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.