So we want to explore these and other ways to respond to African needs. I have instructed the Secretary of State and other American officials to review our own development policies and programs in Africa. We shall be seeking new ideas and advice from American scholars, businessmen, and experts concerned with Africa's problems. Our Ambassador to Ethiopia, Ed [Edward M.] Korry, will be working full time in the weeks ahead to follow through these initiatives. We wish to discuss new cooperative approaches and ideas with African governments, as well as with other governments and international groups. The United States wants to respond in any way that will be genuinely helpful: from the private American citizen to a combination of many nations, from a bilateral effort with a single African country to regional programs. Above all, we wish to respond in ways that will be guided by the vision of Africa herself, so that the principles we share the principles which underlie the OAU Charter-come to life in conformity with the culture and aspirations of the African peoples. It once was said of Americans that "With nothing are we so generous as advice. . . . We prefer being with people we do things for to being with people who do things for us." But it is no longer a case of what we can do for or even with the people of Africa. We have come to recognize how much we have to learn from you. As one of the great Africans, Dr. James Aggrey,15 wrote: "If you go to Africa expecting something from us, and give us a chance to do something for you, we will give you a surprise." African states are all in Africa. We cannot move ourselves to the moon in order to get away from our neighbours! We have therefore to live together and somehow we have to find a way of living together. Disputes can only be settled round a table, either bilaterally between the disputing states, or with the help of friends. There is no other way now. In the past our different tribes and clans used to fight over territory or over cattle. I well remember my own father telling me of the battles my tribal people had with our tribal neighbours. Usually these wars were not very serious; a few young men on both sides were killed and cattle stolen or recovered. Indeed, from the way the stories are told now they even sound rather like some excitement in a hard life-although we should remember that they still caused much misery and hardship. 17 Documents on Disarmament, 1966 (U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency publication 43, 1967), pp. 585-586. But wars today are not like that. They mean widespread misery, and complete destruction of livelihood for all the peoples involved. And in any case, how would we fight them? None of the free states of Africa can manufacture its own guns, its own ammunition, its own aircraft. If we enter into wars with one another we have no alternative but to buy these things from foreign countries, or allow them to be given to us. And of course we can get such gifts. In my experience the one form of foreign aid which is easy to get from big powers is arms and military training! The Need in Africa "for ude to United Action and But we must all understand why the big powers are interested in supplying weapons and why they try to persuade each of us that our neighbour has a big army which is threatening us. It is because they welcome the prospect of one part of Africa fighting another part. They know that the net result can only be the weakening of Africa as each nation spends its resources buying arms instead of buying machinery for new factories, or uses the arms it has been given in order to destroy the progress made in an In fact, the real danger in Africa now is not that our enemies will attack us directly; if that happens to any single state we shall surely all rally round in support. The danger is that the undercover enemies of our continent will intrigue in our separate capitals and encourage our quarrels until we attack each other. For this purpose they will flatter our national pride and persuade each of us how evil our particular neighbour is, and how willing they are to help us defend ourselves. And against whom will these people who call themselves our friends be "helping us"? Against our brothers! Really, if Africa once falls into this trap we shall have to call peace conferences, or disarmament conferences, instead of an O.A.U. meeting! Because we are poor and our only strength is in unity we shall then look even more silly than those powers which now spend thousands of millions of their currency on armaments and a few thousands on talking together on how they can stop doing it! Of course we in Africa cannot do without arms altogether. Internally each of our states needs a police force with power to uphold law and order. And many of our citizens do need weapons to defend themselves against B West and Central Africa DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC Document VIII-5 Statement Made by the U.S. Representative (Goldberg) in the U.N. Security Council, October 14, 19661 attacks from wild animals. It is also true, unfortunately, that for Africa as a whole the possibility of attack from the remaining colonial territories in our continent cannot be completely ruled out. But our real security and freedom does not depend on large national armies. It depends on economic progress, on our unity in Africa, and on our united diplomacy. And for these things we need friendship and good neighbourliness as a prelude to united action and ultimate unity. Since the events which led to the United Nations Operation in the Congo, the United States has been vitally concerned with doing every United States Support of 1 Department of State Bulletin, Nov. 14, 1966, pp. 759-760. The Security Council was meeting for the fourth time in response to communications from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Portugal. On Sept. 21 the Congo Government had claimed that Portugal was using its African territories of Angola and Cabinda as a base for mercenaries recruited in Europe by the Congolese opposition, headed by Moise Tshombé, thing we can through the United Nations and unilaterally to help insure the security, independence, and wellbeing of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with whom we enjoy good relations. We were strong supporters of the United Nations efforts to help restore stability to the Congo and have by mutually agreeable bilateral arrangements assisted the Congo with the same purpose in mind. There is a clear and constant record of American concern for Congolese security manifested by concrete aid and assistance rather than the stale and irrelevant rhetoric which to date has been the sole and dubious contribution of the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, whose representatives have spoken in this debate.2 We have listened with great concern to the reasoned presentation by the distinguished Foreign Minister of the Congo Democratic Republic, and we share his concern about the situation in the Congo. We would have been prepared and are prepared to support unhesitatingly a call on all states not to interfere in the domestic affairs in order to overthrow the Congo Government (U.N. doc. S/7503). Portugal, on Sept. 24, complained to the President of the Security Council that its Embassy at Kinshasa had been attacked and looted and its Chargé seized and wounded by Congolese mobs. Portugal also said that the Congo Government had urged its people to a policy of violence against Portugal and the Portuguese community resident in the Congo (U.N. doc. S/7506). 2 See U.N. docs. S/PV.1306 and 1304, respectively. See footnote 7 to doc. VIII-6, infra. of any other state, including the Congo, and, indeed, we would have been further prepared to support a call upon all states not to allow territory under their control to be used as bases for operations for interference by mercenaries or otherwise in the domestic affairs of other states, including specifically the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Now, we have difficulty in supporting operative paragraph 1 as it now stands for reasons which have been adverted to by other delegations. It is asserted by the distinguished Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that mercenaries are being stationed in Angola for employment in the Congo, and this is denied by the distinguished representative of Portugal, who offers on behalf of his Government to open the way for a factfinding mission so that the Council can determine the disputed fact. In the presence of this conflict and in the absence of any Security Council action on the Portuguese proposal for a factfinding mission, which in our view this Council could take action to insure would have complete access to the facts, we have found it difficult to make an enunciation at this stage of our proceedings in the particular terms of paragraph 1. We, too, recognize and compliment the distinguished representative of Mali and the cosponsors in their attempt to find a common ground so that all can be together, and we welcome very much the statement he just made which permits a separate vote so that in the final analysis, whatever our reservations may be about specific language, we can come to a common meeting in a resolution which expresses the view of this Council that all states ought to refrain from interfering in the domestic affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, indeed, that mercenaries ought not to be employed by any state to interfere in the domestic affairs of other states, including the Congo. Mr. President, I shall not reply myself today to the irrelevant excursions made by members about the general For the text of the U.N. Security Council resolution, see infra. In a separate vote on operative par. 1, the text was adopted by a vote of 11 to 0, with 4 abstentions (France, New Zealand, Ú.K., and U.S.). problem of the Portuguese territories." We have made our position in this respect quite clear, and we are prepared when that subject comes up again to express our strong views in this area. Document VIII-6 Resolution 226 (1966), Adopted by the U.N. Security Council, October 14, 1966 United Nations Call on Portugal Not To Allow Foreign Mercenaries To Use Angola as a Base of Operations for Interfering in the Domestic Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo "The Security Council, "Having heard the statements of the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of the representative of Portugal,' "Taking note of the statement of the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that Angola under Portuguese administration is used as a base of operation for foreign mercenaries for interfering in the domestic affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, “Taking note further of the statement of the representative of Portugal that there are no mercenaries in Angola, nor camps, nor war material meant to disturb the peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, In the meeting of the Security Council on Oct. 3, the representative of Tanzania had charged that the Government of Portugal carried on aggressive actions against African peoples with the aid of weapons procured through its membership in NATO (see U.N. doc. S/PV.1303). Similar accusations were made by the representatives of Bulgaria and the U.S.S.R. (see U.N. docs. S/PV.1304 and 1306). The U.S. representative denied that Portugal's membership in NATO bore any relation to its African policies (see U.N. doc. S/PV.1303). U.N. doc. S/7539. This resolution was adopted unanimously. See also footnote 4 to doc. VIII-5, supra. ? See U.N. docs. S/PV.1302-1304, 1306. |