f',.

·.• ., ..,,,.. United Nations FrnST COMMITTEE, 1116th GENERAL MEETING Friday, 25 November 1960, ASSEMBLY at 10.30 a.m. FIFTEENTH SESSION Official Records NEW YORK

CONTENTS it had frequently made clear its V!ews on the Mauri­ Page tanian question. It had persisted ln demanding respect Agenda item 79: for its rights over the territory 1 and had made its The problem of Mauritania (continued) reservations known to the French Government, the General debate (continued). • • • . • . • • • • • 169 United Nations and the special!zed agencies. 4. In the course of the negotiations preceding Mo­ Chairman: Sir Claude CO REA CCeylonl. rocco's independence, Morocco had agreed with the French Government on the appointment of a mixed commission to study the still unresolved frontiers AGENDA !TE M 79 problem. That commission, however, had never met, because France had rejected the Moroccan claims in The problem of Mauritania (A/4445 and Add. l) (continued) advance and had stated on 20 January 1960 that terri­ tories under the sovereignty of France and the States GENERAL DEBATE (cont!nued) members of the French Community must be excluded :from the discussions. 1. Mr. EL HAKIM (United Arab Republic) observed tbat the problem of Mauritania was one of the conse­ 5. In the circumstances, the Moroccan Government quences of tbe partitioning of Africa by colonial had had no other course than to bring the matter to Powers which had begun at the end of the nineteenth the United Nations, ln accordance wlth the Charter, century. Mauritania, wlùch, as the Moroccan repre­ which ca!led for the settlement of disputes between sentative had shown at tbe 1109th meeting, had never Member States by peaceful means, i.e. by means of been a national entity separate from Morocco, had negotiations. been conquered by France and proclaimed a French colony in 1920. Similar methods had been used in the 6. One of the most Important questions that had been Middle East; at tbe end of the First World Wa:r the raised in the discussion, ln particular by the French territories which had been detached from tbe Turldsh delegation, was that of the w!ll of the Mauritanian Empire had been partitloned in the same way. people. According to the French representative, the 2. The representative of Moroccohad clearlydemon­ peoples of the former French overseas territories strated the ties that had exlsted hetween Morocco had been able to choose hetween the status quo and and Mauritania before the French occupation, ties of immediate independence wlth the right of becoming the same nature as those generally in existence at autonomous members of the French Com.munity. If the beginning of the century between central authori­ the Mauritanian people, he had said, hadreallywlshed ties and local administrations in that part of the to join Morocco they could easily have voted against world, and reflect!ng political and administrative memhersh!p ln the Community and then decided for integration wlth Morocco; however, they had opted conditions in the area. It was significant that the French delegation had not denied those facts, hut had for membership of the Community. But the truth of mere!y tried to minimize the ties which had existed the matter was that the Maur!tanian people had not bet\veen Mauritania and Morocco. It would, indeed, been asked whether or not they wished to become part of Morocco. If the French authorities had really have been in no position to deny the historical fact, vouched for by no less an authority than Marshall wlshed to consult them on that subject, the question should surely have been one of those included in the Lyautey, that the Sultan of Morocco had always exer­ referendum. If any Mauritanian had actually asked clsed undisputed authority over that part of the for lntegration wlth Morocco, his vote would have continent. undouhtedly been cons!dered vold, slnce the question 3. From the moment of its occupation of Morocco, had not heen asked. If France1s real desire at the France, despite its pledges under the General Act of time had heen to bow to tbe freely expressed w!ll of the International Conference of Algeciras, signed on the people, it should have negotiated wlth Morocco 7 April 1906, and the Convention between France and through the mixed commission; a plebiscite could Germany signed at Berlin on 4 November 1911, had then have been held under United Nations supervision consistently pursued. a policy designed to weaken the to ensure free elections. Such a solution would have country and to facilitate partition, and had gone on to been quite feasible; but unfortunately France had detach the Mauritanian portion of Morocco's terri­ chosen to ignore the Moroccan Governm.ent, and after tory. The French representative had been unable to taldng unilateral decisions had organized a refer­ give any valid reason for his Government1s attitude endum which was now disputed and had only made a in respect of the agreements referred to and of the solution of the problem more difficult. other evidence which had heen cited. There was no douht that the Moroccan position, which was baeed on 7. For all those reasons, the United Arab Republic international agreements and on the fact of its former was obliged to support Morocco1s case. It confidently soverelgnty over the territory, was well founded. hoped that Morocco and Maur!tania would eventually Since Morocco's accession to independence in 1956, he reunited, in the interests of both peoples. 169 A/C.1/SR.1116 170 General Assembly - F!fteenth Session - Flrst Commlttee 8. In conclusion, he expressed surprise at some of Africa, Morocco's clalm seemed not only out of date tbe remarks made in his statement at the ll14tb but extraordinary. It was paradox!cal, too, tbat it meeting by tbe representative of Upper Volta. The should be put forward at tbe very moment when tbe position of tbe United Arab Republic on colonial ques­ General Assembly, under item 87 of its agenda, was tions and national freedom was well lmown; he could about to consider a draft declaration on tbe immedi­ only hope tbat tbose remarks made by a fellow Afri­ ate and unconditionai granting of independence to all can had stemmed from nùsinformation. dependent territories. The Committee would no doubt remember tbe enthusiasm witb which that ides had 9. Mr. DADET (Congo (Brazzaville)) sald that his been greeted when it had first been pnt forward by people had had great adnùration for King Mohammed tbe Chairman of tbe Council of Ministers oftbe USSR, V of Morocco ever since 1953, when France had sent Mr. Khrushchev, in tbe General Assembly (869tb him into exile in order to prevent tbe Moroccan plenary meeting). In granting independence to Mauri­ people from exercising its right of self-determina­ tania, tberefore, France could not be accuaed of tion. It was aston!shing that Morocco, in seeking to trickery, as Morocco claimed; on tbe contrary, itwas annex Mauritania, had now joined tbe ranks of tbe to be commended for tbus wishing to complete its expansionists and imperialists. !le cited tbree letters work of liberating its former West African colonies. he had received from young Congolese to show tbat tbe Congolese people, while it did not favour tbe 13. One point that puzzled him in tbe matter was balkanlzation of Africa, strongly disapproved of Mo­ the clalm that tbe dispute was not one between M<>­ rocco's clalm to Mauritanie. !lis delegation found the roccans and Mauritanians but one between Morocco arguments advanced by Morocco unconvincing, and and France, due to France's refusai to cons!der any felt that it was possible to create large. territoriiil adjustment of Morocco's soutbern frontiers to extend groupings witbout employing tbe metbods proposed Moroccan territory as far as tbe SenegalRlver. It did by Morocco. Countrles which considered tbelr present not seem reasonable to imagine that all tbe Mauri­ boundaries too narrow could not be pernùtted to seize tanians, with the exception of the very small mlnority territory belonging to tbeir neighbours. !le recalliid which had seen fit to seek asylum in Morocco, were that at one tirne much of tbe territory of tbe t\vo puppets of the French colonialiste. His delegation present-day Republics of tbe Congo had comprised a refused to entertain .!lllY such insulting opinion of its single huge kingdom, whose capital had been in what West Afrlcan compatriots. was now tbe Republic which he represented; surely, however, that did not entitle his Government to clalln. 14. Indeed, it did not find any of the arguments tbe entire territory of tbe ancien! kingdom of Anzlka. advanced by Morocco convinc!ng. The Moroccan claim !le appealed to Morocco to join on 28 November 1960 that France was signing nùlitary agreements witb in celebrating tbe independence of Mauritan!a. By the Islanùc Republic of Mauritania did not irnpress doing so, it would promote tbe cause of world peace. it, for such agreements were not unustial, as witnèss 10. Mr. IGNACIO-PINTO (Dahomey) said that while tbose recently signed between tbe United Kingdom his delegation could not agree witb those delegations and Nigeria for the use by the United Kingdom of ail which had seen expansionist designs in tbe IV!oroccan of Nleeria1il a!rports. It would be inadnùsslhle i11ter­ clalm that Mauritania had been an integral part of the ference ln tbe interna! affaira of a sovere!gn Sta:te to Sherifian Empire and should be restored to Morocco, crlticize Nigeria for coming t,o such an agreement !t felt that the Moroccan Government had perhaps witlj tbe .former colonial Power. allowed itself to be carried away by tbe arguments of those who, for reasons which mlght perhaps be valid 15. It was hard to believe that thè Mauritànian from the' domestic point of view but were certainly statesinen at prese11t in power would agree to any inappropriate at tbe international level, were pressing collaboration with Morocco, after tbe disparaging that claim. · attitude Morocco had adopted towsrds tbem.

11. France, for !ta part, maintained tbat Mauritania 16. For ail tbose reasons, hls delegation could not had never been an integral p;irt of Moroccan terri­ support Morocco ln denouncing FJ,"ance for grant­ tory and had in' any. case not been under Moroccan sovere!gnty when France had colonized it at the lng M!luritania independence. It was too attached to tbs !deal of freedom to wish to delay by one m<>­ beginning of the century, and that, silice seven of ment IV!auritan!a's accession to national sovereignfy, France' s eight former West African colonies had espec!ally as Mauïi.tanl!l had followed the same patb already achieved independence, it was only fair tbat as .Dahomey, suffered the same ev!IS of colonization Mauritania, tbe eightb of tbose colonies, should also ànd eµgaged ln the same struggle for liberty. It was be granted independence. strange tl)at voioes should now be raised to prevent 12. The issue was really qulte simple: whether the tbe liberation of a colony until such tiine as negoti.,.. United Nations should or should not promote tbe tions between France and Morocco had enabled M<>­ accession of a formerly colonized country to in­ rocco.to •recover• its Mauritanian province. It would dependence. To anyone not blinded by partisan feeling be interestjng to hear v,:hat princ!ples of the United tbe answer must obviously be in the affirmative. For ;Nations Chilrt,er .could be invoked in support of M<>­ his delegation, tberefore, . thére · was no problem. rocco's case; he would like to offer the Moroccan Despite his country's deep friendship for Morocco, ït delegation a piece of friendly adv!ce and suggest tbat could not close its eyes to tbe trutb and defend an. it should sirnply wtthdraw its 6Iaim. It was worth indefensible cause. ,It must, in all sincerity, declare painting out that bad the federal &xecutive Dahomey !ta conviction that the independence France was .to had wished for be(lll established in French Wss~ grant to Mauritanie was .in co.nfornùty with the spirit Afr!ca when tbe •.loi cadre" had been adopted in 1956, and the letter of the Uulted Nations Charter. In the Mauritarlia would naw bave been in the French West light of tlle desire for freedom and independence that African 'federation, to which it had belonged for was spreading like wildfire throughout tbe whole of almost slxty years. 1116th meeting - 25 November 1960 171 17. At the present day, when the Jmell of co!onialism 24. In drawing attention to those aspects of theprob­ had been sounded, Morocco should join the other lem, the Yugosiav delegation took as its point of former colonial territories in rejoicing over that departure the right of the people of Mauritania to event, rather than try to deprive Maurltania of its self-determlnation, with al! the variants that might place among the free nations. be lnherent in the democratic exercise of that right in normal, free conditions. It must be recognized that 18. His delegation felt that thè United Nations could a difference of opinion existed; but a peaceful solu­ not entertain Morocco' s claim without undermining tion must be sought to the problem. the very principles of the Charter. On the other hand, lt would gain in prestige if it used, the occasion to 25. His delegation accordingly considered that the demonstrate' that it remained faithful to its ideal of General Assembly could and should appeal to the enabling al! colonized peoples freely to determine parties concerned to enter into negotiations with n their own future and thei11 form of government. view to arriv!ng at a peaceful and Just solution of the proJ;>,lem, in accordance with the Purposes and Prin­ 19. In conclusion, he wished to warn the Moroccan ciples of the United Nations. It was a matter for de!egation that the c!aim it was advancing was fraught regret that the necessary efforts had not been made with serious consequences, not the least of which was in that direction in the last few years, in compliance the danger of dismembering the presel1t Mauritania, with the provisions of the agreement between France where three races lived together in peace and har­ and Morocco to wlùch he had referred. mony. He was confident that the United Nations would see to lt that Maurltania attained independence and 26. Mr. JHA (Indiœ), alter reviewing the arguments national sovereignty; that country could then, as an on both sides, sitid that much historical research independent State, decide in its own time whether or would be needed to establish their validity' but that not it wished to be Integrated or federated with Mo­ !t was doubtful whether the Committee itself could rocco. undertake su ch a task. India' s own opinion wa.s that the problem of Mauritania illustrated the entire pat­ 20. Mr. JOVANOVIC (Yugoslavia) said that his dele­ tern of colonial expansion during the eighteenth, gation was doing its utmost to further the movement nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. As a gen­ of national liberation which was developing through­ eral rule, the colonial Powers had selected areas in out the entire wor!d, and felt that one of the main wlùch the indigenous empires or principalities were tasks of the United Nations was to hasten the liqui­ in the process of decay and their 1nilitary po\ver and dation of the last vestiges of colonialism and to authorlty on the decline. They had first established strengthen the independence of the newly emanclpated trading posts, giv!ng assurances of obedience and States. That task was not always simple, owlng to the goodwill to the local authorities. After gradually policy pursued by the colonlalist Powers of safe­ expanding the areas of their influence, they had later, guarding their economic, political, military and other with the help of their military might, succeeded in interests, and to that end limitlng the exorcise by subjugating those local authorities, whom they had peoples of the right to self..determlnation. often cajoled into signing agreements. With each suc­ cessive instrument the local clùefs had surrendered 21. The orig!n of the Mauritanian problem was increasing authority to the colonial Po\ver; and in clearly to be found in co!onialism; lt was the result many cases they had set themselves up against the of intervention in the destinies of the African peoples suzerain Power and connived with the colonial Powers by colonial Powers which had disregarded the tra­ to subvert its authority. At a convenient moment, the ditional ties and interests of the peop!es and had cre­ puppet rulers had themselves been cast aside and the ated artificial frontiers that divided groupa formerly territories annexed to the colonial empire, for the united by lùstorical bonds. suzerain indigenous Powers had become so helpless that they had fa!len an easy prey to the colonial 22. The discussion of the problem of Mauritania and Power. That had happened in India and in other parts the arguments advanced by the Moroccan and other of Asia and Africa. delegations had shown that the question of Mauri­ 27. On the west coast of Africa the declining empire tania' s future must be viewed in a different context of the Kingdom of Morocco had been subjected by the from that of the other former French colonies of the rising power of Spain and France to pressures and part of Africa concerned. techniques of that ldnd. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, France had begun the conquest 23. In studying the material presented to the Com­ mitte'e, bis delegation had been particularly struck by of Maurltania from the south. It had gradually ex­ tended its sway northwards, setting up so-cal!ed the followlng aspects of the problem: firstly, the deep independent principalities with wlùch it had entered ties between Morocco and the people of Mauritania, into treaties and agreements, so that eventua!ly their which had lasted for many centuries and had been links with the Moroccan Kingdom had been severed. internfpted only by the French occupation of Mauri­ tania; secondly, the existence of an agreement con­ At the same time, the French had advanced into Mo­ rocco from the north, and in 1912 had established a cluded between France and Morocco, after Morocco's attainment of independence, to set up a mixed com­ protectorate there. It should be mentioned that any critic!sm attaching to that process applied not spe­ mission to examine the question of Morocco's south­ c!fically to the French people, which had a long tra­ ern frontiers; thirdly, the fact that, France hav!ng dition of liberalism and humanism, but to colon!alism subsequently withheld its agreement, that commission as a system. had never been set up and the question had not been settled; and fourthly, the fact that Morocco had never 28. In determining the validity of territorial claims, accepted that attitude on the part of France and had no reliance could be placed on treaties concluded be­ repeatedly raised the question of its southern fron­ tween expanding colonial Powers such as France tiers ln its bilateral dealings with France. and Spain and declining indigenous Jdngdoms like 172 General Assembly- Flfteenth Session - First Committee Morocco. For, although clothed in legal form, such the existing southern frontier of Morocco was in fact treaties had usually been unequal arrangements the limit of more or less effective Moroccan adminis­ embodying territorial claims which the lndigenous tration at the time of Morocco•s greatest weakness, Powers had been too weak to resist. Nor could the and that it was primarily a llne agreed by the French French assertion that the 1958 referendum ln Mauri­ and Spanish protectors for the purpose of setillng tania was a rejection of union with Morocco be sus­ their own disagreements over the division of Mo­ talned. The referendum had been conclusive only with roccan territory; it had never been aclmowledged by respect to the questions asked, and there was no an independent Moroccan Government. justification for drawing any other conclusions from it. Slnce the question whether Mauritania wanted 30. Although, historically spealdng, the divisions imposed by colonial Powers gave Morocco cause for union with Morocco had. not been asked, !t could not be said to have been decided by the referendum. grievance, it would be unrealistic to ignore the trend of developments over recent years. For, whatever 29. The situation seemed to be fairly summed up ln their origine, situations tended to become crystal­ a survey publlshed by the Royal Institute of Inter­ llzed with the passing of time. In the circumstances, national Affaira of London, a bqdy with a reputation it was bard to suggest a solution or any useful course for impartial study)/ It was stated in that book that of United Nations action. In the view of the Indian delegat!on, the matter was one which should be solved amicably and peacefully by the peoples concerned 11 See Royal lnstltute of lnternatlonal Aff airs, A Survey of North West without any outside influences or pressures. Afr!ca (The Maghrib), edlted by Nevill Barbour (London, Üxfo•d Uni­ versity Press, 1959), p, 63, The meeting rose at 12.15 p.m.

Litho in U.N. 77101-Februar·y 1961-2,125