A/40/PV.29 General Assembly
I shall now call on representatives who have asked to
speak in exercise of the right of reply. I remind members that, in accordance with
General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are
limi ted to 10 minu tes for the firs t intervention and five minu tes for the second,
and should be made by representatives from their seats.
Mr. ALATAS (Indonesia): It is with considerable regret that I have asked
for the floor in order to respond to the statement made this morning by the Prime
Minister of Vanuatu. I say "regret" because that is how we felt as we listened to
the disparaging remarks and slurs he uttered when referring to my co~ntry and my
people, which only reveal the peculiar bias - or is it myopia? - of his perceptions
regarding Indonesia.
The Prime Minister again repeated the well-worn half-truths, distortions and
outright falsehoods about the situation as regards East Timor. I shall on this
occasion, however, refrain from commenting on this particular part of his
statement, for during this general debate others have also made similar references
to this question, and my delegation wishes to reserve its right to reply to all of
them a t the same time a t a la ter stage.
I do want to respond, however, to the remarks of the Prime Minister in
referring to that part of our country which he has a curious penchant for calling
by its colonial name - and, by the way, even in this he is incorrect, as Irian Jaya
was never called "West Papua" but rather "West New Guinea".
(Mr. Akinyemi, Nigeria)
89-90
14s all members know, Irian Jaya was part of the formel: Dutch East Indies. For
scores of years, the people of IlCian Jaya waged the same struggle for independence
in unity with their brothers and sisters in the other ]f)ar~ of Indonesia against
their common colonial ruler; and it is only because of a neo-colonial trick, on
which I shall not elaborate, that the people of Irian Jaya were temporarily
prevented from joining their Indonesian compatriots in-a free and independent
Indonesia. Hence, even after our independence was internationally recognized: the
Indonesian people had to wage another long struggle, here in the United NatioHs and
outside it, in order to achieve the restoration of the total integrity of its
sovereign territory. With the assistance of the United Nations, that struggle was
finally crowned with victory on the basis of an act of free choice by the people of
lrian Jaya which reunited it with the rest of the Republic in 1962. Subsequently
the act of free choice was endorsed by this world body in 1969 in
resolution 2504 (XXIV).
(Hr:. Alatas, Indonesia)
These are the facts concerning trian Jaya. They may not conform to the
particular perception of the Prime Minister, but they are the facts none tlle less.
To continue to describe this process using words such as "annexation" and
"expansionism" reveals either shocking ignorance or deliberate malicious intent.
Frankly, we are at a loss as to which of these it may be in the case of Vanuatu.
The .territory of the Indonesian State is vast enough, its resources rich and
varied enough and its manpower numerous enough in order to enable the Indonesian
nation to achieve peacefully, and within its own borders, its national goal of
developing into a just .md prosperous society. Hence, to depict Indonesia as a
land-hungry and greedy expansionist power, ready to pounce on and I quote the Prime
Minister's words "smaller and more vulnerable neighbours" (A/40/PV.28, p. 51) is
simply ridiculous.
Thus, on this issue of Irian Jaya, it is not that Indonesia would want people
to forget. On the contrary, we would want people to remember what has actually
transpired dur ing t."le long struggle that the Indonesian people have waged to secure
their territorial integrity.
What, in effect, is the Prime Minister suggesting to the l1Ssembly? Str ipped
of its anti-colonial verbiage, what he is in essence p.l,:oposir.g is that one part of
a sovereign country ought to be sElJ;:arated from the rest of the nation. And this he
would do on the spurious basis of ethnic or racial considerations. If his
astounding proposal were to be seriously entertained, would he then suggest on the
sc\me basis that we should have another look at the borders of other existing States
of tllle third world becaUse they, too, were arbitrarily drawn by the former colonial
Powers and SUbsequently bequeathed to the newly ind~pendent States? Would he try
to rearrange them along racial and ethnic lines?
Indonesia is a multi-ethnic, multiracial ~ociety which bases its notion of a
nation-State, and proudly so, on a common philosophy and way of life, a common
(Mr. Alatas, Indonesia)
heritage of cul.tural and political values, a common history of principled struggle
and a perception of common desti..ny, not on the colour of our skin, the texture of
our hair, the way we dress, the dialect we speak - and there are numerous dialects
in Indonesia - or the reli;:gion we profess. As is well known, the ethnic or igins of
the Indonesian people are a composite of Malay, Polynesian and Melanesian strains
and in total numbers there are in fa~t more people of Melanesian stock within
Indonesi~'s b()rders than in the entire South Pacific.
Last year, the Foreign Minister of Vanuatu expounded the same theme. In our
response we pointed out how irrelevant and dangerous the implications of his
notions were. We deeply regret, therefore, to hear the same theme repeated today.
We ask the Prime Minister the same question as we then posed to his Foreign
Minister: by what right does Vanuatu attempt to speak for our citizens in the
province of Irian Jaya?
The Prime Minister, in his statement, rightly lauded the role of the United
Nations and the sacred principles enshrined in its Charter. May I respectfully
remind him that among those sacred pr inciples are those of respect for the
territorial sovereignt~ and integrity of States and non-interference in the
internal affairs of States. As these are cardinal principles enshrined in the
Charter and cherished by the Non-Aligned Movement and by all civilized, peaceful
States in the world, no nation can remain indifferent to what amounts to a blatant
call for their contravention. Nor can Indonesia. We continue to hope that the
Prime Minister's remarks and his distorted vision of Indonesia are based simply on
an unfortunate misunderstanding and misperception of the situation and are not a
veiled incitement to separatism.
We stand ready to assist him in arriving at the right understanding of the
affairs in our region, in which we share so many common interests and
responsibilities. We have no other wish but to co-operate peacefully and
most certainly includes the Republic of Vanuatu - in the development of our
respective nations and in the maintenance of regional peace and stability. But, at
the same time, we must also tell him quite candidly and firmly - and without
calling him names, which, indeed, we have never done - that we shall never accept
and categorically reject his views on Irian Jaya.
Mr. de KiMOUIARIA (France) (interpreta,tion from French): I should like
to respond to the statements made this mornil'ig by the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Papua New Guinea and by the Prime Minister of Vanuatu on the subject of French
nuclear testing and New Caledonia.
First, I shall address nuclear testing. Only a few days ago I had occasion to
recall to this Assembly the conclusions of international scientific missions that
were able with complete freedom to carry out measurements, investigations and
sampling at the Mururoa Centre. The conclusions of their reports are known and
have been set forth in detail once again before the Special Political Committee.
It should be no surprise that they established that the tests were harmless, and
that over the long term. After all, the people primarily concerned by the testing
are French people of metropolitan as well as local origin and the Assembly can be
sure that the connnon concern of those people and of the authorities would not
tolerate the health of the inhabi tants of those islands and their environment being
threatened in any way.
Our author i ties have always taken care to ensure that no danger of this nature
would ever weigh on the people thcr~. It is therefore clear, as was
acknowledged - and I note this with satisfaction - by the two speakers to whom I am
responding, that the criticism of my country is primarily and basically political
in nature. The Pri~ Minister of Vanuatu himself said that what he cr iticizes
France for is that "It ignores our moral objections to nuclear weaponry."
(A/40/PV.28, p. 43) That is a different dimension.
(Mr. Alatas, Indonesia)
Realistically, France obviously cannot take account unilatera11y of those
objections, which should rather, and primarily, be addressed to other PC,t1ers. The
French deterrent force is exclusive1y defensive in nature-and capacity. It is,
moreover, the foundation of the security of my country, which was invaded three
times in the space of 100 y~ars•. How can one ask a sovereign state to abandon its
means of defence when care is taken to avoid asking the same of those with a
capacity 100 per cent greater?
HOiI1, lastly, can the position of France be described as arrogant because, in
accordance wi th its rights and in the full exercise of its sovereignty, it is
conducting in French territory action which is essential to its security and which,
I repeat, does not affect peace in the region, the security of states located
there, the health of the people or the environment?
Does the word "arrogance" not apply rather to those who, constantly and
without taking account of the open-minded approach of the Government of France and
its frequently expressed desire for dialogue, seek to impose their views on lands
and populations situated thousands of kilometres away from their own countries?
Does it not apply, rather, to those who conduct themselves wi th !regard to an entire
continent with vast seas as if they were the owners - and by what right and on what
basis - thus reviving claims and practices that have gone for ever, and doing so in
contravention of the most elementary rules and practices of international law?
(Mr. de Kemoularia, France)
As far as the fUf:ure of New Caledonia 'is concerned, my delega tion cannot
accept the implications,",made by the aforementioned speakers, particularly the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Papua New Guinea, regarding the intentions of the
F,ench Government. When it comes to the exercise of 'the right to
self-determination and the practice of democracy, who in this Assembly can fault
us? France, which has-proclaimed the right of peoples to self-determination, has
remained completely faithful to that principle and intends to respect the freely
expressed wishes of all the i~habitants of its territories, in New Caledonia and
elsewhere.
As far as concerns New Caledonia, the French Government has begun a process
which will enable the people of that territory freely to express themselves on
their future. That process, which respects the rights and interests of all the
communities, has been approved by the French Parliament. As is known, it provides
for the organization of a vote on self-determination before the end of 1987 and the
establishment of provisional institutions.
The new status, which is adapted to the pluri-ethnic character of Caledonian
society, has established four largely decentralized regions with major powers and,
at the level of the territory, a congress and an executive council.
The regional councils were elected on 29 September last in elections in which
all the political groupings submitted candidates in all areas and which were
carried out in tranquillity and in an exemplary and proper manner - as everyone
noted - with a very high participation of more than 80 per cent. Hence they have
political significance of the highest importance. Advocates of independence won in
three regions out of four and have a majority in the executive council. Their
adversaries - who cannot be said to be all of European origin - won a majority in
the fourth region and in the congress of the territory.
(Mr. de Kemoularia, France)
In establishing these new institutions, the French GOvernment has thus created
conditions for balance and for dialogue among the varioqs communities of New
Caledonia. It is nOltl up to the deJlDcratically elected representatives of those
communities to work together and agree on the future of the territory, with a view
to holding the vote on self-determination.
This process must be preserved; and my Government wishes to see it completed.
Wisdom calls for its being carried out in tranquillity, freedom of expression and
full respect. Any interference can only jeopardize the process.
Mr. VUROBARAW (Vanuatu): My delegation wishes to reserve for a later
date the exercise of its right of reply in response to the statement made in right
of reply by the representative of Indonesia.
Mr. LOUMA (Papua New Guinea): My delegation would simply like to reserve
for a later date the exercise of its right of reply to the sentiments just
expressed by the Ambassador of France.
The meeting rose at 6.35 p.m.
(Mr. de":l{emoularia, France)