A/40/PV.33 General Assembly

The Assembly will now hear a statement by the Prime Minister of Mauritius, His Excellency the Honourable Anerood Jugnauth.* Mr. Anerood Jugnauth, Prime Minister of Mauritius, was escorted to the rostrum.

I have great pleasure in welcoming the Prime Minister of Mauritius, His Excellency the Honourable Anerood Jugnauth, and inviting him to address the General Assembly. * The President returned to the Chair. Mr. JUGNAUTH (Mautitius): Mr. President, ~t gives me great pleasure to express to you and my personal congratulations and happiness, and those of my delegation, on your assumption of this office which represents the culmination of a long and brilliant diplomatic career which began almost at the time when this Organization was born. The considerable personal experience and wisdom which you have gained at the service of the United Nations for almost a quarter of a century, in various distinguished capacities, in particular the presidency of the Security Council, will be of special value during this anniversary session, which will be a time for self-examination, renewal and invigoration. I wculd also like to perform another agreeable duty in thanking your predecessor, Mr. Paul John Firmino Lusaka, Permanent Representative of zambia, for his distinguished, firm and efficient conduct of the deliberationB of the General Assembly during its thirty-ninth session. He did honour not only to his country but also to the whole of Africa, and by his display of wisdom and remarkable diplomatic skills has further enhanced Africa's stature in our Organization. Our appreciation also goes to the secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cue1lar, for his fourth report (A/40/l) on the work of the Organization in which he has once more demonstrated his unceasing and almost obstinate determination to revitalize the United Nations and give it the role that its founding fathers had envisioned. In thanking him, we would like to assure him of our full co-operation in the discharge of his mandate. To the people of Mexico, we express our deepest sympa thy for the recent tragedy which has befallen them. This year also marks the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the end of the second world War. More than 60 per cent of the world population living today was born after that war. Many of them have grown up in a period of relative calli, free at least ftam the nightmare which their parents bad to U.vethrough. They do not bear any responsibility for the horrors of the war and n~ burden of guilt can or should be laid on them. They have, in many.instances, shown a commendable desire to correct the injustices of the past and their efforts have contributed in a large measure to heal the deep wounds of the years of unbridled cruelty, violence and carnage. There are, therefore~ powerful arguments for putting the past behind us and forging ahead to meet today's ch<:llenges and those which lie ahead in the future. It does not mean, however, that we should either try to wish the past away or attempt to obliterate it. This is neither possible nor desirable. Besides, as we look at developme~ts since the end of the war we are sadly forced to admit that th~re are few grounds for satisfaction and that there are many grounds for apprehension. Over the years, others before me in this forum have been pointing out the dangers of the world divided against itself in which we ar~ forced to live. The dialogue necessary for continued peaceLzl coexistence, which has become the essential condition for our survival, seems to have been sadly lacking in understanding and generosity, not to say in sincerity. In place of the peaceful competition which we all profess to desire, the end of the war witnessed a scramble to carve up and establish spheres of influence, which has transformed the whole world into a potential battleground. It has been pointed out that a world in which ov~rt or covert attempts are repeatedly made to destabilize or overthrow lawfully established Governm~nts because their system is not to one's liking cannot for long remain a safe world. The history of such attempts since 1945 in violation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter has been richly documented. On the other hand, it is becoming customary to hear the argument of national security and vital national interests advanced for the practice of shoring up unpopular client regimes, as if the peace and security of any country could ever be served by the use of brutal force against the legitimate aspirations of peoples. Our predecessors who drafted the Charter of this Organization sought to establish peace on a more legitimate premise: by asking the international community to renounce the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political i~d~pendence of any State. We ar~ painfully aware of the many violations of t.'lis solemn undertaking to which all the Members of this Organization ~ave subser ibed. The international community has been forced to watch from the sidelines with growing helplessness as military aggressions and invasions become more and more brazen and as defenceless countries come under hostile foreign occupation. It has been powerless in the face of the shameless and unprovoked use of force to achieve so-called national security objectives. It has remained a passive, if indignant, witness as millions of people have been converted into foreigners in their own lands, denied the basic rights of citizenship, while others were being chased out and forced into permanent exile. The international community has been given the responsibility, but denied the means to act effectively to aver t the outbreak of hostilities and to check them after they have started. It is becoming commonplace to hear the argument that at least relative peace has been preserved for a period of 40 years. The argument, I am afraid, is based on ostrich-like reasoning. It does not take into account the scores of wars fought over the past 40 years and the wars which are still being fought in many parts of the world. Tbe fact that the territories o~ some countries, former battlefields, have mercifully been spared the horrors of war can hardly justify the assertion that the world has enjoyed 40 years of uninterrupted peace. There are, no doubt, those who believe that wars fought outside their own national territories are somehow not real and therefore are acceptable. There are also those who believe that wars are inevitable but that, like games, they can be controlled or limited. From their perspective, it would be de~irable and possible to confine any actual fighting to certain areas, to limit its scope. In many regions the rivalry between the super-Powers has created a context in which client armies, nourished on alien ideologies in the absence of other fare, face each other across hostile national boundaries". Less than 50 years ago many allowed themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by the promise of peace with honour. It is now clear that the promise in fact meant throwing those perceived as weak to the wolves, in the selfish hope that their appetite would thereby be satiated. The development of the perception that conflicts can be managed or limited to certain areas deemed expendable is an extremely dangerous one. The risk that one of the so-called regional or local conflicts might erupt into a general and total war haunts the world today as never before since 1945. In many regions situations of conflict have become the norm, peace the exception. The areas of peace continue to shrink, those of war to expand. The reaction in most cases, despite the obvious dangers involved, has been strangely muted and totally inadequate, when not amounting to indifference. A million dead are the price of six years of war between Iran and Iraq, a war which continues with no end in sight. The consequences in terms of human and material losses are appalling. The dangers to the international community are well known. It is also sadly significant that the flow of weapons to both countries has continued uninterrupted throughout and that the number of suppliers has increased fourfold over the period. To the representive of a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, it is particularly disturbing that two developing countries should be at war with each other. There is a tragic irony in the situation, compounded by the fact that many of the weapons used by the belligerents are identical, manufactured in the same countries and provided by the same suppliers on the sidelines, to whom the war is nothing more than a god-sent occasion for business as usual. It is an additional ground for concern that both super-Powers are now observing a watchful neutrality, and many other states believe they have a right to feel vitally concerned in the area. If past experience is anything to go by, the involvement and the rivalry that is sure to follow will be far from constructive for either of the belligerents, or for the world community. It is claimed that the conflict between Iraq and Iran, like many others today equally fraught with potentially global consequences, has roots deep in the past. It is true that the past cannot be ignored. It is, however, equally true that it is easy to rationalize current crimes and aberrations in terms of what we have inherited. In other times that we like to pretend were more barbarous than ours, countless numbers of people have been put to death on political, religious or ideological grounds. It is certain, though, that the majority of them were the Victims of intolerance, the most corrosive of all feelings throughout the ages. 'rhe same spiri t is a t work today in the eruption of ethnic and communal violence, of fanaticism, in the erection of racism in a system of organized repression, and in the bitter conflict of rival ideologies. It has within the last 15 years led to the occupation, then dismemberment g of the independent State of Cyprus. In Afghanistan it has pitted brother against brother in a bloody struggle fanned from outside. And in Kampuchea it threatens the total annihilation of a once proud civilization. Dialogue without outside pressure and intervention can be positive and should be encouraged, like the direct contact between North and South Korea which should continue. We call upon both North and South Korea to continue peaceful negotiations towards reunification. Deep-rooted prejudices, the will for total power and the confrontation of ideologies acting singly or as a combination of factors hinder the prospects of a negotiated settlement for each of these countries. In none, however, can a militarily imposed outcome provide the foundation for a lasting peace. We will take the risk of flying against the kind of conventional wisdom that declares war to be an extension of diplomacy, and suggest that the use of force is in most cases nothing more than part of the problem and not a means to a solution. We reiterate our conviction that a viable and durable peace in each of these situations must be a negotia ted one, acceptable in the first place to the people mos t deeply concerned and affected. In the light of the declarations of all involved that their aim is peace and stability, it would seem that the objectives should be readily attainable. It is, however, with deep misgivings that we are forced to recognize the wide gap between professed objectives and the realities of the brutal policies pursued. It is well known that long-established perceptions and policies deriving therefrom, however dangerous they might be to the world, do not and sadly cannot be expected to change overnight. It cannot be too strongly stressed, however, that what is needed in these circumstances is nothing less than a change of heart leading to the recognition that relative security for all is preferable to the chaos which hegemonic ambitions are certain to produce. The will for hegemony in the 1930s expressed in the demand for living space inexorably culmina ted in war. It is known t:.'lat those who were then actively . preparing for war claimed to be acting on so-called principles which they described as sacred. It is a matter of deep conc~rn that, in some quarters, arguments which are dangerously close to those then advanced are now invoked to justify what threatens to develop into yet another State-organized genocide to disgrace our century. The brutal repression of the peoples of southern Africa has been regUlarly and unanimously condemned by the intern<>-tional community. Yet outside this Assembly powerful voices have not been lacking to be raised in defence, if not of apartheid precisely, at least of the regime that perpetuates the policy. It is perhaps indicative of the times in which we live that people have been found who believe that South Africa is a democracy, a bastion of civilization defending the values of the free world. Others have been proclaiming that change is just around the corner and that what we n~ed is patience, more patience and slill more patience. I n another difficult per iod people tr ied to come to terms with the excesses of a brutal regime based on racism or subsequently claimed that they had been frightened into silence. Either way their silence, and therefore tacit complicity then, will forever remain as a stain against our humanity. It was with the objective of preventing the kind of racism that made the holocaust of the war possible that it was found necessary, in the words of the Charter: "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small". The regime in South Africa has deliberately established itself on a denial of the principles of the Charter, thus choosing to place itself beyond the pale of civilization. To underline' its'choice it has arrogated to itself the right to encourage and assist destablilization in the surrounding territories. TO emphasize its contempt for accepted norms of international behaviour: it has engaged in a lengthy series of military incursions, raids and aggressions against its neighbours. It continues it illegal occupation of Namibia in defiance of the stated will of the international community and has effectively sabotaged patient efforts at negotiations by linking the question to completely extraneous issues. We must reluctantly confess to a mounting sense of despair when confronted with the attempts at sophistry to excuse and rationalize a situation that is not merely unreasonable, but clearly illegal, inequitable and immoral. Because time is fast running out we appeal to the friends of the peoples of South Africa, to the friends of all the peoples of South Africa, to assist in averting the chaos in active gestation there. we believe that it is within their power to do so. South Africa with its 30 million people needs neither the inequities of apartheid nor the terroristic suppression of its neighbours to emerge as a prosperous country with a respected place in the comity of nations. It is our considered view that the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners will go a long way towards decreasing tension in South Africa and paving the way towards progress in a process of peaceful change. Mauritius, if called upon, will very gladly assist in the search for a peaceful solution and will offer its good offices. Further, Mauritius is ready and willing, if called upon, to be the venue for talks and positive discussions between the South African authorities and the genuine representatives of the majority of the South African population. The enormous price in blood paid by our ancestors throughout history should at least teach us that progress towards peace and understanding has never been obtained by attempts to impose by force our own often narrow perceptions of truth on others. In today's politically andmilitarily polarized world, delusions about so-called chosen peoples or manifest destinies and the policies they generate-can lead to consequences too frightening to contemplate. For the same reason it would be equally dangerous to attempt to impose our own exclusive security concerns on others. It is worse still when national security becomes the pretext for wars of aggression, illegal occupations, expropriations and annexations of territories, the denial of fundamental and basic rights to peoples and the dismemberment of entire nations. We are confronted in the Middle East and increasingly in Central America with a choice that on the face of it seems simple: either to become partners in peace and to start by developing the will thereto now, or to continue to live with the same dreary uncertainties that have plagued us for too long. The peoples in the Middle East would have every reason to feel that their situation has become still worse than it was when this Organization was first seized of the question. Tragically for the people concerned, the situation in Central America seems to be developing in the same direction of a protracted confrontation, with accelerated militarization, increasing armed attacks, hostile trading of allegations, escalating rhetoric and involvement of a growing number of foreign "advisers", ominously in the context of the rivalry between the super-Powers. The peace process initiated by the Contadora Group which has received unanimous approval seems to have been completely relega ted to the background. Similarly, the conditions for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East have been repeatedly stated in and endorsed by this Assembly. The crucial question is whether it will be possible to summon the imagination and the generosity to recognize that persistence in preconceived ideas and fixed certainties, far from being indicative of strength, is an admission of fear and weakness. Twice in global wars in this century we have witnessed the degradation of the human spirit which war brings with it. Successive generations have - if I may be allowed to put it in this way - fathomed the abyss of their collective soul to find the sombre demons lurking there. But it has rightly been said tha~ the power to choose between good and evil is within us all, and we have also been a witness to the nobility of that same human spirit in its often demonstrated capacity to transcend current differences to visualize a better future for the world. It is certainly not an accident that the people most revered by posterity are those who, instead of the arrogance of power, chose the humility of compassion in their search for solutions to the problems which confronted them. To them it was a self-evident truth, which it seems necessary to restate, that those whom we consider our enemies are not necessarily the demons we sometimes choose to paint (Mr. Jugnauth, Mauritius) them~ but, like us, simply men, women and childen - similar to us no doubt in their weaknesses but also in their aspirations, dreams and ideals, both for themselves and their children. The interdependence of humanity and the brotherhood of mankind are often proclaimed but, to our great misfortune, rarely lived up to. Today, however, we are in such a situation that we cannot afford to fail in our realization of this essential truth. It has been said that people who do not understand the past are condemned to relive it. The parallels between the current world situation and that preceding the outbreak of the Second World War are too striking to be overlooked. It is not within anyone's rower to undo the past, but we do have the power to us,e its lessons as guidelines to establ~sh a course for an acceptable future for our children. In the process of doing so we have to face and answer the question whether we can find in ourselves the resources to overcome and reverse the obstacles to peace, or whether, lemminglike, we are condemned to the same catastrophic path down the precipice followed in the past. The dangers in the trend today are readily identifiable, but as in the past, like people caught in some terrible recurrent nightmare, we seem deprived of our faculty to act to avert them. Some of the best minds of the interwar period proclaimed their conviction that qualitative and quantitative improvements in arms could not create a safer world. Nevertheless, against sense and reason, policies continued to be based on the assumption that security could be made to rest on the accumulation of ever more destructive arsenals. In the run up to 1939 the commitment to internationalism was first insidiously undermined, then destroyed - its demise consummated by the cynical suppression of the independence of the oldest State in Africa. The reaction of the international community to an escalating series of other acts of State terrorism perpetrated in violation of international law, solellll commitments and obligations is strongly reminiscent of the abdication tody in the face of the same kind of transgressions. In the same period, under the delusion that they could thereby avoid the worst, a number of countries scrambled to a hastily patched system of adversary military alliances and security arrangements, even as the armies backed by their lethal weapons were unleashed upon the world. Except for the fact that the armies of the rival blocs are mostly still confined to their quarters, the description could apply to the 1980s as to the 1930s. Millions of men throughout the-world are working over~ime to plan, devise and churn out the weapons of destruction to be used in the next, and what could turn out to be the last, war ever fought by human beings. It is an aberration that in a world where the majority suffer from chronic want and hunger military expenditure for 1984 is reported to have exceeded $1,000 billion. The passivity in the face of the growing ·weapons culture· raises the question whether the world is not already on an irreversible collision course. It seems, however, that we have not yet seen the worst, as the major : .•apon Powers commit themselves to large increases in military spending with a strong reliance on improved technology and a strong emphasis on modernization and expansion. The world-wide increase in arms production is matched by corresponding efforts to expand arms exports, marked by intense competition alOOng a growing number of suppliers to provide ever more sophisticated weapons systems to willing clients. It is a devastating comment on the priorities which the world seems to have set itself when a decline in the flow of arms can be viewed and described as a ·world-wide crisis". In some countries the dangerous perception that the sale of arms is beneficial, because it is thought to ensure economic gains and stability, (Mr. Jugnauth, Mauritius) is gaining ground. In an equally disturbing development many other countries, the main targets of arms transfer agreements, base their policies on the belief that the acquisition of weapons can guarantee security. In addition, both super-Powers, which are also the major suppliers, use arms t~ansfers as a key element to attain their respective and adversary foreign policy objectives. It is therefore bi'tterly ~ .;appointing, but hardly surprising, that sustained international efforts to limit the global arms trade should have been thwa;:ted. The consequence is that today the world finds itself dangerously close to the brink. The threat to the human race is increased by massive investments to build or expand stDcks of ~hemical weapons and to modernize and improve chemical warfare capabilities. It is also ominous that support within military establishments for bi01ogi(~L ~esearch has increased significantly, ~aisin9 the terrifying spectre that in bl~ eventuality of hostilities highly lethal diseases might be unleashed upon a world without any means to cope with the ensuing chaos. The regime of international law forbidding the use of chemical weapons has been shaken by allegations of violations, while the likelihood of an international chemical weapons ban has been declared not to be a real possibility in the foreseeable future. The conventional and chemical weapons in the arsenals of the world are by themselves sufficient to put meaningful human life as we know it today at risk. ~he nuclear arsenals threaten to destroy millions of years of painful progress and to wipe away life itself from the face of the earth. We invite the leaders who hold the k,ey to the future in their hands to meditate on the reflection which the first atomic test inspired in one of its witnesses. It reminded him, he said, of a line from the Hindu Scripture, the Gita: "I am become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds". These words have assumed a prophetic and sinister ring in the light of the destabilizing developments in nuclear weapons technology and new theories regarding their role in security policies. The leaders of both super-Powers have agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore must not be fought. The logical conclusion, it seems, is that as a first step any kind of nuclea: proliferation should be curbed and technological developments checked. It is profoundly disturbing to find instead that the world is confronted with massive programmes to improve nuclear weapons and to ext~nd their deployment. The international community is being held hostage to the view that parity - which is admitted to be militarily meaningless - must be maintained; that perceived imbalances must be corrected; and that technological improvements and an extension of deployment are necessary to demonstrate will. Remembering the victims of the first use of atomic weapons in war, peoples throughout the world have united in prayer that such weapons should never be used again. There are, nevertheless, policies based On the assumption that nuclear weapons could be limited to selective employment in battle areas and damage limited. There are, therefore, powerful groups which believe that the nuclear threshold could be crossed and its consequences controlled. The nuclear-arms race also finds powerful abettors in those who profess to believe that nuclear superiority confers political advantages. Within certain circles, the insane inadmissible that they shouli be allowed to inflict the possible consequences of their obsessions and paranoias on the world. The existing state of confrontation encourages the formulation and development of tendentious ideas. The division of the world into rival blocs is the most urgent menace to peace today. The tensions between the super-Powers and bloc rivalries threaten us with the terrifyir!g prospect that the third world war might be unleashed anywhere at any time. We are aware that mere exhortations and expressions of hope will not do away with the deep political and historical differences behind the current conflicts. In the light of the perceived economic, security and political incentives, the production and transfer of arms may be expected to continue unabated. So long as notions of a so-called nuclear balance or equal security are allowed to dictate policies the world will be confronted with a qualitative arms race to achieve military Superiority. The militarization of outer space threatens to become an irreversible reality. The testing and accumulation of nuclear weapons will keep increasing - both vertically and horizontally - so long as current views on strategy and national security prevail. International peace will continue to be made to rest on the threat of mutual assured destruction. More than 30 years ago, Albert Einstein warned us that the unleashed power of the atom had changed everything except our modes of thinking. The doctrine of deterrence at the centre of current nuclear policies is based on a principle as old as the human race. The history of humanity is hardly proof of the validi ty of the principle. In the present circumstances, it does not offer any safeguard against errors or accidents, whether human or mechanical, or against some manic miscalculation. Besides, the professed rationale for the nuclear build-Up is distrust of those perceived as "the other side". Yet proponents of the nuclear deterrent have to trust the "other side" not to use nuclear weapons. Such an expectation is unrealistic, and cannot be accepted as the basis for a durable peace" The call for new ways of thinking to overcome the current deadlock has been reiterated on several occasions. The community of nations is unanimous that there is an overwhelming common interest in establishing and preserving peace. Gathered in this Assembly, it has agreed on the objectives and principles of disarmament. The leaders of both super-Powers have stated that friendly competition must replace confrontation as the basis of super-Power relations. If the statements were meant seriously, then both super-Powers must be prepared to re-examine the implications of prevailing doctrines and policies on the use of force in international relations. It also follows that they must be willing to reconcile conflicting views on the substantive measures needed to increase confidence, ease tensions, strengthen security and establish co-operation. It might then become possible to establish peace on a commitment to joint survival rather than on a threat of mutual assured des truction. We believe that the resumption of negotia tions and the. forthcoming meeting between the leaders of the super-Powers represent opportunities which must not be missed. We can say without fear of exaggeration that these discussions hold the potential of determining the future course of our civilization. The right decisions would also pave the way for a fresh approach to the problems of development. It has been recognized that in a world of finite resources, there is an organic relationship between expenditures on armaments and economic and social development. The second United Nations special session on disarmament concluded that: "The vastly increased military budgets••• and the development, production and deployment ••• of new types of weapons systems represent a huge and growing diversion of human and material resources ••• Existing and planned military programmes constitute a colossal waste of precious resources which might (Mr. Jugnauth, Mauritius) otherwise be used to elevate living standards of all peoples; furthermore, such waste greatly compounds the problems confronting developing countries in achieving economic and social development." (A/S-12/32, para. 61) The economic situation in most countries, however, even without the constraints of milita~y expenditures would have been grim enough. The current tragedy in many African countries underlines the case for new initiatives to resolve the most pressing problems confronting the world economy. It would be wrong to interpret the call for new initiatives merely as a plea for the transfer of resources. For the South to benefit, it is not necessary that the North should lose. The North-South debate on economic co-operation is increasingly being cast in the same vein as the political and military relationship between the East and the West. The language used and policy choices made are often confrontational. We want to stress the view that the rhetoric and policies notwithstanding the reality is one of inescapable interdependence. This is clearly ~llustrated both in the causes and consequences of the 1980-1982 recession, the longest in 50 years. Despite some recovery in the industrial countries the effects of the recession are still being keenly felt in most. developing countries as we move towards 1986. International economic relationships continue to be threatened by the disorder in currency and capital markets. Recovery is hampered by the unmanageable debt situation and high interest rates. Growth and expansion are crippled by stagnation in funding, the drying up of international financial flows and restrictions on international trade. In the light of reduced demand in traditional markets, commodity prices remain very low. In most third-world countries, development in the 1980s has come to a halt, where it has not actually gone into reverse. The forced contraction in the developing countries in turn reduces the exports of the industrial countries, weakening the pace of their recovery. There is substantial agreement on what is wrong with the international monetar~' and financial system and with current trade policies. It is recognized that unless policy induced efforts are made to remove the constraints on the expansion in the world economy, the prospects for the future will remain uncertain. The measures taken in relation to the debt crisis may have bought time and staved off collapse, but no long-term solution to the underlying problems has been developed. The so-called adjustments imposed as a condition for the provision of bridging finance and for debt rescheduling have, in many developing countries, resulted in severe contraction, involving excessive social and human costs, with adverse effects on nutrition, health and education. The combined effects of contraction in several developing countries may also cause damage to future development prospects and prove prejudicial to global recovery. Genuine adjustment should aim instead at expanding the production ana exports of debtor countries with a corresponding expansion in the imports of surplus countries. Recent experience in many developing countries has also demonstrated that prevailing interest rates negate improvements in trade balances achieved as a ~esult of reduced expenditure. There is therefore an urgent need to reduce real interest rates, currently the highest in recorded history. Lower rates, however, are unlikely in the light of the fiscal and monetary policies pursued in the major countries, more SPeCifically, in the United States. To the extent that high interest rates are the consequences of the mix of an expansionary fiscal policy and a restrictive monetary policy, decisions on the structural bUdget deficit in the united States will have a critical influence on the level of interest rates and in determining whether the debt situation can be managed. In addition to policy choices in the United states, there is a pressing need for a comprehensive rescheduling arrangement for debts. The temPOrary measures of the last few years are inadequate to meet a problem that will be with us until ways are found to consolidate much of the present debts on a long-term basis. The proposals that have been made to that end deserve to be examined and discussed in a spirit of co-operation and understanding. Any arrangement arrived at must take into consideration the effect of the high interest rates on all debtor countries, the consequences of adverse external shocks on the poorest countries and the situation in the least developed countries. Beyond the sterile debate on responsibilities fer the present debt situation, a sustained recovery would also require the creation of conditions for the restoration of commercial lending to the debtor countries at appropriate levels. The absence of progress on this issue not only undercuts growth prospects in the developing countries but also jeopardizes the recovery in the industrial countries. The same powerful argument requires the international community to address itself to the problems created by the growth of protectionist pressures and the prolifer&tion of trade restraints. For many in the industrial North, protection - in the shape of tariffs, quotas, safeguard clauses and other more covert forms, inclUding subsidies - has become a means to prevent change by preserving outmoded industries. It not only threatens to condemn a large number of countries to permanent economic underdevelopment, but also damages the industrial countries themselves. Access to industrial markets is essential for many developing countries to improve their trade balance, service their debts and resume growth. The revival of exports to the third world is important to sustain the recovery in the industrial countries. There is therefore a strong case for global negotiations with the objective of increasing market access for the exports of developing countries. Even on the assumption of a favourable solution to the current disorder in international economic relationships, we would still be confronted with the problems of the poorest and least developed countries. The recession combined with other factors, both internal and external, has had a devastating effect on their populations. The economic and social situation in many places is undergoing a process of rapid degradation, threatening complete disintegration. The impact of the decline in commodity prices has been compounded by stagnation in official development assistance in the face of increasing needs. The retreat from multilateralism, manifest in reduced support to multilateral concessional flows, exposes the divisions in a world, which the logic of facts proclaims to be interdependent. without an increase in the volume of concessional flows and immediate improvements in the external environment, the very existence·of some countries as organized political, economic and social entities would be placed in jeopardy. We concede that in many developing countries there is a strong case for restructured policies to take into account the strengths and limits of their assets and resources. In particular, the arguments in favour of human resource development are overwhelming and deserve immediate attention. It is vitally important to identify and address the internal and policy induced constraints on development. It is equally important to establish priorities in the light of the needs of peoples and the capacity of countries to satisfy those needs. It is vital to continue to explore and develop the potential for regional and subregional co-operation in trade and production. Above all, the North-South dialogue - now muted - based on a common realization of mutual interests must go on. The only alternative is to allow the current realities to play themselves out through interacting tragedies of missed opportunities and unrea1ized potential both in the industrial North and the developing South. It is often alleged that addresses in this AssemPly convey an unduly pessimistic view of the world. We do not wear rose-tinted glasses and, therefore, can only call the realities as we see them. We lack the kind of imagination that perceives glories in the bloodshed and mutilations of wars. We find neither patriotism nor heroism in the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children, and of soldiers and civilians alike. Some of the best brains of our age have made it their business to perfect the weapons of mass destruction which threaten the human race with extinction. In a superb display of indifference to the aspirations of the international community, the super-Powers continue to advance their nuclear pawns in a dangerous game of brinkmanship. Their political and military rivalry, along with weapons transfers, have transformed extensive regions of the world into potential powder-kegs. In a world in which military expenditures consume a reported $1,000 billion annually, the sum devoted to world wide development assistance does not exceed $38.8 billion. The world spends more on military expenditure today than it does on health and education combined. Every year 15 million children in the developing countries are allowed to die through famine and malnutrition. This appalling tragedy occurs in a world which has the resources to feed them. More than two thirds of the world population live in a twilight economic zone, dependent on decisions over which they have no control. Many of them are condemned to the attrition of their living standards, to unemployment, hunger and a wrenching adjustment process, which for them takes place at the margin between life and death. Yet there is another way. The potential for it is in all of us as individuals and as nations. It has recently been demonstrated by individuals in the tremendous outburst of solidarity for the victims of drought and famine. It has also been demonstrated by Governments in a provision of assistance which transcends political and ideological barriers. In many cases of crisis, individuals and nations have displayed a capacity for sympathy and generosity which compels hope for the future. It is recogni~ed that the current arms race represents not only an enormous waste of resources, but condemns us to live in fear of a possible nuclear holocaust. It is also recogniZed that the current disorders affecting international economic relationships create the kind of instability which might make a catas trophic war inevi table. The challenge tha t we face therefore is to harness the intelligence and imagination at our disposal in the struggle for a peaceful and prosperous world. We have the resources to that end. We need the commi bnent.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I should 1 ike to thQnk the Prime Minis ter of Mauritius for the importan t s ta tement he has just made 0 Mr. Jugnauth, Prime Minister of Mauritius, was escorted from tbe rostrum. Mr. dcr COSTA (Sao Tome and Principe) (spoke in Portuguese~ English text furnished by the delegation): Mr. President, your election as President of this session, coinciding as it does with the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the United NationsI' is a double tribute, a tribute both to a diplomat of proven human qualities and international experience, and to his country, spain, which honours and respects the principles of the Charter and contributes effectively to the implementation of the ideals pursued by our Organization. We are pleased to assure you, Mr. President, of the total co-operation and support of the delegation of the DelllOcra tic Republic of Sao Tome and Pr incipe. To your predecessor, Ambassador Paul Lusaka, a worthy son of Africa, we wish to pay a tr ibute for the good example he gave us and for the commi tment tha t marked the performance of his duties. May we be permitted also to express our special gratitude to Mr. Javier Perez Cuellar, secretary-General of the United Nations, for the dedication, determination and talent which have characterized his actions in leading our Organization and for the innovative spirit that has animated the initiatives that have come from his office. In particular, we should like to emphasize our appreciation of the innovative and courageous contribution made, in our opinion, by the analysis of the life of our Organization presented in his successive reports to the General Assembly. Emerging from the ashes of a catastrophe that assailed our planet and sowed the earth with desolation, the United Nations asserted itself as an instrument to catalyse the hope of all peoples for peace and progress. The celebration of its fortieth anniversary of necessity calls for an analysis of the results attained in the light of the objectives "that we set ourselves when the United Nations was founded in San Francisco. This exercise would, howev~r, prove of little consequence if we did not share the basic premise that the United Nations is what the will and collective action of its Members want it to be. As an expression of the collective will of States, the United Nations has, in their individual or collective action, the only instruments to guarantee the effective attainment of its objectives. Seen in this way - and that is our understanding - the exercise that we propose is transformed into a consideration of the magnitude and quality of the contributions each Member State has made over these 40 years of coexistence. When thus formulated, the question of responsibility for the continued use or threat of the use of force in international relations can be seen as attributable not to the inefficiency of the United Nations but to those States that violate Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter. If dejection and despair fill the hearts of those peoples who impotently witness, on many occasions, the inability of the United Nations to intervene to put an end to situations of conflict and aggression that threaten world peace and security, it is imperative to say that the actions called for in Chapter VII of the Charter are not being applied because of the lack of a common political will on the par t of some Member States. If differences of interests and disputes between States often develop into situations of open conflict, we must recognize that the mechanisms for the peaceful resolution of disputes contained in Chapter VI, and recourse to the International Court of Justice, ate often ignored by Member States. If the opulence of some stands in contrast with the poverty of the majority, this situation is not the result of any natural order of things, nor of the absence of a declared intention of the United Nations to conceive, adopt and promote actions aimed at a more just economic order. The truth of the matter resides in the stifling selfishness of a few who show their reluctance to challenge privileges of a bygone historical era by their opposition to changes in the structure and mechanisms of international economic relations that are intended to serve the development of all. Only through renewed commitment to the ideals of the United Nations shall we be able to restore its privileged and irreplaceable role in the continuing search for better forms of civilized coexistence among men.* * Mrs. Castro de Barish (Costa Rica), Vice-President, took the Chair. The presence of a delegation from the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe in this great assembly of sovereign nations is not only testimony to the fulfilment of the principle of universality of the United Nations, but also a tribute to its important role in promoting the rights of peoples to self-determination. It is important to mention here the significant contribution made by the adoptio~ of resolution 1514 (XV) to the process of making our Organization truly universal. For the people of Sao Tome and Principe, this resolution pl"aced on the agenda of the interna tiona1 community the long struggle of our PeOp1~ to aff irm its own identity and to assume its national destiny. Conditioned by geographic isolation and oppressed by the repressive action of the colonial occupiers who deliberately limited us to a way of life isolated from the major liberating currents of our century, the struggle of the people of Sao Tome and Pr incipe found in the 1 ibera ting ideal of the Uni ted Na tions and in the anti-colonial movement it generated a support that galvanized its struggle, inspired its strategy and strengthened its determination. The national sovereignty achieved on 12 July 1975, and our rightful subsequent integration into the international community as a State made it incumbent upon our State to adopt the ideals of the United Nations as its own and to pattern its external relations along the lines set forth in the Charter. The fact that the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe is a staunch supporter of the united Nations and that it contributes as far as it can to the attainment of its objectives is, therefore, merely a matter of consistency and respons ibility. (Hr. da Costa, Sao'Tome and principe) The breadth and degree of our involvement is consequenUy unique, and conditioned only by recognition of the limits on our own capacity for independent action. OUr meni:lership in the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and in the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries is consistent with our recognition that the attainment of our national aspirations, and any significant participation in international life necessarily involve tha blending of our own specific interests into a broad regional and international consensus that promote co-operation as an essential condition for the peace and progress of mankind. Thus we refrain from taking part in schemes to div.de the world into spheres of influence sustained by political-military alliances, or in action which, starting with a definition of selfishly-delineated national interests, generate tension and conflict which threaten world peace and security. Thus we have chosen a policy of non-alignment as the most consistent way to defend our own commitment to universal peace, understanding and good neighbourliness and active participation in the search for solutions to the problems of our time. But precisley because we understand that this commitment will be fully realized only in a world free of elements of conflict and war, we take an active part in the crusades on which our Organization has conferred legitimacy and which are unde!:stood to be consistent wi th its pr inciples and compa tible wi th the objectives it is pursuing. We include in this line of action our support for the struggle of peoples for self-determination and independence, for the elimination of racism, for respect for human rights, for disarmament, and for a ban on the threat or use of force in rela tions between Sta tes. Because our efforts to achieve national well-being and progress are obstructed and are weakened by the eXisting worl.d econom~,~ or.der, we join our: voice to t.~cse of the countries of the underdeveloped areas which question the asswnptions of the current order, and point out alternative paths which will bring justice to all, and will guarantee to all a just canpensation for the effort expended in the creation of world wealth. The impetus given by the United Nations to the process of self-determination and independence of nations and peoples under colonial domination must be seen as one of the achievements of the greatest political significance in the history of contemporary international relations. While the United Nations can be prOUd of the progress made in Africa, Asia and Latin America, there remain situations which require a redoubled commitment, because in addition to den}~ng rights established by our Organization, they appear in some cases as threa ts to interna tional peace and security. In South ~frica, the system of apartheid continues to be a permanent source of tension, a destabilizing factor and the chief obstacle to peace in the region. The arrogance with which the apartheid regime defies the collective will of the international community, systematically violates the territorial integrity of neighbouring States, trains, finances and arms groups working against legitimate and lawfully constituted governments, calls for action which should be completely unambigous and should lead to the abolition of the system. Forced into war, despite its desire for peace, the People's Republic of Angola is making enormous military and economic sacrifices to defend its territorial integrity, which is repeatedly violated by the racist army. (Mr. da Costa, Sao Tome and Principe) Since the People's Republic of Angola has already demonstrated its readiness to negotiate, and its flexibility in the search for a solution compatible with its own sovereign rights, the justifications for the state of undeclared war imposed on it by South Africa are groundless, and one must question the good faith with which the Pretoria regime says that it is living up to its commitments. A very clear substantiation of our affirmation is the attempted sabotaging of Cabinda Gulf, and the most recent invasion and occupation of the sou thern part of Angolan territory. Counting on the destabilization of the region and the economic enfeeblement of the neighbouring States as a condition for its own survival, the apartheid regime's opposing the climate of peaceful coexistence born of the N'Komati agreements and is attacking other front-line States. In Namibia, the installation of a so-called "interim government" represents a challenge to the desire already expressed by the international community to see an independent Namibia, and is one more obstacle to the process of implementing Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Developments in the situation inside South Afr ica make it clear that the challenge to the apartheid system led by the African National Congress (ANC) and other democratic forces cannot be stifled by successive waves of repression legalized by states of emergency. They make it imperative for tnere to be a real dialogue aimed at dismantling apartheid and introducing a system in which the individual rights and freedoms of each and every person are recognized and protected. In view of the intransigence of the Pretoria regime in refusing to admit the pressing nature of the changes required, and since all the doubts that have been dispelled of those who still entertain hopes as to its renouncing the basis of its racist policy, there is no other way out but firm and collective action by the international community and especIally by those who maintain close relations with So,.~t>~ Africa. While welcoming the adoption by the Security Council of resolution 571 (1985) and the measures decreed by yarious Member States, we believe that these must be followed up by more vigorous actions and, in particular, by the measures specified in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Situations of conflict continue in other regions of the continent. An African problem, the question of Western Sahara merits special attention. within the framework of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and in strict observance of the principles embodied in its charter, with a view to determining criteria which should be met by a just solution that will respect the dignity of all the peoples involved. Resolution AHG 104 adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the Pan-African organization constitutes, in our view, the most appropriate legal framework for a permanent resolution of the question. Opting for a dialogue between the POLISARIO Front and the Kingdom of Morocco as a first step, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) calls above all for a peaceful outcome that will lead more surely to the establishment \')f a cease-fire, a condition deemed indispensable to the holding of a referendum on self-determination. The position taken by the recent Ministerial Meeting of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly l!eflect an international consensus that confers upon the OAU's decision the legi timacy necessary for pursuing the efforts leading to its implementation. As part of the central region of the Afr ican continent, the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe maintains with the neighbouring States a dynamic relationship in which the good-neighbourliness principle has pride of place. The steps taken by the OAU and, in this context, the efforts of the President of the People's Republic of the Congo to create a climate favourable to national reconciliation among the people of Chad deserve our full support. We believe that peace in Chad will be attained only by national reconciliation and by the recogni tion of the right of the people of Chad to decide for themselves, vi thou t foreign interference, on the ways and means that will best guarantee the defence of their na tional identity • In the Middle East, the wars that assail the region constitute a reason for continuing concern on the part of the international community, especially when their effects are extended to StateR which, traditionally peaceful, are attacked and principe) for welcoming on their soil the legitimate representatives of a people whose right to an independent, sovereign homeland was usurped. It is our conviction that, regardless of the framework agreed upon, whether it be regional or international, a just and lasting solution of the conflict in the Middle East will not be achieved with the exclusion of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the authentic and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. In the same region, another conflict is leading to the unjustified destruction of the national resources that are so necessary for the development of the peoples involved. Regretting that reason has given way to in transigence., we join those who are appealing to Iran and Iraq to put an end to hostilities and to add their efforts to the common cause of the Arab peoples. We are watching with growing concern the rise in tension in Central America. By seeking a solution that will limit the conflict in Central America through an understanding that respects the legitimate rights and interests of each country involved, the initiative of the Contadora Group, because it is based on the principles enshrined in the Charter, seems to us to be a valid alternative for peace which should be backed and encouraged to continue. Though they are a source of reason and an encouragement to perseverance, the realization of the principles adopted by our Organization continues to be an elusive objective for certain peoples. The right of a people to true self-determination and independence should not be seen as depending upon its compatibility with regional or subregional convenience or with the national interests of one State or another. As an absolute right of peoples, it supersedes the wheelings and dealings that seek to find justification for violation of that right in respect for the no-less- legitimate right of States to non-interference in their internal affairs. Non-interference in the internal affairs of States has been a weapon brandished to avoid denunciation of the interruption of a process of decolonization by the use of force against a defenceless people. The struggle of the people of East Timor has already gone far beyond its borders and is seeking, abroad, to break through a wall 01: silence which cann~t • stifle the cry of emancipation uttered by the Maubere people. The recognition by the administering Power of the colonial fact and the armed resistance of the Maubere People, led by FRETILIN, are clear evidence that the Maubere people have not as yet benefited from the right to real self-determination. We commend the efforts that have been made by the secretary~General to carry out the mandate given him by the General Assembly, and hope that talks between the parties, Portugal and Indonesia, will lead to a negotiated settlement of the essential question, namely, the self-determination of the people of East Timor. The continued division of the Korean peninsula and the state of tension that it entails constitute a constant concern for our country. We wish to praise and encourage the contacts be't',;ween the two parts of Korea, and we continue to holCi the view that only the peaceful reunification of Korea will guarantee pea1ce in the region and will give satisfaction to the legitimate aspirations of th(! Korean I people. There can be no doubt that negative effects of the present international economic order on the developing countries. Children, the innocent victims of this situation, cry out for. special attention on the part of the international community. The decision by the United Nations Children's Fund to undertake a world-wide immunization programme extending to the year 1990 is one contribution to the required action and it has the total support of the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe • (Mr. da Costa, Sao Tome and principe) Agg~avated by the combination of the world economic crisis and natural calamities, the situation of many African countries, characterized by low levels of production, a drop in export earnings, constantly rising debt servicing requirements, food shortages and reduced capacity for investment in the productive sector, has merited special attention from the international community. It is timely to express here our gratitude to the Secretary-General for his work in calling the attention of the international community to the economic crisis prevailing in Africa and for the many actions that followed the adoption by the . General Assembly, at its thirty-ninth session, of the Declaration on the Critical Economic Situation in Africa. Aware of the gravity of the situation, the Heads of State and Government of the OAU, recognizing the primary responsibility of the African countries in overcoming the crisis, identified, in accordance with the Lagos Plan of Action, some measures designed to revitalize African economies and called upon the international community, especially the institutions of the United Nations system, to provide assistance in many forms. As an island L"Ountry in Africa on the list of the least developed countries, the DelOOcra tic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe has not been spared the adverse effects of the world economic crisis. The effects of this crisis, together with factors of an internal order p inclUding climatic instability. have forced us to redefine our priorities and to devise a programme of economic recovery and revitalization that relies on the maximum utilization of existing potential. Wi thin this context, we recognize that an inflow of external aid appears at this stage to be an essential condition for success, so that, together with the United Nations Developnent Progranune, we will at the end of this year carry out the first phase of the round table in Brussels with the partners in the economic development of our country. 'me continue to believe that the Member countries and other institutions in the United Nations system will be able to respond in a substantial and understanding manner to this initiative. Renewing our faith in and our total acceptance of the ideals and principles of the United Nations, we would express the belief that this fortieth session will go down in history as a milestone as we reaffira our confidence in and collective dedication to the role that the United Nations is called upon to play in the search for a better wor Id. (Hr. da Costa, seo Tome and Principt!) Mr. MWANGALE (Kenya): I congratulate Mr. de Pinies most warmly on his election to the high office of President of the General Assembly at this most important fortieth session. ! ~ish him and the officers of tha Assembly all the best in their endeavours to guide the work of the fortieth session to a successful conclusion. Let me also extend to his predecessor, the Permanent Representative of zambia, Ambassador Paul Lusaka, our warm congratulations and appreciation for the dedication, devotion and wisdom with which he guided the work of the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly. Also I wish to pay a tribute to our Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, and his staff for the eminent services they have continued faithfully to render to our Organization. Many distinguished speakers in the course of our deliberations have properly recalled the tragic events leading to the founding of the United Nations. At the end of the Second World War the people of the world resolved. to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and on 26 June 1945 in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, signed the Charter of the United Nations, which came into force on 24 October 1945, establishing the Organization. The Organization drew up aims and objectives for achievement as set forth in Article 1 of the Charter. As we assemble here to reflect on our achievements and shortcomings over the last four decades, I wish, on behalf of my delegation, to commend the Organization for its substantial achievements. To mention a few, the Organization has exerted every effort and has largely succeeded in, first, averting a major world conflict~ secondly, promoting the course of decolonization by its adoption and implementation of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)~ thirdly, promoting respect for human rights~ fourthly, adopting the declaration and programme of action on the establishment of a new international economic order and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States~ and, fifthly, codifying international legal instruments to regulate the conduct of States in various fields, including adoption of the Law of the Sea Convention at Montego Bay, Jamaica, in 1982, which was a milestone in the history of our Organization. The lesson of the Second world war, in particular the nuclear bombing of" Hiroshima and Nagasaki, should serve to remind us that war should never be a way of resolving international disputes. At this fortieth anniversary year, we should therefore rededicate ourselves fully to peace and co-operation, strictly adhering to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, the provisions of the International Covenants on Human Rights and the established norms of international law. The institutions already set up by the international community to this end and the progress achieved in the last 40 years should be further strengthened to ensure the full realization of the universality of our Organization, decolonization, disarmament, economic development and the full maintenance of international peace and security in a climate that respects the sovereignty of every nation and the dignity and worth of every individual in full freedom. In these efforts, Kenya will not be found wanting. Our national aspirations are rooted firmly in a philosophy of peace, love, unity and.development which translates into a policy of positive non-alignment, good neighbourliness and non-interference in the internal affairs of others. We wish to underscore the special responsibility that the Charter of our Organization places on the Security Council with respect to the maintenance and preservation of international peace and security. Unfortunately, the record of the Security Council i~ this regard has not been altogether satisfactory. There have been far too many occasions in which the abuse of the veto power by permanent members has resulted in its paralysis in the face of a number of explosive international situations. The result has been ercsion of confidence in the United Nations and increasing incidents of unilateral actions cc.'luary to the Charter. It is against the foregoing backgrol1a"ld t:.'lat the record of our Organization in tackling troublesome situations needs to be reviewed. I turn now to the situation as it obtains in South Africa. The continued existence of apartheid is an obstacle to peace and security in the region. In South Africa repressive measures are taken against all those opposed to apartheid, especially th~ black population. The recent declaration of a state of emergency in a number of black townships and districts arising out of oppos.ition to apartheid is no solution but an exacerbation of the problem at hand. The escalated political riots and social violence that have gripped the country is a clear manifestation of the total rejection of apartheid perpetuated by the racist regime. The intensity and dimension of the uprisings and demonstrations is a reflection that the patience of the oppressed people has been exhausted. The regime should note that no amount of force and brutality is capable of suppressing the demand for change. The people resolutely demand nothing else but democracy, equality and justice. We in Kenya wholeheartedly support these demands. We condemn the racist regime for invoking the declaration of a sta te of emergency in the black townships and distr icts of South Africa with its ensuing brutality. We strongly believe that there can be no peace in that country until the legitimate rights and aspirations of the black people, and of South Africans as a whole, are fully respected. We continue to oppose 'the creation of bantustans, for these buttress apartheid and serve as impoverished internal bases which the racist regime uses to provoke friction and conflict within the black communities of that country. Kenya supports the liberation movements in South Africa in their struggle against oppression, exploitation and the denial of their legitimate right fully to exercise self-determination. We are deeply concerned that intensified arbitrary' arrests, imprisonments without trial and tragic and brutal massacres of defenceless opponents of apartheid are the order of the day in South Africa. We reiterate and demand that apartheid be immediately dismantled, that Nelson Mandela, as well as all other political prisoners and detainees, be released unconditionally and that immediate arrangements be put forth for a constitutional conference to which all South Africans would participate to map out the future of their country. We are fully aware of the racist regime's arrogance and defiance of the will of the international community and of resolutions and decisions of the united Nations General Assembly and Security Council. We are also aware that the racist regime uses negotiations as a camouflage while it engages in devious and dubious manoeuvres calculated to entrench apartheid and give the illusion that the regime is working towards a peaceful accommodation with the oppressed inhabitants of that country. With this in mind and in order to compel South Africa to dismantle apartheid, we appeal to the Security Council to live up to the responsibilities entrusted to it and impose comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa as provided for in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. We demand total sanctions because apartheid is not only evil, but is also a threat to international peace and security, a crime against humanity and an affront to the very foundation of international law. The evil that apartheid is cannot be reformed. We commend those Governments and institutions which have voluntarily applied sanctions against the racist regime and those individuals who have taken positive action to pressure South Africa to abandon apartheid. We would welcome, in addition to other measures, the total cessation of the economic, military and technical co-operation that South Africa continues to receive from some Members of this Organization. (Mr. Mwangale, Kenya) With regard to the question of Namibia, United Nations efforts continue to be frustrated by the illegal occupation of the Territory by the racist regime of SOuth Africa. I::stead of co..-operating with t."le united Nations, the racist regime has engaged in creating futile institutions through which it hopes to thwart efforts to ensure the independence of Namibia. The international community must embark on the path of marshalling every possible means by which to ensure the full implementation of security Council resolution 435 (1978). Kenya will continue to give every support to the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the national liberation movement of Namibia and the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. We reject all attempts to link the independence of Namibia with extraneous and irrelevant issues. The racist regime continues to carry out acts of aggression against the independent African countries within the region, particularly Angola, BOtswana, Lesotho and Mozambique. The regime engages in intimidation, destabilization, terrorism and sabotage and employs mercenaries and outright aggression against the front-line States. We condemn those activities of the racist regime and particularly the recent invasion of Angola. We are convinced that the racist regime would not be carrying out those acts without solace and support from external quarters. It is regrettable that for almost 40 years now we have been unable to settle the problems of the Middle East. The core of the conflict in the area is the plight of the Palestinian people who have been uprooted from their ancestral homes and denied the opportunity to exercise their inalienable right to self- determination. The conflict continues to escalate and has engulfed the whole region. MoreOl7er, it has become evident that countries far and near are not immune from Israel! aggression. The tragic situation in Lebanon is a case at hand. The recent Israeli raid on the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Tunis was a flagrant violation of the territorial integrity of the peace- loving African State of Tunisia. We mourn the death of the innocent women and children who lost their lives as a result of that deplorable act, which we strongly condemn. Such actions cannot be justified under international law and norms of conduct. We call upon I srael to abide by and fully implement secur i ty Council resolution 573 (1985), of 4 October 1985. On many occasions the international community has pronounced itself on the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by the use or threat of use of force. Kenya fully shares that view and calls upon Israel to withdraw from all te~ritories occupied since the 1967 war. We firmly hold to the view tha t no na tion should ever justify its own existence at the expense of others. We believe that all States in the region have an equal right to exist in peace and security and within internationally recognized and secure borders. We reiterate that no durable peace can be achieved in the area until the legitimate right of the Palestinians to self-determination and to create an independent State of their own in the region are realized. The ongoing war between Iran and Iraq is lamentable. My delegation joins peace!l:ul settlement and reaffirm the right of the people of that country to determine their own destiny, free from external interference and intervention. It is important that an foreign troops be wi thdrawn. I Likewise, the situation in Afghanistan has not changed. We reiterate the dire need for the withdrawal of all foreign troops and forces from that country. As regards the Korean peninsula, we are happy ta note the cOlllRencement of contacts and talks between the two sides. Kenya welcomes and encourages this development in the firm belief that direct contact is the best way to reduce tension on the peninsula thus leading to a peaceful solution of the Korean question in conformity with the three principles of independence, peaceful reunification and great national unity, as set forth in the Joint North-South St<!ltement of 4 Jtme 1972. In Central America, tensions and conflicts continue unabated, fuelled by internal and external fact~s. The harbouring, financing and arming of dissident groups whose objective is to destabilize and overthrow legi titDate Governments is not a solution to the peaceful resolution of the problems of the region. we fully support the peace initiatives of the Contadora Group and appeal to the countries and parties involved to solve their problems peacefully, in a spirit of good- neighbourliness and with respect for each other's sovereignty, independer.ce and territorial integrity. Since the world entered the nuclear era some years ago, tJ'le spect.l'e of self- destruct"ion and the final annihilation of mankind has been ever present. In search of credible defence, very destructive weapons have been developed, and others far more destructive are in the tDaking, in the name of deterrence. Several billion dollars are being expended in the manufacturing of armaments, while millions of people are wasting away every day because of poverty, disease, malnutrition and famine. Those enormous resources being squandered on arms build-up should be diverted towards alleviating the current grave socio-economic and human problems facing the world, especially the developing countries. In this connection, Kenya warmly welcomed and strongly supports the initiative which led to the decision by Disarmament and Development. The resumption of the Soviet-Americnn arms-control talks in Geneva is also an encouraging sign pointing away from the grave consequences that could lead to the total destruction of the human race by the nuclear armaments on earth and in outer space. Never be~ore was the fate of so many dependent on the decision and action of so few. We urge the parties involved to exert the maximum political will and negotiate openly, fai thfully and constructively. In the view of my delega tion, such negotiations should includa reliable and verifiable arrangements for security to enhance confidence, avert escalation of the armaments race and bring about reduction of the present arsenals. One of the practical measures that can be taken to strengthen international peace and security is the establishment of zones of peace in various regions of the world. This year we witnessed the endorsement of the draft. SOuth Pacific nuclear- free zone treaty by countries of the region. Kenya endorses that move and considers it a positive development. Kenya fully shares the view that, in the interest of the promotion of peace, stability and co-operation in the Indian OCean region, the first step towards the establishment of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean region is the convening of the much-awai ted in ternational conference. The conference would harmanize the viewpoints of the littoral and hinterland Sta~s of the region, the major Powers and maritime users. The success of the conference would depend largely on a firm and resolute commitment by the countries of the region, the major Powe~s and maritime users of the OCean to the principles of the Declaratioii cf the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace. I With regard'to Antarctica, it is i.per:ative that activities in the area be this context, the il'ltiative and the call by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries for .a declaration that any and all ~esources in Antarctica are vested in the international co_unity as a whole as the common heritage of mankind need to be understood and underscored. Thus all States, regardless of their size, socio-econollticsystes or stage of dev~lopment, have a legi'timate interest in Antarctica and ought to have a say in the development and management of its affairs. That can and should be achieved through careful renCW'~tion of the existing treaty regime• As we approach the forty-first year since the founding of our Organization, the world economy in general remains strained by a prolonged and disastrous recession and its devastating effects which have virtually crippled the development momentum of the overwhelming majority of developing countries. Cutbacks in new investments and the suspension of long-term development projects and public programmes and the slashing of expenditures in social sectors that these countries have to endure over the years of recession have taken many of them to the verg:? of serious political and social upheavals. These difficulties are too deeply entrenched to be overcome easily as a by-product of rec~very in a few countries. Certainly, a proliferation of protectionist policies in the industrialized countries has not made this task at all easier. Even existing commodity arrangements which have served the international community relatively well over the years are now falling apart owing to lack of political support by some of these countries. In finance, for exampleD apart from the uncertainty surrounding debt rescheduling, the constraints of high interest rates and inadequate flows of official development assistance, the drastic decline in international bank lending and the overall deflationary tendencies of the international monetary system have stifled any stirring of economic activity in a large number of developing countries. It is imperative for the sake of the sustained health of the world economy that growth in the developing countries be undertaken as a self-sustained and mutually reinforcing process a~d not merely as a by-product of elseWhere, because if we do not deal with the more fundamental structural problems in an adequate and equitable manner, crisis will in the end overwhelm us. We must, therefore, act seriously and with pragmatism before it is too late. It will be recalled that the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session, cognizant of the serious economic and social crisis afflicting the African I (Mr. Mwangale, Kenya) continent, adopted resolution 39/29 together with its annexed Declaration on the Critical Eoornomie SituatiG~ in ~fIioa. The ~fj;iean £'egiOii, w1iich tooay Taas the highest number of the least developed countries in the world, continues to oe faced wit~, inter alia, famine and food shortages; stagnation of economic growth; unfavourable terms of trade; high rate of popUlation growth; unemployment and unde~employment; high interest rates; degradation of environment by drought and desertification; and decline in Official development assistance. In reviewing the pressing problems conf~onting Africa, I wish to highlight the exceptionally grave situation the continent is undergoing - a situation which cannot just be described as an economic crisis, but a tragic human crisis. Fully to appreciate the dimension of the SUffering, it is worth mentioning that an estiinated five millio~ chil~ren are feared to have died in 1984 alone as a result of the severe famine, while more than 150 million people were faced with the danger of serious food shortage in the same year. At the same time, per capita food production decreased by 11 per cent compared to the 1970 figures while per capita income in most African countries has been steadily declining throughout the past few years. This gloomy picture should not be allowed to pass unchecked without the internationa~ community embarking on a comprehensive plan - whether in the short or long term - to contain this dismal situation. While the African governments do recognize that the basic responsibility in arresting the crisis rests in their hands, the complexity of the crisis is such that national efforts must be complemented by international action if we are to relaunch the continent on the path of development. We in Africa have not just been sitting idle amidst the crisis. It will be recalled that as early as April 1980 the African Heads of state or Government, aware of the developmental problems facing the continent, adopted the famous blueprint in the Lagos Plan of Action and the Final Act of Lagos. The Plan of Action drew up a development master plan, identifying the sequence of priorities to be followed towards the economic recovery of Africa. Recently, the African Heads of State or Government assembled once again for an economic summit Conference-in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 18 through 20 July, where together they reviewed the implementation of the Lagos Plan of Action and came out with practical short-, medium- and long-term measures in search of a permanent solution to the problems that have plagued our continent over the years. The recommendations, embodied in the Addi.s Ababa Declaration, have been presented to this session of the Assembly through the Economic and Social Council. It is my earnest hope and trust that the General Assembly will consider these recommendations ilmnediately and take prompt action. We hope that the Assembly will be unanimous in endorsing the proposal made at the summit Conference of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to convene a special session to discuss in detail .the economic and social crisis afflicting the continent and come up with some action-oriented solutions. The dramatic increase in volume of Africa'S external debt and the heavy debt service burden are of serious concern to all the Member States. By the end of 1984, the total debt of all African countries was estimated to stand at $US 158 billion, and it is expected to exceed $US 170 billion by the end of this year. The total debt service as a percentage of export earnings was 19.8 per cent in 1982 and 27.4 per cent in 1983. For some countries the debt service ratio is far above this average whereas it is generally accepted that the average debt service ratio should not exceed 20 per cent of export earnings. The increasing costs of the importation of essential goods and services, especially industrial I commodities, are indispensable for accelerated economic development of the African countries~ Conse~~ently t~~3e countries are bound to continua to bo~LVW in or~e~ to supplement their domestic reSOurces. This constitutes one of the root causes of Africa's external debt. It is pertinent therefore to reiterate the appeal made at the OAU summit Conference that an international conference on Africa's external indebtedness be convened as a matter of urgency. This will provide a forum for the international creditors and debtors to discuss Africa's external debt with a view to arriving at appropriate emergency, short-, medium- and long-term measures to alleviate Africa's debt problems. We do appreciate that the international community has increasingly recognized the importance of seeking ways to meet the challenge that has befallen Africa. This has been reflected, for example, in resources pledged to fund a special facility for sub-Saharan Africa in the World Bank and in the substantial pledges of assistance made at the Conference on the Emergency Situation in Africa in March 1985. The response of Governments, non-governmental organizations and individuals, inclUding artists, is commendable. Nevertheless, despite these and a number of bilateral and other commitments, projections still point to a decline in net concessional capital flows to sub-Saharan Africa over the next several years in the light of the curtailment of some flows and the increases in scheduled amortization. In the view of my delegation, this international resource mobilization effort still falls far short of the target envisaged. In the area of food and agriculture, many countries are experiencing severe losses ranging from between 25 to 30 per cent of their harvests, due in part to pest damage, poor handling and lack of storage. More than anything else, storage is the key to food increase and security. Priority by the international community should therefore be given to the development of storage facilities for the developing countries. My Government is fully determined to realize total food self-sufficiency for every Kenyan. In this connection, we are in the process of implementing our national food policy together with the recently launched District Focus for Rural Development. The District Focus, whose aim is to bring development to the people and to make the people the centre for development planning, is meant to take development to the rural areas of Kenya where over 80 per cent of Kenya's population lives. Closely related to food production is industrialization. I wish to welcome the recent conversion of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNlDO) into a specialized agency. We look upon uNlDO, the sixteenth in the family of the United Nations specialized agencies, to make its expected contribution to the industrialization process of the developing countries, in particular those of sub-Saharan Africa. I strongly believe that the objective of all development efforts is the improvement of the quality of life. In this connection, I wish to note with appreciation the efforts being made in the economic and social fields by the United Nations system, in particular the strategy being pursued by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) to achieve a revolution in child survival and development and the efforts being made by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) concerning human resource developmen~. I wish also to record my own personal appreciation and that of the Government and the people of Kenya for the commendable work that the Nairobi-based United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT) continue to do in serving mankind in their respective areas of competence. I (Mr. Mwanga1e, Kenya) There are mutual advantages accruing from economic co-operation between developed and developing countries and also from co-operation between developing countries. Kenya emphasizes, as a priority, co-operation between developing countries, particularly at the subregional and regional levels. The countries of eastern and southern Africa are currently engaged in the d~velopment of a Preferential Trade Area (PTA) which, in the long run, has the capacity of encompassing 23 countries with a market potential of well over 160 million people. As a littoral country, we are participants in the recently concluded Northern Corridor Transit Agreement jointly wit~ our hinterland neighbours. We are also actively involved in the newly established Djibouti-based Inter-governmental Authority on Drought and Desertification (IGADD). In this connection, we wish to call for increased support by all Member States, both developed and developing, to promote in all possible ways efforts being taken to enhance North/South and South/ South economic co-operation. In conclusion, this fortieth anniversary year of our Organization is also the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. Since these anniversaries coincide with International Youth Year whose theme is participation, development and peace, the international community should take this opportunity to renew its commitment to the welfare of youth particularly in the provision of education, training, health and employment. Youth constitute the backbone of all societies and should rightly be given the highest priority in national development. Although much has been done during International Youth Year, the events of the Year have been overshadowed by many other events. It is our expectation that a framework of concrete action- oriented future strategies for youth will be agreed upon during the United Nations World Conference for International Youth Year later at this session of the General Assembly. 1975 as a special year to be devoted to intensified action to p~omote equality between men and women, to ensure the full integration of women in the total de~s!opment effort and to increase women's contribution to the strengthening of world peace. In 1975, the Assembly proclaimed 1976 to 1985 as the united Nations Decade for Women, with the themes "Equality, Development and Peace". The World Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievements of the united Nations Decade for Women, which concluded in Nairobi last July, was an important milestone and indeed a rich experience for most of us. The Government and indeed the entire Kenyan people, with the co-operation of the United Nations system, did their best to facilitate a conducive conference atmosphere. I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the Government and the people of Kenya to thank the entire international community for their co-operation, understanding and goodwill ~hich prevailed during the Conference and which led to the adoption by consensus of the Nairobi Forward-Looking Strategies. We look forward to our joint efforts in implementing them. It is an honour for Africa, and indeed Kenya, that it was on our soil that the international community adopted them. This is a further affirmation of the commitment and dedication of us all to the goals, aims, purposes and the principles of the Charter of the United Natiens. At this fortieth session and as we step to the next 40 years and beyond, I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of the Government and the people of Kenya to renew our confidence, commitment and dedication to the noble principles, purposes, aims and goals of the Charter of the United Nations. We wish the Secretary-General, his staff and all gathered here today all the best as we forge ahead in pursuit of world peace, security and co-operation in all our endeavours. Let nations, big and small, and people the world over, be mindful of the well-being (Mr. Mwangale, Kenya) of others in this our interdependent world. Let us foster co-operation and let justice be our shield and defender, peace and love be our prosperity. Let us all, in unity, make the world, for our present and future generations, a better place to live in. Mr. GBEZERA-BRIA (Central African Republic) (interpretation from French): Our organization is 40 years old. It has come of age. And the world should celebrate a happy anniversary today, in exalting the lofty ideals of peace and security, harmony and co-operation among nations. But the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nation~ will take place in a particuarly uncertain, tense and sombre atmosphere, in which the United Nations is prevented from acting effectively by the unimaginable consequences of war and the difficulties and adversities of the present. However, through its vital and dynamic character, the Charter could have helped to cope with future changes. Things have not always been as they are, as the state of the world shows, which sometimes reminds us of the climate which prevailed on the eve of the second world conflagration. The coalition that was formed to defend the cause of freedom quickly broke up due to the strains of the struggle. Freedom itself rightly belongs to every man and every people, freedom for which so many men and women, regardless of race or religion, have fallen, is only the result of bargaining, if not outright conquest, often at a heavy price for some peoples of Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. When we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, it is as if, with respect to the fate of the Namibian p1eople and the South African people, the international community should merely confine itself to a ritual condemnation of the absurdity of occupation and apartheid practised by the Pretoria regime. carried out at present can promote the democratization of South African society and the emergence of racial equality. The Palestine question, which is at the heart of the situation in the Middle East, is not improving either. The Republic of Central Africa, believes that the Palestinian people must enjoy all their inalienable rights, including the right to a homeland. In the same way, all States in the region must live in secure and recognized boundaries. The situation in Democr.atic Kampuchea calls for an overall solution that would guarantee the withdrawal of all foreign forces and respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kampuchean people ana their right to self-determination without any outside interference. II (Mr. Gbezera-Bria, Central African Republic) The legitimate aspirations of the Korean people to peaceful and independent reunification of their country, and the admission, in the meantime, in the interest of the universality of the world Organization, of the two Koreas, whether simultaneously or not, still cannot be realized owing to the threats to peace in the region. Co-operation among nations in accordance with the Charter, which was intended to prevent return to the pre-war conditions that had led to the breach of the peace under the League of Nations, also quickly gave way to contempt and indifference, so that today what we are witnessing is a ·genuine crisis of mUlti~a~eralism. Thus, the third-world countries are confronted with many difficulties which could not have been foretold from the development of the international situation. These factors can only jeopardize the reign of peace and security desired by the founding fathers of the United Nations. That is the reality of the world at this moment as we gather to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the United Nation' But, no matter how bitter this reality may be, we should not give way to excessive pessimism, because there is at least one reason for satisfaction. It is that the United Nations exists and that the peoples of the world feel that its existence is necessary. It is not for us to draw up a detailed balance sheet of the 40 years of existence of the United Nations, to condemn it for its failures when so much was expected of it or to give our stamp of approval when it had distinguished itself by posi tive action. It is much more importarat to det(~rmine, based on what exists, what can be done to improve things - that is, how the United Nations can play its role in a world which, we all agree, is in the course of profound change. This can only begin with consideration of the future of the Organization. However, before inviting this AssewDly to consider this, I wish, on behalf of the delegation of the Central African Republic, to congratulate Mr. Jaime de Pinies on his eleotion to the Presidency of this session of the creation of our Organization, in which the people of the Central African Republic place so much hope. His experience as a statesman and his prodigious knowledge of international affairs are a sure guarantee of the success of our work. He can ~est assured that our delegation is ready to co-operate fully with him•. At; for his precedessor, Mr. Paul Lusaka, we wish orlce again to express our thanks to him for presiding so succesufully, and in a particularly difficult international context, over the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly. Finally, the determination and dedication with which the secretary-General, ~~. Javier Perez de Cuellar, serves the cause of the Organization has won our admization and support. We have been able to measure the path travelled by the United Nations in its 40 years of exj.stence and also to highlight what has prevented it from fully' attaining the objectives assigned to it by its supporters through the Charter. Cus~~s, events, interests and privileges of yore continue to frustrate the spirit of the Charter and sometimes, in certain situations, we have found that there have been several interpre~~tionsof its relevant provisions. The vision of a better world based on the application of the Charter - that is, on the preservation of peace and international security, understanding and better relations among peoples - can only be distorted by this. Thus, the United Nations is confronted with a series of problems which will have a profound effect on its future. Blackmail, intimidation, subversion, terrorism, the division of the world into blOCS, the absence of democracy in relations between states, ti..e unbridled arms race and unequal development, because of their implications, are a permaneJ'jt threat to peace. As for develollUent, how can we imagine that the United Nations can accomplish its mission while two thirds (Mr. Gbezera-Bria, Central African Republic) of mankind, because of their condition, e.re virtually deprived of the right to development and thus the right to life. When we look at the economic conditions of the third-world countries, and particularly those of Africa, the first question which comes to mind is why there has been such a retardation of their development. There are various answers. It is, however, certain that the future of the economy of those countries is in their own hands and that they are primarily responsible for taking action in this area. They have undecstood this and on the basis of coherent l",lanning are mobilizing tneir resources in a rational manner. They have also understood that the improveme.,t of their 'situation, in view of the fact that in economic terms they are often 7el:Y small, requires efforts not only at the national but also at the subregional, the regional and even the continental level. That is the case in our subregion of the Economic and Customs Union of Central Africa and the Economic Community of Central African States. Meetings organized under each of these bodies clearly highlight the fact that the question of development is at the centre of the concerns of those countries. Unfortunately, the success of all these efforts is uncertain. Hunger, sickness, malnutrition and illiteracy continue to be the daily lot of the majority of the people of the third world. The various strategies adopted to achieve a minimum of development are often doomed to failure, derailed in many cases by the combined and cumulative effects of the international economic crisis, the unjust and inappropriate structure of the present economic system, the decline in export revenue, the difficulty of access to sources of financing and the stagnation of official development assistance. Some of these countries, particularly those of Africa, are confronted with a new problem: drought and desertific~tion. The solution to these problems goes beyond the national and regional level, because the economic trends are much more intense between developing countries on the one hand and developed countries on the other than in the relations between developing countries. This solution can only be found through co-operation on the international level, where the United Nations provides. the main forum and a framework. It is necessary for the developed countries, in a spirit of solidarity and social justice, to help to sustain the development efforts of the least developed countries. This should be done, first, by giVing effect to the relevant resolutions of the united Nations, which have established the genuine right to development of the economically backward countries and have set the guidelines for it. Since financial aid plays an important ~ole in the process of the acceleration of development, the industrialized countries should also make efforts to increase official development assistance. They should also give financial support to united Nations activities of interest to the third-world countries, such as the programme for the universal immunization of children, to which some countries - and the Central African Republic would like to take this opportunity to thank them - have contributed substantially. There can be no doubt that this action, which should be widely supported by the developing countries, can only further the campaign to ensure the survival of children. Particular attention should also be given to the demands of the third-world countries for the initiation of global negotiations with their partners of the Northern Hemisphere on a redefinition of international economic relations on a completely new basis.· * The President returned to the Chair. Finally, there is the question of foreign indebtedness, because if nothing is done by the international community of which the countries of the third world, and those of Africa in particular, can no longer have any hope of participating in development. We consider it necessary, therefore, that an international conference be convened to examine this question. Such a conference would reaffirm the principle of repayment of private debts and envisage the possibility of transforming into grants the public indebtedness, the blame for which, from the historical point of view, falls partly on the developing countries• The usefulness of an Organization like the United Nations depends upon the interest invested in it by its Member States and upon their will to ensure it has the means necessary to carry out its mission. It also depends upon the use such States make of the various mechanisms p~ovided under the Charter to bring about co-operation, understanding and good relations among States on the basis of law and through a collective defence of peace. Any thoughts about the future of such an Organization obviously entail study of its ability to adapt itself to changing times and, at the same time, an attempt to strenghen its means of action in every area of international life, and especially with regard to areas in which its intervention has hitherto been limited. These include the question of Charter revision and the development of third-world countries. May this commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of our Organization provide us an opportunity to renew our faith in the Charter and reaffirm our will to uphold its purposes and principles. That is the wish of His Excellency Andre Kolingba, President of the Republic and Read of State and Government, who wishes us great success in our work.

We have heard the last speaker in the general debate. The Permanent Representative of Mexico has asked to make a statement, and I now call upon him. Mr. MOYA PALENCIA (Uexico) (interpretation from Spanish): I make this, my first statement in a plenary meeting, to respond, albeit briefly, to the marks of solidarity and affection given my country throughout thie general debate that has concluded this afternoon. On behalf of the people and Government of Mexico, I would like to be able to thank individually eac~ and everyone of the speakers for their generous words of support in the tragic aftermath of the earthquakes that afflicted my country on 19 and 20 September. That spontaneous response of the international community has moved us and encouraged us. In addition to the rescue efforts and emergency measures that were led from the outset by the President of Mexico, on 9 October a national reconstruction committee was established, presided over by our Head of State, and made up of members drawn from the public, social and private sectors•. We have thereby strengthened the unity of Mexicans, consolidated our national effort and channelled international assistance. In this connection we wish to reiterate our thanks to the Secretary-General for the speed and efficiency with which he reacted to the request of the General Assembly contained in resolution 40/1 by appointing Assistant-Secretary-General Margaret Joan Anstee to co-ordinate international assistance to Mexic~ within the United Nations system. She is now in my country visiting the affected areas and carrying out her first tasks. Mexico is back on its feet, getting over this disaster with the support of international solidarity. Many thanks to all.

I shall now call upon those representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right o~ reply. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in egercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the seCond and should be made by representatives from their seats. Mr. ANGGO (Papua New Guinea): Speaking in exercise of the right of reply following the statement by the Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea, the Permanent Representative of F~ance to the United Nations conveyed his country's emotional feelin~s in defence of nuclear testing on Mururoa and the colonial policies in New Caledonia. First, Papua New Guinea's position on nuclear-related matters has been made known on many occasions and it is that Papua New Guinea is opposed to all nuclear activities and, in particular, nuclear testings and nuclear waste dumping. Our position on those activities hold good for any country that engages in them, and it is a misinformed view to suggest that our protest is directed only towards France. It is indeed true that other Powers also make possible such nuclear defensive postures and, hence, promote rivalry. That, however, does not diminish the French Government's moral and international responsibility to refrain from continuing the imposition of a state of insecurity on the people of the South Pacific region as a result of its continual nuclear tests. Surely if it is safe, as it claimed, to undertake such activities, then it should be logistically more convenient co do so in Metropolitan France than to conduct them in an area thousands of miles away. As the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands stated this morning, the livelihood of the people of the small island countries depends on sea and marine resources, and the prospect of those resources being polluted is viewed with serious concern. With regard to New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea's position, as outlined in the statement of its Foreign ~inister on 9 October, still stands. The colonial policy of France has been such that the Kanak people's right to exercise th~ir inalienable right to self-determination and independence seem to have been very much compromised. The Kanak people have become a minority in their own land. However, the Kanak PeOple as an ethnic group are a majority in New Caledonia and, as such, an important factor to be reckoned with. The Kanaks, through the Kanaka Socialist National Liberation Front, have clearly demonstrated their determination to reclaim their sovereignty over their land and to restore their integrity and identity as a people. Papua New Guinea would like to see electoral reforms take place in New Caledonia immediately, before an act of self-determination is conducted. In particular, Papua New Guinea supports the view that only those whose father or mother was born in New Caledonia should be entitled to participate in the elections and proposed referendum along with the Kanaks. It is worth noting here that the Kanaks respect the need for those whom they regard as the victims of history to participate equally in any efforts that may be may towards achieving independence. For genuine acts of self-determination to be realized, it is important that France act as an honest broker in trying to resolve the differences between the major interest groups in New Caledonia. In this connection, the outcome will demonstrate how genuine France has been in its desire to see New Caledonia decolonized. (Hr. Anggo, Papua New Guinea) The situation in New Ca'ledonia is undoubtedly a complex one, and perhaps only France can explain exactly why that is the case today. PapuaNew Guinea acknowledges that the present French Government has made some attempts to acco1'1lllllOdate the political mood in New Caledonia. On the other hand, France pursues some policies which cast serious doubts on its. real intentions. Hr. ALATAS (Indonesia) : In the course of the general debate, several speakers h~7e again seen fit to refer to, the so-called question of East Timor in terms rich in i~gery and innuendo but, as usual, quite barren in substance and fact. True, there was nothing much new in what those speakers had to say on the subject, but, as I had occasion to point out in my statement last year, the constant repetition of even the most ludicrous charges or claims have the tendency, if they are not rebutted, to be in the end perceived as "facts" by an unwary public and even by those who originally fabricated them. One theme that is constantly being propounded, inclUding - nota bene - by a representative of a country which does not have an altogether savoury record on the matter, is that the right to self-determination has not been granted to the people of East Timor. We of course I;now that it is difficult for people to stop clinging to cer tain myths or misperceptions, especially when they happen to conform to their political and ideological prejUdices. But we think it is about time for them to comprehend the fact that it is now almost 10 years since self-determination and decolonization took place in East Timor~ that its people chose independence through integration with Indonesia, in conformity with resolution 1514 (XV) and principles VI, VIII and IX of resolution 1541 (XV) ~ that in so doing the overwhelming majority and the true representatives of the East Timorese people registered a clear repudiation of the designs of those minority elements which sought to impose, by force of arms, a fait accompli on the Territory. Thus, far from annexation, invasion or occupation of another independent State - which has happened elsewhere but about which some of the same 'speakers chose to remain silent - Indonesia's role in East TilllOr was precisely one of contributing to that process of decolonization by , inter alia, helping to ensure that the deQl)cratically expressed will of the majority of the people was not overruled by the armed· and unilateral imposition of a ruthless minority, who posed as revolutionaries but were in fact collaborators of the colonial Power. One delegation stated that it was imperative for its voice to be raised on behalf of justice .and the legitimate aspirations of the East Timorese people. We should like to ask: Is it just or even democratic to continue to ignore the clearly expressed will of the majority of the East Timorese people and at the same time to persist in supporting the obsessions of a small, unrepresentative exile group of political adventurers? Is is just to continue to raise the false hope that there actually might be a chance to reverse the democratically expressed will of the people, and in so doing ar tificially to keep alive a non-issue to the detr iment of th!!! real interests of the East 'l'llllOrese? We should like to assure the speaker who raised this point about the leg! tiiilate aspirations of the East Timorese people that what they really desire is rapidly to reconst;uct and develop their province, so as to give concrete substance to their newly won independence, under the leadership of those alllOng them who are now in East Timor working and toiling together with them for the progress of their native land. The same delegation even went so far as to claim that FRETILIN should be regarded as the legitimate representative of the East Timor people. Perhaps this is because FRETILIN has in the past ~laimed to be a national liberation movement. This is indeed ironic. What kind of a liberation movement could FRE'l'ILIN be when it never even opposed its Portuguese colonial masters, let alone fought against them? In fact, the record shows that FRETILIN always played exactly the opposite role;. its leal:iers were nothing more them the favourite collaborators of the colonial regime~ their armed members consisted mainly of former coionial sf)ldiers - the infamous Tropaz. Surely, to accept arms from the ex-colonial master and then turn them against their own compatriots, unleashing a reign of terror ;'lnd cold-blooded massacres, can hardly be the criterion on which to claim legitimacy as a genuine liberation movement or as the representative of the very people against whom they fought. Indeed, East Timor's representatives are not, nor could they ever be, those who fled the people's wrath nine years ago and are now flitting about from one conference to another, from one meeting to another, on bor;rowed passports and borrowed time, espousing quasi-revolutionary slogans. No, assuming a revolutionary-sounding name or acronym does not make one a revolutionary. And we Indonesians, having had to contend, ourselves, with all kinds of colonial collaborators and pseudo-revolutionaries during our own national liberation struggle, are the last people that can be misled on this point. Another delegation has posed the question why the military resistance in East Timor continues. To this I shall simply say; There is no military resistance of ~'Y sort in East Timor. ~ihatever disturbanoes are still occurring in the province are being perpettated by straggling bands engaged in robberies and banditry. And these are being dealt with in accordance with due process of law. There is no more FRETILIN in East Timor. Most of its ex-followers have been reintegrated into society under the general amnesty and are today participating in the development of the province. The same delegation has further claimed that in East Timor the people's right to self-determination and independence is being sacrificed to political, economic and strategic interests. Frankly, we are a bit mystified. Is it the contention that it is because of economic and strategic interests that almost all the countries of Asia and the Pacific support Indonesia on East Timor? And what about the many other non-aligned and developing countries from Africa and Latin America that have also supported Indonesia on this question? Surely, it is not strategic interests that mOl1e these countries to adopt the position they have taken. Rather it is the realization that what has really happened and what is now happening in that province is far remOl1ed from the spurious claims that are constantly being disseminated by Indonesia's detractors. OVer the course of the past nine years my Government has, through actions and not mere words, clearly demonstrated its genuine commitment to the political, economic and social emancipado~1 of the people of East Timor. Today the East Timorese people enjoy fully the political freedoms and economic and social progress that are their birthright under the constitutional guarantees ac~orded to every citizen and to every province of the Republic of Indonesia. It is most gratifying that more and more Member States have come to recognize and appreciate this reality. We therefore ag,ain urge the remaining delegations to put aside their political and ideological bias and to consider the facts rather than persist in fiction on this question of East Timor; to accept the reality that the people of East Timer have determined their fate and that decolonization in East Timer has already taken place. Mr. de KEMOULARIA (France) (interpretation from French): I am astonished by the words used this morning by the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands and by the representative of Samoa in reference to French nuclear tests. Doubtless it is only distance and a lack of experience of or information on this subject that can explain the outrageous words they used. Let them accept, as the representative of Papua New Guinea has done - and I shall not reply again to him - the invita tion extended to them by the President or France to come to the testing site in the Pacific with their scientists. Then they could see for themselves directly and objectively what is happening. I am sure that would be the best way to calm their Moreover, I'must note what was said by the represen~tlveof. the SOloJlOn Islands with rega~d to the Prench~rritories in the Pacif1c. Ido!SO with regret because the so~montslandsisa country with which Prance has feelings of kinship and with which it would like to stren9tbel~ rt>1ations..My· reply "ill be brief since the allegations of the representative of the· SolcUlon tslandswere so far frolll the facts. '.. My delegation cannot accept that the Solomon Islands or any other country should improperly arrogate to itself to dictate the behaviour of the Government of Prance and of the populations in question. Prance is present in that region of the world in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants of the Territory. As to New Caledonia, I repeat that Prance is engaged in a process which will enable the population of that Territory freely to determine its own future. My Government intends to carry through to its conclusion that process, which, as shown by the recent elections to the Territory's regional councils, is supported by all. Mr. VUROBARAV (Vanuatu): We are pleased to note tt~~t the i:epresentative of Indonesia has, to a degree, moderated the tone of his response to the address of our Prime Minister. We trust that our debate can be conducted in a calm, dispassionate manner, without the acrimonious insults and name-calling which have characterized his remarks in the past. After all, we respect him as an individual, and we respect his nation even though we disagree with some of its policies. We also understand his frustration, and excuse the irrational outbursts of the past. Defending the indefensible is a difficult and thankless task. Por our part, we prefer to keep the discussio~ on a higher plane, and to respond with reality rather than rhetoric, truth rather than fiction, and analysis rather than arrogance. We have too much faith in what we say and what we stand for to do otherwise. We have too much respect for you, Mr. President, and for the time of other delegations~ We have too much respect for the people of Indonesia, and we have too much hope for and faith in the peoples of East Timor and West Papua. If, as the representative of Indonesia suggests, we have no right to comment on Indonesia's action in West Papua, then I suppose he also believes that African nations and the rest of us do not have the duty to comment on the actions of the apartheid regime of South Africa. If, as he suggests, we should ignore the situation in East Timer, then I suppose he also believes that the nations of (Mr. de Kemoularia, prance) the Middle East and t~~ ~~st of us have no business co~sidering the annexation of Jerusalem and the Gola~ i£~eights as international questions. If things are as he says they are in East Timor and West Papua, why have so many of the inhabitants of those Territories fled, in fear for their lives? Why can they not be reunited with their families? Why is Indonesia continuing its military operations against the civilian populations? Why can humanitarian organizations not move about freely? Why can independent observers not even enter the Territory in question? We understand why Indonesia acted as it did~ we simply do not agree with its actions and cannot accept its rationalizations. We do not support irredentism, and we do not believe in racial or religious exclusivity as the basis of nationhood. We do, however, beli~ve in government with the consent of the governed. We also understand and accept the decision made by most of the world's former colonies to accept former colonial boundaries as their national boundaries. That makes sense from the practical point of view, and serves to minimize pointless conflicts. However, opposition to separatism should not be confused with support for the hegemonistic ambitions one former colony harbours for the lands of another. The representative of Indonesia is as aware of the distinction as we are. We call West Papua by that name because the word "Papua" is a local one and is the name given to that country by its people. We do not feel that we, or anyone but the people of that country, can change its name. As we have stated many times in the past, we harbour no ill feeling towards Indonesia itself. However, we cannot remain silent in the face of systematic violations of the human rights of fellow Melanesians and the Maubere people, neither of which peoples was ever asked if they wanted to become Indonesians. If members of the world community. do not today consider the pride of those people, then they will in all likelihood eventually cease to exist. Who knows which of Indonesia's neighbours will then be the next victim. Vanuatu threatens no one and has no designs on the territory of any othe~ state. Should the peoples of East Timor or West Papua themsal.ves decide to become Indonesians, we shall rejoice tt~t they were given the opportunity to choose, and we shall respect their wishes. We ask Indonesia to let the peoples of those Territories decide for themselves, freely and openly, and to let the world observe the process. Justice will be served by nothing less. The ~epresentat.ive of Indone~ia remarked that our Prime Minister might ha've spoken on the basis of ignorance or malicious int~nt, and he offered in a sense to help educate us. I do not know if the representative of Indonesia was speaking for himself or for his country when he expressed those sentiments. I know, however, that those who know Father Lini know th~t he is neither ignorant nor malicious. Our Prime Minister reflects the qualities of our people and other peoples of the South Pacific: He is a warm, sensitive and caring human being who thinks with his heart as well as with his head. As for l~donesia teachins Vanuatu anything, I do not know what our friend from Indonesia has in mind, unless it is how to distort truth and misrepresent reality. !:!!:.. MAUALA (Samoa): The Samoan delegation would like to reserve the right to reply at a later date and in an appropriate way to the observations just made by the representative of France in reply to us regarding France's nuclear-weapon testing programme in the Pacific. ~. ALATAS (Indonesia): I wish simr"~v to tell my colleague, the representative of Vanuatu, that we feel no frustration, and that we are not trying to defe~d the indefensible. Wh~t we are trying to defend is the inherent right of every nation, of every State, to preserve its national integrity and its national sovereignty.' No nation in the world ... least of all Indonesia, which has paid in blood and in sacrifices in order to restore its terdtorial integrity, and not in order to expand its territory .. can look with equanimity upon what copld .. but we hope does not .. amount to veiled incitements to separatism. secondly, to compare the situation in Irian Jaya. or in East Timor with the situation of the apartheid regime in South Africa and with the situation in the Middle East and in Jerusal88 is both ridiculous and totally unacceptableG Indonesia's positir~ on those two questions has been characterized by unswerving firmness and consistency, which cannot be said of all of us in this Hall. The apartheid regime represents the most detestable institutionalized racism, which has been denounced ~ the unit~d Nations. In the Middle East the core question is colonialism in its worst form. TO compare these two situations with East Timor and, worse t' with Irian Jaya is totally unacceptable and totally erroneous, and I shall not go further into it. I agree with my colleague that we should try to conduct our discussions in a dispassionate way and try to sift fiction from fact. That is what we have been trying to do all the time. Frankly, if there is one sentiment with which to describe our feelings whenever the representative of Vanuatu speaks, it is that of surprise, because we have always had the most constructive and friendly feelings towards VanuatJJ. We welcomed their independence, we welcomed their causes in the Pacific~ Why then is it that their leaders have cont~,nued to show this penchant for ,...tmost animosity towards Indonesia without giVing us a chance to explain what really is the background, what really transpired in Irian Jaya and in East Timer.

We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 9. ORGANIZATION OF WORK

I should like to remind representatives that both the preparatory Committee and the Assembly will begin to consider the problems which may arise during the commemoration per ied, which is to begin on Monday, 14 October, if the ~uration of speeches goes beyond the recommended time limit of 15 minutes. Accordingly, I should like to urge delegations to pay the utmost attention to this important consideration. The meeting rose at 7.05 p.m.