34.	It is toward Asia where all the problems of the world are in ferment, but whose ancient wisdom never shuts out the possibility of dialog, that our thoughts turn, Mr. President, in welcoming your election. The example given by your country strengthens our hopes. The age-old nature and quality of the relations which unite Indonesia and Europe and which the recent visit to your islands by the Queen of the Netherlands again illustrates, cause us to welcome- even more the choice the Assembly made in naming you to succeed a great European, Mr. Hambro, that great President of the twenty-fifth session.
35.	However, I do not wish to mention the eminent role played by the President of our Assembly during the . twenty-fifth anniversary session without also paying the same tribute to a man who has preserved and guided our Organization for 10 years with patient and serene energy. May U Thant accept our gratitude. It is yet too early to bid him farewell.
4	Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and under Water, signed at Moscow on 5 August 1963 (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 488 (1963), No. 6964).
5	See Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-fifth Session, Annexes, agenda items 27, 28, 29; 30, 31, 93 and 94, document A/8191.
36.	A former French diplomat recently wrote: "One cannot say that politics, the realm of means, is identical to ethics, the realm of ends. But a policy which did not have ethical ends and a certain conception of good and evil, would have no sense. It would be, literally, senseless." I did not mention these three short sentences to proclaim the superiority of one "certain conception" over another, or to give myself the right to trace the boundary between the realm of ends and the realm of means. More modestly, I shall have attained my goal if I succeed in showing members the meaning France wishes to give its policy.
37.	We belleve-as everyone here knows-that the affirmation of national independence of nations, far from being the expression of nationalism, that is, egotism, is on the contrary the manifestation of a profound solidarity: solidarity which brings people together-regardless of distances or differences-people whose sole ambition is not to part with the choice of their own destiny. We believe-as everyone here knows-that refusing to accept any kind of hegemony is the best contribution a country can make to the birth of a truly international community. We must, however, to justify this conviction, assume the consequences and the risks it entails.
38.	Let me take as the first example monetary relations between nations. We are, in fact, here to increase the chances for peace. Now, no one questions the fact that one of the best ways to achieve this is to bring about, for all world economies, the set of conditions needed for truly balanced growth. In the face of this immense task-and the poorest peoples feel this urgency most deeply the major countries have a special responsibility. How can they and how should they undertake it? Recent history gives us the beginnings of an answer.
39.	The Bretton Woods Agreement, the Marshall Plan, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade: one would be pushing forgetfulness or ingratitude very far indeed in failing to mention the benefits and farsightedness of the initiatives which substituted equality of rights, stability, freely endorsed rules of truly international codes for the evils of compartmentalization, that is, shortsighted egocentricity and unchecked competition, which is anarchy. Once and for all, history has given a large part of the credit to the United States. But two cracks have successively threatened the order of this magnificent structure.
40.	First, it has always been obvious that world equilibrium presupposed -even demanded- the participation of the countries of Eastern Europe, and foremost that of the Soviet Union, in the main currents of exchange. This is one of the goals and this is already, to a certain degree, one of the results of the detente whose political advantages it is superfluous to stress. A great Power or group of Powers could no more be kept .on the sidelines by an outside agency than they themselves could remain aloof from circuits of communication, whether technical or scientific, economic or cultural.
41.	However, the other crack is moire disturbing, because it is threatening the structure from within: respect for the international rules which were accepted by Common agreement by all countries, large and small, led the West to make. an unprecedented leap forward. These rules are called free trade and fixed exchange rates. They are irreplaceable. No one has the power, however strong he may be, to substitute other rules for them. To violate them is therefore to replace them by the absence of rules.
42.	So, if the industrialized States reached a point of preferring anarchy or-and this amounts to the same-the unstable law of the strongest to a set of agreed conditions for harmonious development, who, in the long run, would benefit? The betting-dangerous, like all betting-is open. But, while it is difficult to be a winner in this game, it is easy to pick out the first loser. It would undoubtedly be all the victims of under-development. Let us reread the text relating to the International Development Strategy which was solemnly adopted on 24 October 1970 by the General Assembly [resolution 2626 (XXV)] and which should in principle determine-let us not forget-the relations between industrialized and developing countries throughout the present decade. It rests entirely on the idea that the drive against under-development must be a concerted action, undertaken jointly and in close co-operation by the two groups of nations. What will remain of this fine plan if one of the two groups on which the major responsibilities fall begins by dividing against itself and in some way denying or destroying itself?
43.	In those conditions one can imagine the anxiety in the third world caused by the recent announcement of certain trade restrictions. Because they strike indiscriminately at all States, it is in fact the weakest among them which may be hurt the most.
44.	My country, guided by the experience it has been able to acquire in its relations with the African countries to which it is attached by ever-closer ties of friendship, has made itself and will continue to make itself the untiring advocate of a real organization of markets for basic commodities, where the essential goal is to seek stable, just and remunerative prices. As I have once said:
"The problem is not to throw a few provisions into the abyss of hunger, but to throw a lifeline to enable millions of human beings to climb out through their own effort."
We are here-why not say so? -on the level of principles. We put ourselves on this level as early as 1964, when we suggested that a system of preferences such as the one which had been set up between the associated African States and the European Economic Community should become generalized. We are striving to stay on that level when we insert into our own plan the goal proposed by the United Nations, in other words, when we set our rate of participation in development at 1 per cent of the gross national product.
45.	What are we trying to say? Simply that the responsibility of the industrialized States is committed and cannot be denied.
46.	On several occasions during this analysis we have mentioned the European Economic Community. We have observed that its very structure keeps it from becoming inward-looking. That will be even more true the day it brings together 250 million men and women to whom several million others will be joined through more or less close ties.
47.	Latin America can bear witness to this. I had the honor of presiding over the Council of Ministers of the Community when a colloquium-which should not be the last-both reminded us of our affinities, to which France attaches such importance, and encouraged us to continue increasing our exchanges on all levels.
48.	Nevertheless, how can one talk today of Europe before the nations which comprise it, and also before those which observe it, without being struck by the parallel progression of two phenomena which is its present day characteristic?
49.	On the one hand, the European Economic Community is being enlarged, which means that it has an ever-stronger attraction, that it will henceforth be considered irreversible and that its internal difficulties are the manifestation of growing pains. On the other hand, the progress and consolidation of detente justify this reference to "the whole of Europe" that the six countries meeting in The Hague nearly two years ago took care-on France's initiative to include in the final communique of their summit conference. This I repeat, is parallelism, not coincidence.
50.	'	Western Europe was for a long time a community of suffering and anxiety. Through economic integration and political co-operation it is becoming a community of hope. By setting the example, it has shown first that the decisions and rivalries which seemed so persistent could be overcome, then that the refusal to accept any kind of hegemony was, for peoples too long torn by divisions, the best justification and the most effective stimulus for a necessary rapprochement. In learning that Berlin had become the place and the symbol of agreement, everyone said to himself that the time had come for "the whole of Europe" to keep its appointment with destiny.
51.	What name will history give this conference for which preparation must now enter the decisive stage? "East-West Conference"? Certainly not that. Our plan is certainly not to endorse or even to organize a confrontation of the two camps, but on the contrary to reduce it enough to make it fall into disuse. "European Conference"? That title would be incorrect; everyone agrees-and has agreed for some time now thai the two great North American countries should have a place in it. I hope, then, that we would try to live up to the title which summarizes a great design: "Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe". "Security", "co-operation" it is important that those two words remain linked together, because the concepts they encompass are complementary and indivisible.
52.	To reinforce existing ties between all the countries of Europe on the level of economy, culture, science or technology; to open new paths for their co-operation; to lower the barriers which here and there still prevent or hinder the movement of people, the exchange of information, the movement of ideas; to bring about a genuine mutual interpretation, without impairing State Sovereignty, which would by drawing the peoples closer together, enable them to improve their intellectual and material living standards: is not all this contributing at the same time to increasing the security of the continents, and we think that mistrust, lack of understanding, and even glaring inequalities in development, are also factors of instability;
we note that these still exist in Europe, and not only between what is still called the East and the West. We consider that the multiple development of co-operation extended to everyone in order to reduce those factors is imperative if one intends to deal with the problem of European security in depth.
53.	But this problem is also, of course, political and military. France, in so far as disarmament is concerned, neither can nor will be content with words or appearances. Disarmament must be the elimination of existing arms under effective international control, and the prohibition of any new manufacture of them. And yet, the result of all the efforts made in New York, Geneva and elsewhere since the end of the Second World War is that no arms have in fact been destroyed. On the contrary, we are witnessing the most fantastic arms race the world has ever known. Several bans, whose effectiveness remains to be demonstrated, have been declared on the proliferation of nuclear arms or on their deployment in areas which were up to now inaccessible to man.
54.	Those bans, whatever their individual merits, are unfortunately misleading and can give rise to the belief that disarmament has begun, while the existing arsenals and their power to destroy never stop growing. A "disarmament" carried out in this way can only promote the development of hegemonies and would tend to divide the world by installing an order in which only the super-Powers would retain the ability to exercise their sovereignty.
55.	France has obviously not acquiesced in such a prospect. That is why it has insisted on keeping the possibility of providing itself with the necessary means to secure its defense and maintain its independence. But it remains nonetheless highly in favor of any undertaking for true disarmament, which in an age of nuclear armaments demands, first of all, settlement of the problem of those armaments. How can that be achieved, if not by consensus between the States which possess them? That is why France just recently again recalled that it favored a conference of the five nuclear Powers. It hopes that the requirements for such a conference will one day be met.
56.	Is this to say that for the moment nothing can be done to reduce the threats which weigh on humanity? The United States and the USSR have, for their part, begun talks to lessen the risk of nuclear confrontation between them. To that end, in Vienna and in Helsinki, they are planning to set mutual limits on the development of their strategic arms. But the balance they hope to reach that way is not the only thing which could be called upon to avert the risk of nuclear war. In the absence of a true disarmament agreement between the five, but in the hope of opening ways towards it, would it not be possible as of now also to plan nuclear-Power co-operation to prevent accidental, mistaken or surprise release of the terrible weapons at their disposal? Establishing such a security system will surely provide a practical means of moving toward a world where the risks accompanying the existence of nuclear arms, while not yet eliminated, could at least be reduced. France, for its part-and I confirm and announce this formally-is ready to contribute to that.
57.	For it is only to avoid submission to any system of blocs and I deliberately repeat myself of hegemony that we have had to provide ourselves with the means of deterrence, after having asked in vain for an internationally controlled ban on nuclear arms. In this field as in others, the desire for independence is a contribution to world equilibrium and, consequently, to peace. However, our experiments -I voluntarily refrain from mentioning experiments for which other countries are responsible- would, in our view, cease to be legitimate if they were to endanger life-first of all, of course, the life of man, but also the life of the flora or fauna on land and in the sea.
58.	Have we set ourselves up as the sole judges of the adequacy of the precautions taken, and first of all the remoteness of the test sites? Not at all. We have not been satisfied with the installation of a system, now five years old, to survey the development of radio-activity at various points of the globe on our own.
59.	We have invited scientists and researchers from the countries concerned to take part in our observation and surveillance work. This is a unique and unprecedented effort of international scientific cooperation. Each year we report the results of these observations to all the Members of the Organization, without concealment or hindrance.
60.	We have duly reported to the United Nations committee qualified, as its name indicates,  to evaluate the harmfulness or harmlessness of atomic radiation. Consequently, those who would charge us, not only without proof but against all proof, with risking pollution which our experiments, and ours alone, might entail would be taking to task not us, but the indisputable and indeed undisputed authority and the conscience of a scientific committee of the United Nations.
61.	Let me add that those explosions-by the very fact that they take place in the atmosphere-are not registered by even the most sensitive seismographs on the American continent, which respond to all variations, however weak, in the earth's crust; consequently, they cannot have any , relation to any seismic shock. You will then understand that we trust good faith and common sense to do justice to the simple truth.
62.	But the accumulation of forces in the European theater is the consequence, not the cause, of political tensions there. What chance is there of dealing with the effects without troubling to go to the roots?
63.	It is not too early to look beyond the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin,' which is sure to be supplemented soon by the necessary arrangements between the German authorities-a must for its entry into force. A larger settlement will then appear, since the Treaties of Moscow and Warsaw,  Which convey an equal desire to surmount the obstacles built up in the path of reconciliation between peoples by the horrors of war, are going to take effect in their turn. May we not hope that those three elements of a true political reconstruction in the very center of Europe -the Berlin accord, the necessary arrangements between the German authorities, and the entry into force of the Treaties of Moscow and Warsaw-will culminate in a lasting agreement between the two German States? Nothing would contribute more effectively to guaranteeing the stability of the continent as a whole.France, which bears a part of the responsibility regarding this problem, and which as I said right here last year [1842nd meeting], is anxious to see the Organization become universal, will not spare its encouragement and support for the efforts the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany intends to make in order to -come to such an agreement soon, with all the consequences that this would, I believe, entail for the United Nations.
64.	From then it will only be a matter of organizing the relations between European States in such a way that the alliances, as long as they are held necessary, do not take the form of blocs turned in upon themselves, that for each country the right to belong to one alliance or to belong to none will be respected, as well as the right to territorial integrity, the right to sovereignty with all the accompanying prerogatives, the right to be exempt from all forms of pressure, from wherever it comes, from all interference or external attempt at interference. One of the tasks of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe will be to define these rules with the greatest precision and to ensure that their binding force is clearly understood. At stake is the confirmation of a detente which-I purposely repeat myself-is based on respect for and development of national independence, through free co-operation, a detente which, in a continent so rich in possibilities-for the best and for the worst-means both progress and peace.
65.	In bringing up the universality of our Organization a moment ago, I was thinking of Asia, for I see there something which causes great hope, great fear and great impatience.
66.	The hope springs from the awareness that, as France has always hoped, the People's Republic of China and the Unites States of America have entered into a necessary and difficult undertaking whose effects, we strongly feel, will have repercussions on international relations in their entirety. Doubtless the process will be long. But if, as I am convinced, it is not directed against anyone, it will not fail to serve the cause of detente and peace in that area as well as beyond. Will we then finally see the completion, this year, of the debate on the question of China which our Assembly has continued for too long? Logic and realism would point this way, for although it is said that all roads lead to Rome, there is only one, as far as I have been informed, that leads from Peking to New York. No stratagem can change this, any more than it is possible to make our Charter say something it does not say.
67.	Great fear also. How can one not feel it in the face of the horrible drama 'which has already caused one of the most tragic exoduses in modern times and which anyone feels is perhaps only the prelude to more terrible sufferings still to come? Of course, the response the international community gave to the appeal launched by the Secretary-
General for those unfortunate people of East Pakistan shows that the voice of U Thant was not sounded in vain. But if the wrong is not righted at the root, will the flow of people stop? And will it be possible to reverse the flow? We must hope that the wisdom and generosity of some people will respond to the moderation of others and that a political and constitutional solution based on the consent of the Pakistani people will make it possible to come out of the crisis; for, if the tension is not relieved soon, we shall have to expect tragic consequences for peace in Pakistan and in the subcontinent as a whole.
68.	Lastly, great impatience. Impatience caused by the absence of any progress in settling the Indo-Chinese conflict. However, new proposals have recently been advanced. Could they not be discussed? This question, as the Assembly has surely understood, is actually a wish. I have three reasons for making it: my Government is the host for the Paris Conference; it has, for the people of Indo-China, a friendship which it is always ready to express: it believes, lastly, as we all do, that the only lasting solution to this long-drawn-out tragedy is one which will ensure the independence of each State in South-East Asia, a zone which, after so much suffering is yearning at last for peace and neutrality, sheltered from the competition of all the major Powers.
69.	The same moral -if not the same formula- is applicable to the Middle East, with one basic difference however. Here the responsibility of the United Nations is directly committed. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) will be four years old in a few weeks. Will we spend this anniversary in silence? Will it be for us a time to draw up a report of our lack of success? We are not about to be limited to this alternative! Once again, faithful to our maxim, we will not confuse the means with the end. There is, on the one hand, the cease-fire, for which we can never be thankful enough, if only out of horror for the bloodshed though we see how inevitably precarious it is. There is, on the other hand, .the object of the cease-fire, which can and must be only the mutually accepted implementation of the resolution, that is, evacuation of the occupied territories in exchange for guarantees of real peace. Also, we must be grateful to the United Kingdom and its Foreign Secretary, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, for having warned us against a certain thinking pattern from which we may soon be painfully awakened. We have two good reasons for fearing and refusing to let time run out: elementary prudence and, above all, the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Observing our impasse, Africa responded. I wish here to pay tribute to its decision. To the four Heads of State who will make contact with the parties concerned  Presidents Senghor, Ahidjo, Mobutu and Gowan France offers its warmest wishes.
70.	However, the fears and the hopes of the international community as well as the latter's determination for a peaceful settlement must all be expressed, and this can only be done here. Our appeal last year was heeded. Mr. Jarring was able to resume his mission within the desired time- limit. Our hopes, alas, were quickly dashed. Without the required answer, dialog could not begin. Without unanimous determination, the permanent members of the Security Council has so far not been able to formulate their recommendations for a settlement or make known as agreement whose persuasive effect could be decisive. So here we are again faced with the same alternative: either the Assembly speaks out or the international community is doomed to silence. We should lose our raison d'etre if we did not opt for the first choice. The voice of the General Assembly is thus to be heard: with moderation, equity and firmness. May its appeal inspire in all those who carry more direct responsibilities in this sad affair, the desire to act together so that peace can be established-a peace whose durability is guaranteed by respect for justice.
71.	Is it futile to hope that 12 months after having celebrated the foundation of the United Nations we might, on the occasion of this session of the General Assembly, make a new start in some way? Actually, everything prompts us to do this, above all this striking but necessary observation: we have entered a new era. When we compare the world of 1971 with the post-war world or with what was called the "cold-war" era, we see clearly that the dissimilarities far outweigh the similarities: no continent is invulnerable any more; no ideology is sufficient any more to guarantee the monolithism of all the countries which adhere to it; no nation can be subjected to dependence any more.
72.	These changes point to simple and fruitful guidelines: on the one hand, the world community lives and prospers only through national entities-that is, organized, sovereign and ultimately equal nations. On the other hand, national independence is meaningful and final only through its contributions to the community task. The conference of the non-aligned countries in Lusaka  was correct in taking this principle as its motto: "Unity in diversity." General de Gaulle was no less far-sighted almost 30 years ago when he said to us in a voice we shall never hear again:
"Henceforth there cannot be even the slightest connexion between independence and isolation; no State can maintain itself or, still less, develop without support and help."
73.	Given those two rules, is it possible to construct a world where there would be more solidarity and more security? Europe torn asunder for so long has now the best chance of proving the reverse. As we have seen, the union of Western Europe and detente in international relations in Europe as a whole have gone hand in hand. The year 1972 should see both the summit conference, which was proposed by Georges Pompidou on behalf of France and which will strengthen the solidarity of 250 million Europeans, and also the first conference on the security and co-operation of all Europeans.
74.	Yet co-operation, the guarantee of security, -can. neither stop at the frontiers of Europe, nor do without justice. Recently, before the Conference of the InterParliamentary Union, the President of the French Republic termed racism-of which apartheid is only one manifestation-the "scourge of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the most distressing form of.man's scorn for man". But the threats and the violence which cause millions of human beings to flee their homes, extreme poverty and
hunger, are no less incompatible with the dignity, and indeed the very mission, of man.
75.	May I add that those men whose magnificent life's work is to keep the collective conscience alerted by the pen or by the word have never been more necessary; never, consequently, has the protection of journalists on dangerous missions been more pressing or more urgent. Of course, there are countries where industrial civilization has developed in such a way that the public wonders about the effects and about the very goals of this civilization, awed as it is by the scope of the resulting difficulties and disorders: destruction of the natural environment, pollution, moral and social crises chiefly affecting the young. In these countries the idea of economic growth is sometimes called into question.
76.	This obviously does not apply to the majority. The countries of the world, for the most part, strive to ensure that their populations have the basic requirements and that the opportunities for what is too often difficult and precarious progress are preserved.
77.	Before concluding it would be well to re-emphasize the obligations of the industrialized nations for in our hearts we know that the success of our efforts does not depend on any arrangement or mechanical adjustment of our institutions-even though improvements in means and procedures are welcome. We must above all imbue our undertakings with more soul and more action.
78.	Today, new and inspiring horizons are being spread before our weary, burdened nations and the impatient youth of the world, who are astonished at our quarrels and are already tempted to break rank. Away with hegemonies, therefore and the thirst for power and super-power.
79.	The world has grown. It offers our ambitions immense, still little-explored and under-exploited fields, such as space, the sea, and the sea-bed, which science technology are continually opening up.
80.	May these new prospects help us liquidate the sequels of past conflicts and overcome the crises which some day will seem quite petty.
81.	May this "shock of the future" urge us to move on towards tomorrow together-all together.


58.	Mr. President, the Pakistan delegation is exceedingly happy to see you in the Chair. Your election to that high office is the General Assembly's tribute alike to Indonesia and to you personally for your remarkable statesmanship and dedication. Our gratification at it, of course, also derives from the fraternal relations which Pakistan enjoys with Indonesia, a great nation that shares our spiritual culture and heroically faces problems some of which are similar to our own. It is fitting that a distinguished Asian should preside over this session. As is well known, some of the overriding political issues confronting the world community at present impinge primarily on Asia, our long-suffering continent.
59.	I should like also to mention here how much my delegation admired Mr. Hambro's presidency last year. Not only his juristic understanding but his rare combination of geniality and firmness lent luster to that office during the commemorative session.
60.	Ten years ago U Thant accepted the office of Secretary-General in an hour of crisis for the United Nations. A controversy raged over the powers and responsibilities of that office and the manner in which these were being discharged. Today, if the doubts and fears that had assailed us about the future of the Organization at that time have been dispelled, it is in no small measure due to the scrupulous integrity, the serene wisdom, the moral courage and the mature judgment with which U Thant has steered his difficult course in turbulent times. We unhesitatingly pay him this tribute, even though we have disagreed at times with his assessment of particular situations. Pakistan hopes that the problem posed by U Thant's announcement of his intention to retire will be solved in the best interests of the Organization.
61.	It is customary for delegations during' the general debate to make statements of policy on the major issues affecting their countries. My delegation will express its views in detail on the various issues before this Assembly during the debates that will later be held in the Committees and in the plenary meetings. I shall therefore use this
occasion only to explain what are the great issues-some global, some regional, others local-which affect the common man in Pakistan and show how his outlook is shaped by them.
62.	My country acceded to independence in 1947 when the United Nations was still nascent and none of the goals of the United Nations Charter yet appeared to be an impossible dream. The Charter, therefore, was an essential part of our mental environment. There was a fusion between our own independence and the pursuit of the aims and purposes of the United Nations. We saw ourselves as part of that family of nations, comprising Asia, Africa and Latin America, which had been ravaged by imperialism in or. way or another and whose prime concern was to banish poverty and so attain freedom not only in political form but also in social and economic substance. More than anything else, we wished, as we wish now, that those nations should not be afflicted with disunity. Any dispute between any two of them was to us a tragic waste which would sap the energy and diminish the freedom of both. Little did we imagine that with our own neighbor, India, we should have disputes which we could not persuade the rulers of India to solve in accordance with the principles of the Charter.
63.	Why did affairs take a turn that was unimaginable to us when we attained independence? The answer lies only partly in the failures and infirmities of the United Nations. There is also the fact that there is something in the nature of imperialism that, even when it relinquishes its hold over an area, presents as its parting gift to the successor States problems so designed as to shackle the independent career of those States* That has been witnessed in several areas. Where, as in the Arab Middle East or Indo-China, the problems are due to the injection of an external element, no solutions can be devised except in a great-Power framework. Where, however, the problems are between the newly independent States, it is nothing h .t a neo-colonialist attitude, a desire to dominate, a dream of hegemony, that prevents the larger of them from equitably settling its disputes with the smaller.
64.	At the time of the partition of the subcontinent, we in Pakistan inherited barely one fifth of the area and were placed at a disadvantage in many other respects. Nevertheless, we accepted an award delimiting the boundaries of Pakistan and India, even though it was unjust to us. We envisaged the closest co-operation with our neighbor, India. Our independence was not more than two months old when India completely violated the basis of partition  the independence settlement of 19473 and sent its army to occupy a Muslim-majority area, Jammu and Kashmir, and to crush a popular liberation movement against the despotic ruler of that state. India had been enabled to do so by the departing Imperial Government. It had been provided with its only, and previously unused, passage to Kashmir when some Muslim-majority areas of the district of Gurdaspur in the Punjab were unjustly awarded to it. We protested India's entry into Kashmir, which was so colonialist in its nature and so repugnant to the spirit and basis of India's independence and our own. We were assured by India that the occupation was temporary, that the accession
3 Indian.Independence Act, 1947.
to India of the ruler of Kashmir, who had been denounced by his people, was provisional, and that the people of Kashmir would be allowed to determine their own future through an impartial plebiscite. Later, when the dispute was brought to the United Nations, this solemn pledge given by India was translated into an international agreement. Both India and Pakistan accepted United Nations resolutions providing for the self-determination of Jammu and Kashmir through a free plebiscite. To this day, that agreement remains unimplemented. To this day, India has not terminated its occupation of the bulk of Jammu and Kashmir. The dispute has twice led to hostilities between India and Pakistan. It has caused a strain and a friction in our relations, which harm us both. In spite of the heavy toll taken by the dispute, India does not even now agree to resolve it in accordance with the wishes of the people of Kashmir.
65.	In the part of Jammu and Kashmir which it occupies, India maintains a puppet regime and penalizes anyone who demands that the resolutions of the United Nations regarding Jammu and Kashmir be implemented. The renowned leader of the Kashmiri people, Sheikh Abdullah, was imprisoned for nearly 15 years and is now barred from entering his homeland. A ban has been imposed on popular parties, including the Kashmiri Plebiscite Front, whose aim is self-determination for Jammu and Kashmir. The torture of political workers, the repeated firing on public assemblies, the constant harassment and victimization of patriotic citizens, are gruesome features of life in Indian-occupied Kashmir. A million refugees have fled the terror and oppression there. India refuses to establish conditions which would enable them to return.
66.	Another very clear example of this mentality has been furnished by the way India has handled the dispute about the equitable sharing of the waters of the Ganges, which flows through both India and Pakistan, with Pakistan the lower riparian country. It has completed the construction of a barrage near a place called Farakka, in the state of West Bengal in India. That project is designed to divert the waters of the mainstream of the river, the Ganges, through a feeder-canal to another river flowing entirely through India. The result will be that in the long dry season every year the barrage will leave little or no water below Farakka for use in East Pakistan, thereby causing grave and permanent damage to the economy of that region. According to the assessment of our own and international experts, this Indian project will adversely affect the ecology and agriculture of seven districts in East Pakistan involving a total of 3.6 million acres of land. It will seriously affect navigation in the Ganges and its many spill-channels and distributives. It threatens an inflow of sea-water, thereby reducing agricultural production, municipal supplies and industrial use of water, and depleting fisheries and forest resources, especially iii the Sundarbans. Moreover, reduced flow in the Ganges in Pakistan, downstream from Farakka, will silt up the river-bed and increase the hazards of flood in the rainy season. All these factors together are expected to affect the livelihood and vital and legitimate interests of as many as 25 million people, or roughly one third of the population of the eastern wing of Pakistan.
67.	It is ironical, but not surprising, that at the same time that India professes grave concern for the people of East
Pakistan, it plans and executes projects aimed at causing their economic ruin. India does offer to negotiate on this issue with Pakistan, as indeed it offers to negotiate on many other issues; but when such negotiations take place, as in this case, India prevaricates and uses various devices to avoid facing the real issue.
68. I have mentioned these two major causes of the friction between India and Pakistan. Without this friction and without the pervasive background of India's constant attempts to weaken and isolate Pakistan, the present India-Pakistan ambition involving a threat to the peace would be totally incomprehensible. Had Indian rulers not been hostile to Pakistan, would they not find it unnatural and repugnant to try to take advantage of their neighbor's internal difficulties? Would they not scrupulously refrain from interfering in our affairs? What is happening today on the borders of my country and our neighbor India is not mere border skirmishes; it is armed intervention by one country, a Member of the United Nations, India, in the territory of another Member of the United Nations, Pakistan.
of supply for transportation of food grains into Pakistan. As a result of operations against saboteurs who damaged the United States food-ship Lightning at Chalna anchorage recently, Pakistan authorities have apprehended frogmen trained in India and launched near Chalna and Chittagong ports for sinking ships bringing food-grains to East Pakistan. The frogmen were given limpet mines by India and trained in their use, By indulging in the sabotage of food-ships, India is trying to create conditions of famine for 75 million people of East Pakistan to fulfill its own political objectives. If the international community is genuinely concerned about a possible food shortage in East Pakistan, it has an obligation to prevent India from indulging in activities which, if unchecked, cannot but endanger the sustenance of the people of East Pakistan.
73.	It is now for the world community, and for the United Nations in particular, to prevent another conflagration which would be catastrophic for South Asia.
74.	Secretary-General U Thant, on 20 July last, sent a memorandum to the President of the Security Council drawing his attention to the threat to the peace which has arisen in the subcontinent. The Secretary-General, inter alia, emphasized that he had become increasingly apprehensive at the steady deterioration of the situation in the region in almost all its aspects. The Secretary-General said:
"In the present case there is an additional element of danger, for the crisis is unfolding in the context of the long-standing, and unresolved, differences between India and Pakistan differences which gave rise to open warfare only six years ago."
About the actual situation on the border he said:
"The situation on the borders of East Pakistan is. particularly disturbing. Border clashes, clandestine raids and acts of sabotage appear to be becoming more frequent"
And he recognized the threat to peace, indeed to world peace, by stating that:
"Nor many of us here in the United Nations afford to forget that a major conflict in the Sub-Continent could all too easily expand."
In short, U Thant has clearly defined the situation as a threat to the peace and urged the Security Council to consider with the utmost attention and concern the present situation and to reach some agreed conclusions as to measures which might be taken.
75.	As I mentioned in my statement in exercise of the right of reply on 29 September [1945th meeting], my Government has expressed its readiness to co-operate with the Security Council and has welcomed the proposal for a good offices committee of the Council to help reduce the tension between our two countries. I reiterate that readiness here.
69.	India has been engaged for the past few months, and is engaged now, in a clandestine war on Pakistan. At a time when, regardless of the nature of the military action taken by the Pakistan Government in its own territory, India could have no conceivable fear of invasion, it has concentrated a large number of its forces, some 200,000, and its machines of destruction on the borders of East and West Pakistan. It has been engaging in incessant shelling and mortar-fire against East Pakistan. It regularly sends its own armed personnel into my country to cause death and destruction. It harbours, trains, finances, equips and encourages sometimes even forces the dissidents to undertake acts of sabotage and to cripple the economy of East Pakistan. In short, India is at the moment carrying out acts of war against my country, and the only reason why the situation has not been escalated is that the Government of Pakistan has exercised the utmost restraint.
70.	The resort to shelling, mortar-firing and other warlike - actions against Pakistan have become a regular feature of *
the tension built up by Indian armed forces along our borders. Let me cite two concrete instances o" recent occurrence to give the Assembly an idea of what we are confronted with at present.
71.	Indian artillery fired nearly 1,000 shells on five closely-located border villages in Sylhet district on the night of 29 September. The villages battered by Indian shelling were Mantala, Kamalpur, Jaipur, Armnager, and Harashpur; 28 villagers, including 12 women and 8 children, were killed, while 13 others were wounded. Among the casualties was a party of Telephone Department employees who were repairing a telecommunication line. Communication lines, it must be mentioned, are particular targets of Indian attacks. After shelling, Indian armed personnel attempted to infiltrate into these areas. The Pakistan Army combed the area and recovered 3 light machine-guns, 145 boxes of small-arms ammunition, 100 steel helmets, 40 mines, some wireless sets and 387 grenades.
72.	India is also trying to create famine conditions in East Pakistan by aiding and encouraging the destruction of lines
76. India, of course, takes an opposite view. Its Government contends that it is not an India-Pakistan problem. It would have the world believe that everything that has
happened has been due to Pakistan's actions only and that India has been merely a passive victim, burdened with a huge influx of refugees.But what are the facts? The facts about Indian intervention are patent and I have already mentioned them.
77.	The world has heard a lot about East Pakistan in recent months. Much of what has been said has come from outsiders. Not all of them have to test their statements against realities. Many among them moralize and assume lofty postures. But, if I may strike a personal tone, I come from East Pakistan. Unlike the distinguished Foreign Minister of India, I cannot afford the luxury of misstatements and propaganda. From this Assembly, I will go back to East Pakistan. I have to live and suffer and strive and build among my people there. I do appreciate whatever humane concern, unmixed with sordid political motives, exists anywhere for the people of East Pakistan. At the same time, I deplore the fact that the situation in our homeland has been so distorted in the world's eyes, its causes so misrepresented, the sequence of events so disfigured, that it has been made to appear as if there is a war between East Pakistan and West Pakistan. Let an East Pakistani voice rise from this rostrum to remind the world that the people of East Pakistan and West Pakistan are brethren, joined in an imperishable union and that when the two undertook together the enterprise of building a federal State, it was an unfettered act of self-determination on the part of each. The people of East Pakistan have not regretted, and do not regret, that choice. True, we have problems relating to regional autonomy, to a distribution of national resources based on justice, to the removal of disparities between the different regions. Which State, which large or multi-linguistic or multiracial State, is free from such problems? Let not one such State gloat over the problems of another. We, in Pakistan, have undergone a most traumatic experience. We have endured a situation of extremity. We have gone through an ordeal. But through it all, we have realized that the fragmentation and fission of our statehood and the break-up of our unity are, and can be, no more a solution for us than for others.
78.	It has been a great misfortune that, in our case, these problems led to a violent upheaval. Why this happened cannot be understood without some basic facts about Pakistan's national existence and its relations with India being kept in mind. But it is fantastic to suppose that the conflict was due to the suppression of East Pakistan's demand for autonomy. Are the people of East Pakistan less than independent in a united Pakistan where they are in a majority and can dominate the central Government? A majority has, or can acquire, the power to right wrongs and to correct imbalances. It is unthinkable for a majority to want to secede. By definition, a demand for secession is a minority's demand. Since, I repeat, the people of East Pakistan are not a minority or a small ethnic group within Pakistan, it follows that the secessionists among them do not represent the people at large. Being secessionists, they are a self-confessed minority. Their own position proclaims their isolation from the people. Such isolation can be due either to a total failure of statesmanship or to a collusion with a foreign Power which wishes the disintegration of the State. In the case of the secessionists in East Pakistan, it was due to both.
79.	The relationship between the upheaval in East Pakistan and India's actions is immediate. For months, Indian war material had been steadily passing into East Pakistan from across a border which, traversing rivers, hills, forests and swamps, could not be fully guarded by the limited number of Pakistan troops. When the crisis approached, India sundered the air communications between East and West Pakistan by banning the overflights of Pakistani aircraft across Indian territory. It did so in reprisal against the hijacking of an Indian plane to Pakistan. But, as has been judicially established, this hijacking was engineered by Indian intelligence itself, wanting to create a pretext for India to ban the overflights. The ban is illegal and contrary to India's international obligations. Yet even now, despite international efforts at conciliation, India refuses to lift it. When the crisis mounted, and Pakistan was passing through its severest test, India massed its troops along our borders, both in East and West Pakistan.
80.	Faced with this threat from outside, combined with an insurgency in the country, the Government of Pakistan had no choice but to use all means to save the country from anarchy, dismemberment and inevitable Indian domination. I ask the distinguished representatives assembled in this hall: Faced with similar circumstances, what would any other legal Government do?
81.	Conflicts of the kind which we have suffered in East Pakistan are a supreme tragedy. But world opinion is not yet fully aware of how this tragedy has been caused and intensified by foreign interference. Had India's concern with the plight of the displaced persons been purely humanitarian, it would have followed a different line of policy. It would have done its utmost to convey the appeal of the Government of Pakistan to the displaced persons to return to their homes. It would have co-operated with us and with the United Nations in a common effort to accomplish this objective. It would have entered into a neighborly dialog with Pakistan. Here was a situation where, if no power politics were involved, the interests of both India and Pakistan demanded that the displaced persons should be enabled to return to their homes.
82.	It therefore causes us the most profound regret that, both by its incessant propaganda and its actions, India is inhibiting the return of the refugees. By engineering border conflicts, mortar-fire and shelling, India makes it impossible for our nationals to cross the border. It uses their presence within its borders for recruiting from among them the so-called volunteers for secessionist forces.
83.	It is this policy of the Government of India which has so far defeated our efforts to bring back the refugees. The declaration of a general amnesty, the repeated appeals of the President of Pakistan, the acceptance of the assistance of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and of the presence of his representatives in East Pakistan, the establishment of reception centers and the provision of facilities for the resettlement of the returning refugees-by every feasible means, we have demonstrated that we are anxious for our nationals to return. On 19 July, Secretary-General U Thant proposed to both India and Pakistan that a limited number of the representatives of the High Commissioner's Office be posted on both sides of the border to facilitate the voluntary repatriation of the
refugees. We unhesitatingly accepted this proposal. India, however, rejected it.
84.	The ostensible reason which India cites for its refusal to allow the return of the displaced persons is that conditions are not secure for their return. In the first place, India itself makes the conditions insecure. Secondly, what India means by "secure conditions", as the distinguished Foreign Minister of India made amply clear before this Assembly,, is a political solution which would be in accordance with its dictates. The Prime minister and other leaders of India have publicly declared that t! y will agree to the return of the displaced persons only when the so-called "Bangladesh" emerges; in other words, when East Pakistan secedes and passes under Indian tutelage.
85.	Could there be a more blatant interference in the internal affairs of one State by another? Only last year India joined all of us in voting for the Declaration on the
" Strengthening of International Security [resolution 2734 (XXV)] which solemnly affirmed the universal and unconditional validity of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, including the principles of non-interference, as the basis of relations among States, irrespective of their size, geographical location, level of development or political, economic and social systems and declared that the breach of these principles cannot be justified in any circumstances whatsoever.
86.	The issue that is posed by India's interference is not of concern to Pakistan alone; it concerns all nations that wish to preserve their sovereign status and territorial integrity. If the principle of non-intervention is set aside or compromised, every nation smaller or weaker than its neighbor will be open to the latter's inroads. I therefore appeal to this Assembly to exercise its powers of persuasion on India to desist from its interventionist course. For our part, we are determined to resist India's encroachments and to achieve the political solution which we sorely need for our own survival.
87.	Let not India pretend that it has not also created some other problems in the subcontinent. India is engaged in efforts to subjugate the Nagas-a proud, non-Indian people -who have borne untold hardship during their long resistance to Indian rule. In India's own territory, there are situations which are the direct result of the exploitation and suppression of the smaller linguistic and ethnic groups in India, notably the Dravidians, the Sikhs and the Bengalis, but we do not make them a cause for interfering in India's affairs. We only wish that India realized, as we do, that anarchy and fragmentation are a danger as much to itself as to us.
88.	If I may sum up the India-Pakistan situation, it is a situation of a patent threat to peace which needs to be removed if the peoples of the two countries are to resume their struggle to achieve higher standards of life in larger freedom. We do not consider the Indian people as our enemy. Indeed, we feel that, by its unrelenting hostility towards Pakistan, by perpetuating a climate of tension in our region, the Indian Government t is committing treason against its own people. We wish that the Indian Government realized that a strong Pakistan is a guarantee of peace in South Asia. Similarly, we wish all the great Powers to
recognize that attempts to weaken Pakistan and to isolate it will undermine the balance of power and stability in the region and will promote a hegemony that will be inimical to peace.
89.	I said earlier that I would attempt on this occasion only to explain what are the major issues which affect us in Pakistan. Our relations with India, of course, are most pressing upon our attention. But situations elsewhere also cause us concern, particularly when they involve issues relating to the self-determination and equality of peoples.
90.	We grieve that the agony of Viet-Nam continues. There is nothing that the peoples of the world desire more than that it should be speedily ended. We are convinced that no solution can be viable which involves an injustice for the people of Viet-Nam. There will be no lasting peace in Viet-Nam unless a settlement is sought which respects the wishes of its inhabitants. That Viet-Nam is not on our agenda is no reason why all of us should not make our maximum effort, collectively and individually, to end the immense suffering of a gifted people whose endurance in the face of heavy odds is unexampled.
91.	It causes us the most profound sorrow that the Arab peoples continue to be victims of aggression. While we appreciate all efforts, including those of Ambassador Jarring and others, aimed at breaking the deadlock inhibiting progress towards peace in the area, we deplore the fact that no pressure is being brought on Israel to withdraw from the territories which it occupied by invading Arab lands in 1967. Without pressure, the cease-fire will remain fragile. Without such pressure, the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory of force will remain a mere platitude.
92.	There are two other aspects of the Middle East situation which, in our view, are of the utmost importance.
93.	The first is the personality and the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine. The Palestinians have as much a national identity as any other people. They have as much a right to live in their homeland as any other people. No settlement of the Middle East situation will be viable if it does not show due recognition of this fact.
94.	The second is the question of the Holy City of Jerusalem, which affects the most cherished sensibilities of the people of Pakistan and, indeed, of people in all continents. Let me make it plain that no settlement of the Middle East problem will be worth the paper it is written on if it leaves the Holy City under Israel's sovereignty. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council have called upon Israel to rescind all measures designed to change the status of Arab Jerusalem. Israel has defied this call. Steps need to be taken to overcome this defiance.
95.	In regard to these issues of great urgency, Pakistan takes the standpoint of justice. Its policy is determined by no other consideration than that there should be no exploitation of Asian, African and Latin American peoples by power blocs. We do not want to play one great Power against another. We have no animosity against any great Power and no vested interest in the differences between them. We were very happy when President Nixon announced Ills plan to visit Peking. The normalization of relations between the United States and China may well turn out to be the beginning of a new era in international affairs, free from the dangers of great Power confrontations.
96.	It is from this viewpoint, as well as from the viewpoint of removing a disability from this Organization, that Pakistan considers it essential that the lawful rights of the Government of the People's Republic of China in the United Nations should be restored during this session. It would be a set-back to many great hopes for peace if a decisive moment in international life were to be lost through a refusal to break completely from the sterile policies pursued in the past. Pakistan cannot but oppose any attempt to promote a dual representation of China. It would be setting a most dangerous precedent to permit two opposing delegations to represent one and the same Member State in the United Nations. Since Taiwan is a recognized part of China historically, and also in international agreements, we do not believe that the departure of the representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek regime means the expulsion of any Government lawfully represented here. It follows that a question requiring a two-thirds majority for decision is not involved.
97.	A host of considerations-the universality of the Organization, a detente among the great Powers, the strengthening of international security, the liquidation of the remnants of colonialism and imperialism, and progress towards nuclear and conventional disarmament, to mention but a few demands the immediate presence of the People's Republic of China in our midst. Any approach to this question, such as the proposal for dual representation of China, which is certain to be rejected by Peking, will militate against this consummation and run counter to the efforts of the world community to attain these high purposes.
98.	Is it not becoming clearer with every passing day that real disarmament, as distinct from non-armament, will continue to elude us, unless the lawful rights of the People's Republic of China are restored in the United Nations? We all know that specific agreements in the field of arms control and limitation-including those ripe for conclusion are merely peripheral measures. We by no means belittle the promise of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between the Soviet Union and the United States to limit both defensive and some offensive strategic weapons. Nor do we refrain from applauding the efforts made by them in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament to reach agreement on the complete prohibition and destruction of biological weapons. But the stark fact is that the hard core of real disarmament has still not been touched despite a quarter of a century of negotiations. We have a proposal before us for a world disarmament conference [A/L.631] to induce a greater momentum in the efforts to come to grips with the central questions. While we welcome the Soviet proposal, we cannot but emphasize that the seating of the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole lawful representative of China is a sine qua non for its participation in any world conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Without China's participation, we do not believe that such a conference will be more productive than the existing forums for disarmament negotiations. If it is envisaged that the conference should be outside the United Nations framework, complex questions concerning preparatory work, organization, venue and financing will arise which are not susceptible to easy solutions.
99.	A comprehensive test-ban treaty, which would also prohibit underground nuclear weapons tests, remains as elusive as ever, despite the fact that sophisticated techniques of seismic detection and identification of such explosions without on-site inspection, have been sufficiently developed to render the consequences of any undetected clandestine events insignificant for all practical purposes.
100.	Linked to a comprehensive test-ban treaty is the question of using nuclear explosive devices for peaceful purposes. The explosion of such devices is of great importance to the economic development of all countries, and, in particular, the developing countries. Consequently, an underground test-ban has to include a permissive clause for conducting nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. As there is no difference between nuclear weapons and the so-called peaceful nuclear explosive devices, any ambiguity as to who is permitted, within the context of an underground test-ban, to conduct the so-called peaceful nuclear explosions, could open the door to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Therefore, we regard it as essential that any underground test-ban treaty which exempts the explosion of nuclear devices for peaceful purposes from the ban must provide in the most explicit, unambiguous and effective manner possible against the dissemination of the related technology in order that the objectives of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373 (XXII), annex] are not defeated.
101.	To our mind, lack of progress towards disarmament has been one of the greatest disappointments of the contemporary age. The arms race, getting ever deadlier, depletes the resources which the human family needs for its own welfare, perhaps for its very survival. How can the poverty of masses in large areas of the world be removed if there is an agglomeration of arms, a constant increase in military expenditures? How can the developing countries escape from the poverty which grinds them down if they are also condemned to competition in the arms race? And how can the richer nations fulfill their promise to transfer the savings resulting from disarmament for the development of the third world, or even for the uplift of their own underprivileged classes if there is no reduction of armed fore and armaments?
102.	We are happy that we have been joined by some more States which have recently attained independence. Bhutan, a neighbor of ours, was under the virtual servitude of the same colonialism which departed in 1947 from the Indian subcontinent. It has taken Bhutan 24 years to obtain recognition of its legitimate rights and to occupy its rightful place in the comity of nations as an independent State, enjoying a sovereignty inferior to no other State's, The people and the Government of Pakistan warmly welcome Bhutan as an equal Member of the United Nations and assure it of their goodwill and close co-operation.
103.	We are equally glad to see here the representatives of Qatar and Bahrain, with whose countries our ties continue
to grow. We look forward to a close and mutually beneficial association with them. We are happy that we will soon be joined by Oman.
104.	Apart from these few gratifying gains, the process of decolonization has unfortunately slowed down. It has come to a virtual standstill in southern Africa where the Pretoria-Salisbury-Lisbon alliance continues to defy the verdict of the world community expressed through the General Assembly, the Security Council and recently, the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice .4 Portugal continues to impose its rule over Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau). The Pretoria regime continues to practice the abhorrent policies of apartheid in South Africa and Namibia. The racist minority regime of Ian Smith remains in control of Rhodesia despite mandatory sanctions.
105.	The world community can ignore the explosive situation arising out of the twin evils of colonialism and racialism only at its own peril. A racial conflagration in South Africa could arouse intense feelings the world over and could cause a global race conflict. It is therefore the responsibility of the Members of the United Nations in general and the Security Council in particular to defuse the situation in southern Africa by bringing about the emancipation of peoples under colonial or racist rule in that part of the world. The Security Council must take more effective steps to tighten the sanctions against Salisbury and to stop the sales of arms to Pretoria. It must no longer shrink from decisive measures to wrest Namibia from the illegal occupation of South Africa, and to halt the aggressive acts of Portugal against the African States.
106.	These are objectives which directly flow from the Charter of the United Nations, Like many other political objectives, most of which involve the fulfillment of justice in international relations, what they require is not a reiteration of former resolutions; what they require is political will on the part of all Member States, especially the great Powers. This will has been so far lacking. But if it is summoned and replenished by a detente between the great Powers, there is little doubt that a brighter horizon of peace will open before us. Then alone will the dream of human solidarity come nearer realization. Then alone will the United Nations reflect the oneness of the world. Without the radical reorientation of political attitudes that this requires, the world will remain as it is-a world full of grievances born of inequalities and injustices, a world in which the majority of the human race is deprived of its inheritance.


135. Mr. President, may I first of all extend the warmest congratulations of the delegation of the Republic of Mali on your brilliant election to the presidency of the twenty- sixth session of the General Assembly. In so doing, I would not wish to forget Mr. Hambro whose task it was last year to conduct the difficult proceedings which marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the United Nations.
136.	The ideal of peace, which for almost 30 years has sufficed to maintain mankind in a state of relative security, today deserves our devoting to it all the resources of our intelligence and all the determination that we as political leaders can muster.
137.	In this regard, the birthday wishes extended last year to the United Nations in the form of the slogan "Peace, Justice and Progress" should henceforth pass from words to deeds.
138.	There is no doubt that since the end of the last session, human intelligence and courage have achieved surprising things. The artificial frontiers born of ideological antagonisms which we pointed out have been somewhat blurred. The political will of States or groups of States to open their doors to one another for the sake of better understanding has unquestionably led to a better grasp of the forces at issue, thanks to a more realistic analysis of the international facts which govern our existence. This realism, illustrated by the progressive lifting of the absurd quarantine which until now had confined one of the biggest States of the world, is one of the most encouraging signs of our
' times. The motives behind these political phenomena would not deserve attention if they did not also concern the welfare of men. To be sure, science has opened to our hopes vast horizons whose extent and depth no longer turn our head, but outer space linkups, walks on the moon, and other scientific exploits can have no real meaning unless,
thanks to the concerted efforts of all, sickness, ignorance and malnutrition give way to a better economic future for mankind.
139.	How fine this hymn to victory would have been if the courage which enabled man to conquer nature had been directed more towards the search for a new economic order and if, above all, it had been put at the service of justice, equality and freedom!
140.	The provisions of the Charter of the United Nations are complementary. Peace, which it is our duty to seek with patience and intelligence, concerns mankind as a whole. If its approaches differ according to the interests at stake, the objective is always the same. Peace must be just and honorable. The image of troubled peace reflects that of our own incapacity to rise to the political responsibilities which, by delegation, are entrusted to us by the community of peoples. Our efforts should be to adorn that image and at last to give the nations once again that strength of faith which they tried to place in our Organization at the time of its creation.
141.	To restore harmony wherever stubbornness or the lust for power create explosive situations, to refuse to condone policies of humiliation or of abdication, to combat racial hatred and the strictures of dogma, to offer occasions of balanced development are all objectives for which acceptable solutions would be possible if we put our heads together.
142.	Here, the exercise to which we must immediately devote ourselves undoubtedly concerns the Middle East where misleading ashes cover a vast arsenal of war which can lead us at any time into a third world catastrophe.
143.	My Government, of course with certain reservations, greeted the various moves which led to the cease fire in the Middle East . It had hoped that the cessation of hostilities would speed the search for a solution if not global, at least partial of the crisis. However, this hope was to fade before the utter stubbornness of the Israeli Government, which has disdainfully rejected all attempts to settle the crisis, particularly the Jarring proposals and the Rogers plan.
144.	This negative attitude does great harm to the prestige and authority of our Organization. It should therefore use the Charter to induce this Member State to respect the principles to which it freely acceded.
145.	For its part, my Government is ready to cooperate in the quest for any solution based on Security Council resolution 242 (1967). But before all else, the international community must require Israel unconditionally to withdraw from the Arab territories occupied by force.
146.	There is a real chance of peace in the Middle East. But if it should unhappily go unheeded in the flush of transient military victories or the refusal to bow to the legitimate national demands of all the communities in the area, then a situation would arise for whose dramatic consequences we would bear full responsibility.
147.	Our Organization would do useful work in that part of the world if its present efforts should result in the restoration to the peoples of the Middle East of their inalienable rights. Here, we are thinking above all of the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians reduced by the political blindness of Israel to the status of stateless persons. However, these involuntary exiles, dependent on the uncertain generosity of States to satisfy their most elementary needs, have not given up. They are the vanguard of a fight which is our fight. And we would be failing in our duty if we refused them what they have never ceased to demand of us that they be permitted to return to their homeland and live there in peace.
148.	My Government is following with the same deep concern the developments which, for nearly 30 years, have brought grief to the peaceful populations of the Far East. The heroic struggle of the People's Army of VietNam, supported by the whole of its people, led to the Geneva Agreements of 1954 whose proper implementation would have permitted the peaceful reunification of that artificially divided country. The provisions of those Agreements are binding on all States and no attempt to thwart their implementation can be justified in terms of international obligations.
149.	In 1969 and this was said last year we had the hope that specific acts in favor of peace would follow the statement made in this Assembly by President Nixon [1755th meeting]. The tragic reality with which we find ourselves faced today is that after more than a year, the war, going beyond the frontiers of VietNam, has spread into Cambodia and been stepped up in Laos. Thinly-veiled interference in the domestic affairs of States has engulfed the Indo-Chinese peninsula in flames, where guns and napalm are the only elements on which it is believed possible to build the greatness of a civilization.
150.	Faith in democracy and in the sovereign exercise of rights which imply freedom cannot be destroyed by force of arms. That faith and that sovereignty of rights are not subject to negotiation. I hope that this fundamental reality will be understood by the Government of the United States of America and its allies, and that they will accede to the impatience of their own peoples and of the whole world by unconditionally withdrawing their troops from the Far East.
151.	The latest seven-point proposal of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South VietNam constitutes, we believe, a reasonable basis for negotiation. To allow the IndoChinese the freedom to work out their own political, economic and social order seems to us to be the only way of ensuring a just peace in the region.
152.	This consideration, valid for Indo-China, is equally so for Korea. The contacts recently instituted by the Korean Red Cross services are the latest signs in the process of peaceful unification. My delegation believes that the international Organization can attain this objective only by correcting its errors of 1955. It is our hope that the postponement of the Korean question to the twenty- seventh session of the General Assembly does not mark the beginning of a new strategy on the part of those whose interests are opposed to its consideration.
153. The United Nations must, in the interests of objectivity, dissolve the so-called United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea and withdraw the troops which, under the cover of the United Nations, are occupying the southern part of the country, where their presence is contrary to the ideals of peace of the Charter.
154.	There are so many problems before us for reflection, the time is so short and the demand of the peoples so urgent that only if we tackle them with courage have we any chance of at last attaining one of the fundamental objectives of the Charter to save future generations from the scourge of war and from destruction.
155.	It has already been stated that political courage consists in seeking the truth and telling it. Is it not to belie the truth to believe that the United Nations can advance towards its objective of universality while denying one of the greatest States in the world the rights which it enjoys as a founderMember of our Organization? Similarly, how can we be expected to believe political fictions at a time when their authors themselves are proceeding to correct mistakes made, at a time when tensions born of ideological confrontation stood in the way of a proper appreciation of political reality?
156.	It would be inexcusable to make good one mistake by another and it would be even more inexcusable to deny the oneness of the Chinese State.
157.	I need not emphasize the legitimacy of the representation of the People's Republic of China in terms of the size of its population or by making references to its domestic and foreign policy. It is paradoxical indeed that those who refer to such policies are the very same who support with their full material and financial weight regimes whose avowed objective is to destroy the moral and human principles that govern our Organization. The question that concerns us is to measure the gravity of the wrongs done to that country which, despite hostility from all sides, is undertaking, in conditions of order and peace, one of the greatest revolutions in human history.
158.	For over 20 years an injustice has been perpetuated against the People's Republic of China, and yet this has not prevented it from making its effective contribution to the welfare of millions of people in new countries facing the harsh exigencies of economic and social development. The People's Republic of China has responded to this injustice with the dynamism and cordiality of its relations with all peace-loving and freedom-lovingStates.
159.	We were extremely gratified at the beginnings of a rapprochement between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China. We were also gratified by the argument developed by the Nixon administration to the effect that it was for the Chinese and the Chinese alone to settle their domestic problems. It is, indeed, neither for our respective States nor for our Organization to do these things. But it is our responsibility and our duty, since we are speaking of peace, not to create other factors of tension which might make peace impossible.
160.	The most important question that can face us is whether, in the logic which should guide us, it is not time to put an end to myths and empty intellectual exercises, and to recognize that the rights of the People's Republic of
China should not be impaired by voting procedures. We hope that the General Assembly will take this view since it is for the Peking Government to find solutions to its problems commensurate with the greatness of its genius.
161.	In not disappointing this hope, we shall be doing the work of peace, just as we shall be doing by reconsidering our positions on questions which directly concern the freedom and dignity of millions arbitrarily subjected to the rigors of regimes whose arrogance, more than a challenge, is an insult to our Organization.
162.	For some time now international relations have benefited from the informed analysis of reciprocal positions and have been enriched by the opportunity for better mutual knowledge and appreciation. This irreversible current is, nevertheless, beset by serious obstacles condoned if not abetted by passivity and indifference.
163.	The despicable colonial system practiced by the Portuguese Government, which is unique in the annals of history, is aimed not only at stripping the peoples of Guinea (Bissau), Mozambique and Angola of their identity, but also at perpetuating foreign domination in Africa.
164.	Portugal claims to be defending Western and Christian civilization in Africa. No graver insult could be offered to the proponents of that civilization, for after more than four centuries in our continent, all Portugal does is brazenly exploit the resources and barbarously administer the population. Incapable by itself of achieving the level of economic and social development enjoyed by the rest of postwar Europe, incapable by itself of stemming the revolt of the African populations under its administration, Portugal appeals for assistance to South Africa, Rhodesia and all the Governments and associations for which a pound of copper or cobalt is worth more than the life of an African.
165.	The world is now in an era of detente. Portugal, for its part, has learned nothing from the past quarter of a century but violence, to which the populations of Guinea (Bissau), Angola and Mozambique have found a fitting response.
166.	In support of this truth I shall merely quote the following statement by an African freedom fighter reproduced in The Observer:
"We are not violent for the sake of violence. But Portugal has been ruled by violence for more than fifty years and so a certain amount of force seems the only effective rejoinder."
167.	Is there any truth more contrary to the pertinent provisions of the Charter, and should our efforts not be directed towards making this political philosophy inapplicable because it is prejudicial to peace? Colonialism in its death throes always tends to kill more, to destroy more. Portugal gives us an example of this by the war it is imposing on the populations of the African Territories under its occupation and by its repeated acts of aggression repeated because they always go unpunished against the independent States of Senegal, Guinea , Zambia and the People's Republic of the Congo, all Members of our Organization.
168.	You cannot claim to be for peace and defend or support Portuguese action in Africa. The support and complicity enjoyed by Portugal, particularly on the part of its NATO allies, help to strengthen the colonialist and neo-colonialist camp in its desperate resistance to the political emancipation of the Territories still under domination, and illustrate without the least possible ambiguity the attempts of international imperialism to confiscate, for the benefit of foreign capital, the immense economic resources of colonized countries and those that have just become independent.
169.	The international Organization, as I said, has the right and the duty to come to the aid of peace at any time and in any place. The provisions of the Charter make any such action by the United Nations legitimate. The provisions cf Chapter VII of that same Charter, in my Government's view, should be the sole source of inspiration for decisive action against Portugal, forced to ally itself with the racist and retrograde regimes in southern Africa.
170.	There can be no further doubt that Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa are combining their military efforts.
171.	This fact prompts certain reflections the most characteristic of which is that we cannot respond to this outrage to our Organization with ineffective measures. The economic sanctions ordered against Rhodesia have turned out to be ineffective if "not absurd. We must be logically consistent and we must place the responsibility where it belongs. The British Government continues to claim sovereignty over Rhodesia. We know the nature and scope of the measures it is capable of taking when it feels that its interests are at stake. It has no right, by reason of its specific undertakings under the Charter, to abandon the people of Zimbabwe to repression and poverty. The just struggle of the Zimbabwe people, the victims of an out and out conspiracy, involves the responsibility of the international community. To stand aside from it would be to capitulate to the forces of evil and hatred.
172.	The enormous resources used by certain Powers to create tensions under cover of the quest for so-called peace should rather be made available to the international community to serve in the restoration of peace wherever the principles of the Charter are imperiled. Namibia offers the best example in this regard. The Security Council, in its resolution 284 (1970) requested the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the legality of South Africa's presence in the Territory . That opinion has been given and it is magnificently clear. Paragraph 118 of the opinion states:
"118. South Africa, being responsible for having created and maintained a situation which the Court has found to have been validly declared illegal, has the obligation to put an end to it. It is therefore under obligation to withdraw its administration from the Territory of Namibia."
In paragraph 119 the Court continues:
"119. The member States of the United Nations are, for the reasons given in paragraph 115 above, under obligation to recognize the illegality and invalidity of South Africa's continued presence in Namibia .. .".
173.	Despite the voting reservations of certain members of the Security Council reservations which, as a matter of fact, contradict their public statements against the colonial Administration of South Africa the United Nations is now quite clear as to its responsibilities towards the people of Namibia.
174.	Suffice it to recall in this regard paragraph 1 * 6 o/ the Court's opinion, which states:
"Thus when the Security Council adopts a decision under Article 25 in accordance with the Charter, it is for member States to comply with that decision, including these members of the Security Council which voted against it.... To hold otherwise would be to deprive this principal organ of its essential functions and powers under the Charter."8
175.	The present session should therefore go beyond formal resolutions and Byzantine legal quibbling to seek, in accordance with the logic of the facts, practical means of enabling the United Nations Council on Namibia fully to assume its responsibilities with regard to the peoples whom, legally and morally, it is our duty to lead to independence. We must save Namibia from the cancer of apartheid with all haste.
176.	Statements on the immorality of apartheid become exercises in empty oratory when they lead to no concrete action to isolate and bring down the regimes that practice it.
177.	The provision of arms to the racist minority of South Africa can be justified neither from the standpoint of defending an alleged civilization nor from the standpoint of any search for peace. Does not human civilization rest on a complex of values, one of the most important of which is respect for human dignity?
178.	South Africa is one of the few States that regard injustice and the use of force as the only rules that should govern the administration of a State and its international relations. The Pretoria regime, in open rebellion against the United Nations, is arming itself not only against the black peoples of South Africa, but against the other African States as well. If the United Nations wishes to survive, it must act out of a sense of high conscience to frustrate all such attempts. The permanent members of the Security Council which, through their various initiatives, encourage and promote them, are all the more culpable in that they bear special responsibilities within that principal organ of the United Nations.
179.	The policy of dialog with the racist regime of Pretoria that has been proposed to us is, in fact, part of the diversionary strategy to which the supporters of apartheid and their henchmen are having recourse in order to start an argument that will give them a certain respite. Before proposing any dialog with the outside world, the racist
regime of Pretoria is in duty bound to start such a dialog first with the citizens of South Africa, who are its primary interlocutors. This, at any rate, is the view of the Government of the Republic of Mali on this problem of dialog.
180.	The Government of the Republic of Mali, profoundly devoted to peace, will support any initiative aimed at restoring and safeguarding peace and security in the world. Thus, we have followed with lively interest the negotiations resulting in the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, and the progress achieved in the talks on the limitation of strategic, conventional, biological and chemical weapons.
181.	Disarmament following upon a reduction of international tensions can, without doubt, free enormous resources that  could be placed at the service of development. But un-concerted  action that would scatter our efforts would but create unbalanced situations that would themselves give rise to tensions. Hie monetary crisis which is now shaking the world and which affects us all is one of the best illustrations of this.
182.	The problem of the revaluation of the resources of developing countries, that of the transformation and expansion of their units of production, and that of their increased participation in trade, make necessary, for the stability of international economies, solutions at once bold and appropriate.
183.	The World Bank has launched a medium-term program of assistance on behalf of the developing countries satisfactorily embracing the most important sectors of their economies. We hope that other credit acuities will follow this example.
184.	The proposals made by the Economic and Social Council in the framework of the Second United Nations Development Decade will be valid to the extent that they are studied with a willingness to apply them in a sort of planned economy of the third world.
185.	!r. President, in the statement which you made on 21 September [1934th meeting], you expressed the wish that our Organization might achieve greater universality. It will attain universality by avoiding dangerous compromises and refusing to shirk its responsibilities. You will assist us in doing this by the way in which you guide our discussions and by your knowledge of international problems.