product will soon be achieved. Except for one country whose contribution to the third world in 1969 was at the level of 1.24 per cent of the gross national product, many of the developed countries appear to be dragging their feet over what we expect to be their reasonable contributions. As a result, the amount of aid available to the developing countries is manifestly inadequate.
119.	We urge the developed countries to make realistic aid contributions to the developing countries rather than waste the resources of the earth on expensive space explorations and senseless armaments build-up. According to figures at our disposal, it was estimated in 1969 that the advanced countries spent $US178 billion on armaments, which was about 14 times what they contributed in aid. The figures for 1970 are not available to my delegation, but we doubt whether there has been any significant change in the pattern.
120.	The cost of space exploration is universally admitted to be unreasonably very high. The cost to the United States of America, for instance, of sending astronauts to the moon for a single mission is higher than the national incomes of most developing countries. Although it is hoped that space exploration may in the long run yield substantial dividends to scientific development, the general view still holds that too much money is being unprofitably spent on space exploration. Part of this money could well be spent on more aid to developing countries which are in dire need of development funds to implement their several development programs.
121.	As a result of past experience, we would suggest that, during the Second United Nations Development Decade, special attention should be given to the expansion of the industrialization of the developing countries, and the promotion and diversification of their export trade, particularly in manufactured and semi-manufactured goods.
122.	We therefore welcome the continued important role of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development [UNCTADJ and we hope that it will increase its efforts in promoting the international trade of the developing countries. May I then take this opportunity to appeal to the developed members of UNCTAD to focus their attention on the continuing need of the developing countries to expand their several economies, to expand their international trade, and to obtain the desired support necessary for the achievement of self-sustained growth.
123.	Very closely connected with trade is the universally recognized insufficiency of international liquidity. Our feeling is that in the past there has been too much emphasis on the technicalities of the form of liquidity, and too little on monetary discipline, and this seems to be substantiated by the recent developments affecting the United States dollar. No mat' r how intelligently a monetary system is designed, its efficacy cannot replace sound monetary policies.
124.	We believe that discipline should start at home, by setting our own houses in order. We therefore feel that Member countries should, each and every one of us, try to get rid of our inflationary practices and try to improve on the balance-of-payments situation. The United States dollar, despite its present apparent instability, still remains the major currency of the world, the backbone of many monetary systems, and the very basis of international trade and payments. As things stand to date, a stable and strong dollar means a stable and strong international monetary system, and a shaky dollar means a shaky system.
125.	It is therefore the urgent and sincere desire of the Sierra Leone Government that the international community should find ways and means of rescuing the position of the United States dollar as the catalyst of world exchange, and also of reducing the consequential pressures on that currency by speculators abroad and inflationary tendencies at home.
126.	We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the instability of the United States dollar will have profound adverse effects on world trade. This can be evidenced by the efforts of the 10 major industrialized nations Europe and Japan to come to an understanding as to their own reaction to the recent United States monetary policy. It stands to reason, therefore, that if the above industrialized nations-all of which are developed countries-are scared stiff about the repercussions the United States move can have on their own currencies and trade, how much more should the developing countries be apprehensive of the adverse effects of an unstable American dollar?
127.	We do not deny the fact that it is legitimate for the major countries who play the principal part in resolving international monetary and financial problems to consider their own national interests first, but we would suggest that far-sighted solutions should only be sought which would allow full weight to be given to the overriding interest of the whole world in free and unfettered trade. It would be disastrous if short-sighted and parochial policies were adopted which were inward-looking and protectionist of the interests of any or all of the major Powers. Much more so is it iniquitous for the major Powers to utilize their economic strength, gained from past ignorance in the developing countries, to perpetuate the untenable axis of metropolis and satellite through the strategy of economic force or military might.
128.	I want to conclude by making this appeal to all the nations here represented and, indeed, to all the leaders of humanity: Let us strive indeed, but let us all strive together, towards a common ideal-a brighter and a better tomorrow in a world where our children will live in peace, will enjoy material progress, and will in their turn hand over a great cultural heritage to succeeding generations.


1.	 Mr. President, Egypt, which has with your country and your friendly people the closest ties of history and culture and £ a common struggle, is truly happy to see you assume your high post as President of the General Assembly. It is also a great pleasure for me to congratulate you on the assumption of your high office. With the outstanding qualities that you possess you will indeed guide this session to important achievements.
2.	You succeed in this high office Edvard Hambro of Norway, whose name will remain linked with the historic declarations adopted last year under his able leadership. These declarations will continue to be of great value to the United Nations order and to co-operation among States.
3.	Ten years ago the United Nations lost Dag Hammarskjold. Today, after 10 eventful years through which U Thant has guided the United Nations with unique ability and integrity, all who know the Secretary-General should rejoice in the success he has achieved and the values with which he has enriched the traditions of his office. The courageous stands which he has adopted in defense of world peace and in upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter have added to the importance of the high office of Secretary-General. The United Nations has had grave experiences during this period, and U Thant has steadfastly remained the voice of peace and reason and the defender of the Charter. We hope that these words which I speak now are not a farewell and that he will agree once more to carry the burdens and responsibilities of his post in the cause of the United Nations to which he is dedicated.
4.	On 2 September 1971 the peoples of Syria, Libya and Egypt took a historic step for unity. After a national referendum in the three States, the Federation of Arab Republics was born. This Union will no doubt increase the chances of success of the three States in their struggle to attain their aspirations and to achieve peace based on justice.
5.	Since the Asian-African Conference, held at Bandung in 1955, the People's Republic of China and Egypt have maintained diplomatic and friendly relations. Today, we are happy to see the People's Republic of China on its way to occupying its seat in the United Nations. We shall support the invitation to the People's Republic of China to assume its rightful place in the world Organization as the sole representative of China. We shall oppose any attempt to cast any doubt on this fact or to derogate from the full and legitimate rights of the People's Republic of China in accordance with the Charter.
6.	The admission of Bahrain, Bhutan, and Qatar and the imminent admission of Oman to the United Nations constitute another important victory for the principles of universality and the sovereign equality of States. The independence of Bahrain, Oman and Qatar is an important step which will undoubtedly contribute to the progress of the Arab peoples. We look forward to co-operating with the new States. We are confident that they will contribute positively to the work of the United Nations.
7.	We welcome the recent important developments in European relations, particularly their positive impact on strengthening European security and in fostering co-operation between Eastern and Western Europe. However, we note with regret that the fundamental problems of the peoples of the third world remain unresolved. These problems tend to multiply with the passage of time in both the economic and political fields. This is due particularly to the insistence on the part of certain Powers on continuing a policy of force and domination.
8.	In Africa, the colonialist and racist regimes of southern Africa are still pursuing their policies of oppression, exploitation and intimidation against the indigenous African populations. The racist Government in South Africa, the illegal regime in Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonialists in Africa have constituted among themselves a colonialist and racist alliance parallel to the racist Zionist aggression against the north of Africa, These policies brazenly defy all human values, the great tarns of history , and the destiny of our civilization. Resistance to these policies should not be confined to their victims in Africa; it is rather a collective responsibility. The international community should be asked not only to withhold aid to such regimes but also to take effective action to bring them into the fold of civilization.
9.	In Asia, it is indeed a source of deep regret to see the war in Viet-Nam being pursued despite the opposition of
world public opinion to the continuation of aggressive actions against the Viet-Namese people.
10.	We support the heroic struggle of the Viet-Namese people, which will be inscribed on glorious pages in the annals of history. We firmly support the Viet-Namese people's legitimate demands for unity, for the exercise of their right to self-determination and for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Viet-Nam. We believe that the program submitted recently by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam constitutes a reason-able basis on which to end the war in Viet-Nam and to enable the Viet-Namese people to realize their national aspirations.
11.	Egypt has followed with its heart and soul the painful events that took place in Pakistan last spring. We are confident that Pakistan will overcome this crisis in a manner that will safeguard its national unity. We appreciate the immediate efforts exerted by the Government of India to meet the situation arising from the inflow of a large number of Pakistani refugees into Indian territory. We believe it is imperative that wider international efforts be made to help the people and the Government of India cope with the enormous human burden they are now shouldering and to assist the Pakistani refugees to return to their homes.
12.	On 5 June 1967, Israel launched its aggression and occupied Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian territories. Ever since, it has followed a policy aimed at imposing its expansionist ambitions on the Arab countries. This is in pursuance of its ultimate objective of establishing a "Greater Israel" between the Nile in Egypt and the Euphrates in Iraq. Israel's insistence on territorial expansion emerged as the sole obstacle frustrating efforts to carry out resolution 242 (1967), adopted by the Security Council on 22 November 1967. It is that policy of expansion which is at present the most dangerous factor threatening peace in the Middle East. The Arab peoples are conscious of the history of Israel's expansion. The road between the first Zionist claim in 1917 to permit Jewish immigration into Palestine and Israel's insistence today on annexing Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian territories is vividly remembered by every Arab citizen.
13.	The people of Palestine were the first victims of the Zionist movement. They were evicted by force from Palestinian cities and villages. When Zionism benefited from international circumstances to which the Palestinians were not a party, a United Nations resolution partitioning Palestine [resolution 181 (II)] was adopted. Israel, how-ever, expanded beyond the boundaries established by the partition resolution. It committed unforgettable massacres against the Palestinian people and pursued its policy of expulsion by force against them. It was then that, some Arab States responded to the call to help the Palestinian people defend themselves. But the Israeli forces had already under their control a large part of the Palestinian territory beyond the boundaries established by the partition resolution. From those areas, Israel committed one aggression after another against the peoples of Palestine and the neighboring Arab States.
14. In 1956 Israel attacked Egypt and occupied the Sinai peninsula, and its then Prime Minister declared that the
Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement was "dead and buried", and that the Sinai had been annexed to Israel. This aggression did not bear fruit, because of Egypt's resistance and the firm opposition of the international community.
15.	The 1967 aggression was along the same lines and in the same pattern: aggression, occupation, expulsion of the inhabitants, and an attempt to impose a fait accompli.
16.	The 1967 war will not be Israel's last aggression if Israel succeeds in holding the spoils of this one. Success will undoubtedly tempt Israel to pursue further its expansionist schemes to create that "Greater Israel", as long as it believes that it can rely on outside support in its aggressive policies against the peoples of the area.
17.	The other side of the Zionist policy of expansion manifests itself in Israel's practices of massive expulsion of the inhabitants of the occupied territories and systematic demolition and destruction of houses, civic centers and entire villages. These are amongst the gravest of crimes and are prohibited by the Geneva Conventions. They are also in contravention of a whole series of United Nations resolutions.
18.	Resolution 298 (1971) just recently adopted by the Security Council, on 25 September 1971, which urgently called upon Israel to rescind all previous actions aimed at annexing occupied Jerusalem, was the third on that subject adopted by the Security Council. Israel has once again rejected the resolution, and did so on the very day it was adopted.
19.	In addition to those resolutions, the General Assembly has adopted 24 resolutions on the rights of the Palestinians. The Security Council, as well as the General Assembly, has adopted several other resolutions calling on Israel to allow displaced persons to return to their homes in the occupied territories. There were 13 more resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, calling upon Israel to respect the rights of the civilian inhabitants in the occupied territories in conformity with the fourth Geneva Convention.
20.	Israel has adamantly, by word and deed, rejected all these resolutions. It has continued to establish settlements in the occupied Arab territories on the debris of the Arab homes it destroyed. Last summer it launched a major aggression against the Palestinian refugees in the Gaza sector and transferred thousands of families by force from destroyed refugee camps to the Sinai peninsula in occupied Egyptian territory.
21.	The crimes which Israel is committing against the Palestinian people and Other inhabitants of the occupied Arab territories belong to the same category of crimes as those which the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews and many others in occupied Europe, crimes which were considered repugnant to the human conscience and whose perpetrators were tried as war criminals. These crimes led the civilized nations to conclude the 1949 Geneva Conventions, to which Israel is a party, and which it refuses to
honor. Indeed, Israel denies its obligations under the law of war as it denies its obligations under the law of peace.
22.	The Arab peoples who have lived the tragedy of the Palestinian people will continue to defend and support the inalienable right of every Palestinian to return to his home and to cultivate his land. The responsibility of the United Nations towards ue Palestinian people, which is a legal, moral and historical responsibility, will be unfulfilled until all the resolutions adopted on the sacred rights of the Palestinians have been faithfully and effectively implemented. A just and lasting peace in the Middle East cannot be achieved without the realization of these rights.
23.	The leaders of Israel convinced themselves that, by ' launching the 5 June 1967 aggression and by occupying
Arab territories, they would force the Arab countries to surrender to their expansionist demands. The same self- conviction dominated the leaders of Nazi Germany when they invaded Europe. They, too, felt that they could dictate their conditions to Europe through military con-quest. It was the resolve of the invaded countries in Europe to stand up and resist that eventually led to the defeat of the invader and the liberation of the then occupied lands. Egypt has refused and will continue to refuse to surrender to Israel's expansionist ambitions. Egypt's steadfastness is an integral part of its determination to liberate every inch of the territory occupied by Israel as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967.
24.	Having failed to impose capitulation on the Arab countries as a result of its aggression in June 1967, Israel today strives for the fragmentation of the settlement by seeking to conclude separate agreements which would enable Israel to continue its occupation and to impose acceptance of the status quo. That is, basically, what Israel is seeking through what it has recently called a "Suez Canal agreement". In fact, Israel's objective is territorial expansion it intends to use this interim agreement as a springboard for further aggression. The experience of over 20 years has inured the Arab world to such things; it cannot again be dragged into such a trap. But it is important that the General Assembly be made aware of this fact.
25.	In 1949 the Arab States concluded interim agreements with Israel. These were the General Armistice Agreements. Under these Agreements Israel occupied large areas of the territory of Palestine which were not allotted to it under the 1947 partition resolution. Shortly after the conclusion of these agreements the Arab States and Israel concluded the Lausanne Protocol of 12 May 1949. However, instead of withdrawing to its assigned boundaries according to the partition resolution, Israel moved farther and occupied by force the Palestinian demilitarized zones, expelled the United Nations observers and forcibly evicted the inhabitants of these zones. Subsequently, Israel launched its 1956 aggression against Egypt and unilaterally declared the abrogation of the Egyptian-Israeli Armistice Agreement. Later, it launched the 1967 aggression against Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and renounced the Armistice Agreements with those three countries. Israel has used the interim agreements as a means of consolidating a de facto situation resulting from its aggression and a stage from which it commits further aggression or the road of territorial expansion.
26.	The Foreign Minister of Israel made a statement here on 30 September [1946th meeting] in which he asserted that in a condition of peace Israel would not withdraw from all the occupied Egyptian territory. In the same speech he invited Egypt to enter into an interim agreement. This interim agreement would not provide for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Egyptian territory. The Foreign Minister of Israel also proposed that international arrangements be established to supervise the interim agreement to be signed by Egypt. In short, Israel invites Egypt to sign an interim agreement in which Egypt would accept the continued Israeli occupation of its territory under the protection of the international community. If Israel seeks today aii interim agreement, it should fulfill its obligations under the 1949 Armistice Agreement, which was concluded under the auspices of the Security Council and which Israel cannot unilaterally abrogate. If, however, it is permanent peace that Israel seeks, then it should agree to implement Security Council resolution 242(1967) and respond positively to Ambassador Jarring's aide-memoir of 8 February 1971 [A/8541, annex I], which defines the first step towards the full implementation of the Security Council resolution.
27.	Israel cannot impose on the Arab States a third alternative: new interim agreements which would secure the continued occupation of the territories it seized in June 1967. Peace cannot coexist with occupation. This was very clearly stated in the address made by the President of Egypt to the nation on 16 September last. Any interim steps should lead only to the full implementation of all the provisions of the Security Council resolution under the auspices of Ambassador Jarring and the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 5 June 1967.
28.	When the General Assembly met in the fifth emergency special session in the aftermath of the June 1967 Israeli aggression, two main trends dominated its deliberations. The first trend emphasized the need for the immediate withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all the occupied territories on the understanding that the Middle East crisis would be subsequently resolved. The second emphasized the necessity of the withdrawal of the Israeli forces from all the occupied territories as part of a general settlement of the Middle East crisis. Not one single draft resolution was submitted to the General Assembly which did not provide for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces to the lines existing prior to 5 June 1967.
29.	When the question was later considered by the Security Council, the Council opted for the second trend, which called for a comprehensive settlement which would bring about a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. This was embodied in Security Council resolution 242 (1967).
30.	The most cogent expression which reaffirms that the withdrawal is an integral part of permanent-peace is found in resolution 242 (1967) itself, which emphasized in one sentence:
.. the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security."
31.	That resolution was not adopted in a vacuum. It was adopted unanimously after long and arduous consultations in which the four major Powers and the parties concerned participated. At that time it was the United States more than any other Power which insisted that the settlement should be comprehensive and should embody all the ingredients of the Middle East conflict. The United States firmly opposed the return to interim arrangements on the ground that such arrangements would not terminate the state of war. Any attempt to depict Security Council resolution 242 (1967) as condoning territorial expansion is in flagrant violation of the Charter and the provisions of the resolution itself. In fact it serves only to reveal the colonial intentions of the perpetrator. The theory of territorial expansion which Israel promotes today means the following: any State wishing to expand into the territory of another State need only invade that State, occupy its territory and impose its territorial demands by force of occupation and on the basis of the allegation that every war leads to territorial changes. But there is no acceptable justification whatsoever for territorial expansion,,
32.	Israel's allegation that its security could be achieved only through expansion is a negation of common sense. If a State believes that it can achieve its security at the expense of the territory of another neighboring State, why then should not the neighboring State attempt to expand in the territory of another State also on the- basis of "security" and why then should the same pattern not be -repeated by all other States?
33.	The greatest guarantee of security is peace based on justice. This could be reinforced by a system of guarantees under the auspices and the supervision of the Security Council. It was ironic to hear the Foreign Minister of Israel strongly advocating the establishment of international arrangements to supervise an interim agreement which would secure Israel's occupation while at the same time vehemently rejecting guarantees to be provided by the Security Council to protect permanent peace in the Middle East.
34.	We are almost at the end of the fourth year since the Security Council adopted resolution 242 (1967). Through-out these last four years, Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, has been making patient and consistent efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace in accordance with resolution 242 (1967). All these efforts have been frustrated by a single obstacle: Israel's refusal to withdraw from the territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967.
35.	When the Jarring mission came to its first deadlock, France proposed early in 1969 that the four permanent members of the Security Council should hold talks with a view to assisting Ambassador Jarring and should work to ensure the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967).3 This initiative by France was accepted by us. It was rejected by Israel.
36.	In June 1970 the United States advanced what has become known as "the Rogers initiative" which contained
3 See Official Records of the Security Council, Twenty-fourth Year, 1468th meeting, para. 39, three elements: first, implementation of the Security Council resolution; second, the nomination by the parties of representatives to maintain contact with Ambassador Jarring in order to carry out the resolution, and third, a cease-fire to be observed for 90 days to facilitate the task of Ambassador Jarring.
37.	We accepted the United States initiative in July and appointed our Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York to enter into contact with Ambassador Jarring. On 4 August 1970, Israel announced its acceptance but immediately started to procrastinate in its contacts with Ambassador Jarring. On 6 September 1970 it declared its withdrawal from these contacts.
38.	On 8 February 1971 Ambassador Jarring took iiis well-known initiative in accordance with which he concentrated on one zone of the conflict and planned subsequently to move on to other zones. The Jarring initiative of 8 February was a decisive milestone. The response to that initiative determined the willingness and seriousness on the part of Egypt and Israel to carry out their obligations under Security Council resolution 242(1967). Ambassador Jarring requested Israel to make a specific commitment to withdraw its forces from Egyptian territory to Egypt's international frontiers. He requested Egypt to offer a corresponding commitment to enter into a peace agreement with Israel provided that Israel withdrew its forces to Egypt's international frontier.
39.	Upon receiving the clarifications which it requested from Ambassador Jarring, Egypt, on 15 February 1971, communicated its acceptance of his initiative. On 26 February, Israel rejected Ambassador Jarring's initiative and declared that it would not withdraw to Egypt's inter-national frontiers as requested by Ambassador Jarring. It might be appropriate at this juncture to refer to the Secretary-General's report. He stated:
"I wish ... to note with satisfaction the positive reply given by the United Arab Republic to Ambassador Jarring's initiative. However, the Government of Israel has so far not responded to the request of Ambassador Jarring that it should give a commitment on withdrawal to the international boundary of the United Arab Republic."
40.	The representatives of the four permanent members of the Security Council supported Ambassador Jarring's initiative and expressed satisfaction with Egypt's response. They asked that Israel give a similar reply. The representatives of the four permanent members of the Security Council requested, the United States representative, Mr. George Bush, to convey this position to the Secretary-General.
41.	On 5 March 1971, the Secretary-General issued an appeal to Israel to reconsider its position and respond to Ambassador Jarring's initiative. He said:
"I appeal... to the Government of Israel to give further consideration to this question and to respond favorably to Ambassador Jarring's initiative."
Israel rejected this appeal. The Foreign Minister of Israel, on 30 September, repeated this rejection when he asserted that Israel would not withdraw from all the occupied territory of Egypt in accordance with the Jarring aide-memoir. He stated:
"In the framework of a peace settlement with Egypt, Israel would withdraw from the cease-fire lines. We have never asserted that in a condition of peace it would be necessary for our troops to remain in all of the Sinai Peninsula or even in most of it." [1946th meeting, para, 95. J
It is quite obvious that the Foreign Minister of Israel utilized considerable linguistic dexterity and word play; yet the one and only meaning to be drawn from this statement is Israel's determination to annex part of Egypt's territory.
43.	In pursuance of our efforts to secure the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the territories occupied after 5 June 1967, President Anwar El-Sadat proposed last February an initiative which provides for the implementation of Security Council resolution 242(1967) and the withdrawal of Israeli forces in two stages. President El-Sadat declared that, upon Israel's withdrawal to the lines of the first stage, Egypt would be willing to accept a cease-fire for a period of six months, during which Ambassador Jarring would prepare a time-table for the implementation of all the provisions of the Security Council resolution. During this stage Egypt would start clearing the Suez Canal with a view to opening it for international navigation. Egyptian forces would cross the Suez Canal to assume their national responsibilities on the eastern bank of the Canal and to preset the Canal and the Egyptian cities on the Canal.
44.	The second stage would then follow. Israeli armed forces would be withdrawn from all the Arab territories occupied after 5 June 1967, and the remaining provisions of the Security Council resolution would be fully carried out in conformity with the time-table prepared by Ambassador Jarring.
45.	Israel rejected this initiative, as it had previously rejected the Jarring initiative. This rejection was expressed once again by the Foreign Minister of Israel on 30 September, when he declared that Israel would not withdraw from all the occupied Egyptian territories. Moreover, the Israeli defense Minister stated on 19 September:
"Israel should keep Sharm El Sheikh, the Golan heights of Syria, and the Gaza Strip among the territories captured in 1967, at the same time keeping troops on the Jordan River"-that is, the west bank of the Jordan under Israel's military control "and retaining new settlements in the occupied areas."
46.	Since the official announcement of its expansionist policy of annexing occupied Egyptian territory, the Israeli leaders have launched an active campaign aimed at resurrecting the principle of military conquest as a means for the acquisition of territory belonging to other States. This principle lay at the root of the whole colonial system and led to almost all the wars that had occurred before the emergence of the United Nations.
47.	The Prime Minister of Israel, in her bitter attack on the Charter principle of non-acquisition of territory by force, had the audacity to refer to that Charter principle as "immoral", as reported in Time magazine of 30 August 1971. The Prime Minister of Israel made the statement before one year had elapsed since the unanimous adoption by the United Nations of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which spells out the provisions of that basic principle of the Charter. The Declaration states:
"The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal." [See resolution 2625 (XXV), annex.]
It also declared:
"Every State has the duty to refrain from the threat or use of force to violate the existing international bound-aries of another State or as a means of solving inter-national disputes, including territorial disputes and problems concerning frontiers of States" /ibid.].
48.	These fundamental norms of international law were reflected and further emphasized in the historic Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security adopted the the General Assembly last year [resolution 2734 (XXV)], in order to emphasize their importance in the maintenance of international peace and security. Israel's insistence on expanding and annexing Arab territories is a categorical rejection of peace in the Middle East. It is also a clear manifestation of its determination to pursue war and to undermine the basic principles laid down by the peoples of the United Nations for the establishment of a civilized international order and for the maintenance of world peace.
49.	Israel's policy of military expansion, its attempts to revive the colonial principle of military conquest, its refusal to agree to permanent peace, and ic consistent defiance of the United Nations resolutions are Si' policies for which Israel finds no support whatever in the international community.
50.	The United States, which provides Israel with military and economic assistance, has repeatedly rejected the principle of military conquest as a means of acquiring the territory of other States. The United States has, moreover, declared its support of Ambassador Jarring's aide-memoir of 8 February, which calls for Israeli withdrawal to Egypt's international borders and the conclusion of a peace agreement.
51.	In the course of his speech to the General Assembly on Monday [1950th meeting], Mr. William Rogers reaffirmed the posit ion of the United States stated by him in a speech on 9 December 1969, in which he said:
"... in the context of peace and agreement on specific security safeguards, withdrawal of Israeli feces from Egyptian territory would be required.
"Such an approach directly addresses the principal national concerns of both Israel and the United Arab
Republic. It would require the United Arab Republic to agree to a binding and specific commitment to peace, It would require withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from United Arab Republic territory to the international border between Israel and Egypt which has been in existence for over a half century."
52.	We note that this position corresponds to the Jarring initiative of 8 February 1971, which was accepted by Egypt on 15 February, We also note that in his speech Mr. Rogers called for a step towards complete and full implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967). We consider any attempt to transform such a step into a separate agreement as one of the impediments which Israel has often used to frustrate the realization of peace in the Middle East.
53.	The United States, however, has continued to provide Israel with military and economic aid. At a time when Israel is actively laboring to annex the occupied Arab territories, this support by the United States does not represent merely a retraction of its previous commitments, including its commitments under the Charter, but it also enables Israel to pursue its policy of frustrating the implementation of the Security Council resolution and of continuing its aggression against the Arab countries and its defiance of the United Nations .
54.	There is a basic contradiction between the repeated assertion of the United States of support for the Security Council resolution and its actual policy of providing military and economic aid to Israel, in spite of the latter's rejection of the Jarring aide-memoir and its insistence on territorial expansion.
55.	As a great Power and a permanent member of the Security Council, the United States bears a heavy responsibility and assumes definite commitments with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. Hence, the United States and the other big Powers should strive for the realization of the steps leading to the achievement of permanent peace in the Middle East.
56.	Wide and important sectors of the international community have defined their position and announced their full support for Security Council resolution 242 (1967), and have called upon Israel to co-operate with Ambassador Jarring and to respond positively to his aide-memoir. I should like to refer, in particular, to the fair resolution adopted by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity on 22 June 1971 at Addis Ababa.  In that resolution the African leaders called for the immediate withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from all Arab territories to the lines of 5 June 1967; expressed their full support for the efforts of the Special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General to implement Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and his initiative for peace of 8 February 1971; reaffirmed their solidarity with the United Arab Republic and appreciated its reply of 15 February to Ambassador Jarring's initiative as a practical step for establishing a just and lasting peace in the Middle East; deplored Israel's defiance of that initiative and called upon Israel to respond to that initiative.
57. The African leaders did not confine themselves to the adoption of that important resolution. They requested the President of Mauritania, Moktar Ould Daddah, in his capacity as Chairman of the eighth session of the OAU Assembly, to consult with the other Heads of State to exert their joint influence to secure the full implementation of their resolution. As a result of these consultations, a committee was established under the chairmanship of President Moktar Ould Daddah composed of the Heads of State of Ethiopia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Senegal, Mauritania, Nigeria, Cameroon, Kenya, United Republic of Tanzania, the Ivory Coast and Liberia.
58 . Egypt declared its acceptance of the implementation of the resolution adopted by the OAU Assembly. We shall co-operate with the committee of our African Heads of State led by President Senghor with a view to ensuring the success of its mission and in order to carry out the collective will of Africa's Heads of State. In deference to this effort Egypt will not request the discussion of the item entitled "The situation in the Middle East" [item 22] in accordance with its established priority on the agenda of the General Assembly, and will await the results of this mission.
59.	The support for Security Council resolution 242 (1967) and the Jarring initiative of 8 February, is indeed universal. Besides Africa's support, Asian States, non-aligned countries, the socialist countries and Western European countries have, on many occasions, strongly supported Ambassador Jarriij's efforts. We are also confident that the Latin American countries, which contributed to laying the foundation of the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force, will no doubt reject Israel's attempts aiming at the acquisition of lands through military conquest and will actively support the Security Council resolution and the efforts of Ambassador Jarring to achieve permanent peace in the Middle East.
60.	Security Council resolution 242 (1967) is firmly based on two inseparable foundations, permanent peace and full withdrawal. Ambassador Jarring's mission is an integral part of that resolution. There are two roads before us which would lead to the full implementation of the Security Council resolution and to the establishment of permanent peace in the Middle East: first, the implementation of President El-Sadat's initiative, to which I referred earlier in my speech; and, second, Israel's agreement to enter into a peace agreement in accordance with the aide-memoir of Ambassador Jarring of 8 February 1971. Egypt has responded positively to that aide-memoir. It remains for Israel to take the same step, thus enabling Ambassador Jarring to resume his contacts. I would be ready to meet with Ambassador Jarring to discuss with him the implementation of the contents of his aide-memoir. I am ready to do this today.
61.	Moreover, we agree that the Security Council should lay down security arrangements to guarantee peace and security and to ensure the non-renewal of aggression in the Middle East. These arrangements include the establishment of demilitarized zones on both sides for equal distances and the establishment of an international force to supervise peace in the area.
62.	Israel's refusal to withdraw from the territories it occupied as a result of its aggression of 5 June 1967 is a constant threat to peace. Firm international action is now imperative to force Israel to comply with the basic norms of the Charter. The Security Council, particularly its permanent members, bears at present a great responsibility for peace in the Middle East.
63.	The achievement of permanent peace is the most genuine guarantee for security in the Middle East. Territorial expansion does not guarantee the security of any State. Expansion is not the path to security, but it surely is the road to war. There is a fundamental fact which stands out as clearly as the sun, through all the efforts made, through all the projects submitted and through all the accumulated United Nations records on the Middle East. That fact is summed up in the following words: peace in the Middle East depends on Israel's renunciation of its policy of expansion. If Israel announces today that it will withdraw its forces to the lines existing prior to 5 June 1967, peace would be achieved forthwith in the Middle East.
64.	The leaders of Israel would be indulging in self- deception if they convinced themselves that they could force the people of Egypt to surrender an inch of Egypt's territory, in any form or under any name. In the valley of the Nile the people of Egypt offered as' a heritage to the human race a civilization of peace. In peace and in tolerance they built their progress. More than once in their long history they stood up to invaders. The invaders were repelled and Egypt remained throughout history.
65.	Today the people in the valley of the Nile, while looking forward to peace so as to proceed with the tasks of construction and to meet the challenges of progress, are also committed vis-a-vis the past, the present and the future to stand up to invaders, tc protect the land of Egypt and to insist that peace must rest on justice.