A/40/PV.64 General Assembly
40. Question of Peace, Stability and Co-Operation in South-East Asia
I should like to propose
that the list of speakers in the debate on this item be closed at 12 noon today.
It was so decided.
Mr. RACZ (Hungary): The Hungarian delegation appreciates the opportunity
to participate in the discussion of the question of peace, stability and
co-operation in South-East Asia. Our participation is guided by the belief and
hope that the General Assembly will be able, through its debate, to contribute to
the strengthening of international peace and security.
To our deep concern, the region of South-East Asia continues to be burdened by
tension. The prolongation of tension challenges the States directly involved to
spare no effort to embalk upon resolving this comprehensive problem in its entirety.
The Hungarian Government's position on the establishment of a durable and
viable peace in South-East Asia continues to consist of three elements.
According to our position of principle, disputes among States or groups of
States should be settled exclusively by peaceful means, through negotiations. In
this respect too, we are convinced more than ever before that nations of our
contemporary world must coexist peacefully~ irrespective of their social systems.
Regional conflicts, including the one in South-East ~sia, and specifically
their prolongation, have a direct repercussion on the overall international
political situation, an improvement of which would in turn - it should be
acknowledged and emphasized - have a definite, positive impact on the resolution of
regional conflicts. The events and developments of the past four decades provide
us with tragic proofs of that.
As a particular phenomenon in the region of South-East Asia, the common
heritage of historical and cultural bonds, and the economic and geographical
circumstances, make it not only desirable but also imperative for the countries
direc~ly involved to find a common ground for the solution of outstanding issues.
It is exactly this combinat-ion of factors which must not escape our attention.
We recognize and accept that historical developments have resulted in the
formation of two groups of countries in the area, which have a common
re~ponsibility to act decisively on the question of peace, stability and
co-operation. It is the Indo-Chinese States and the States members of the
~ssociation of South-East Asian Nations (ASE~N) that halTe to engage in a dialogue,
to consider jointly the proposals put forward by them. The only feasible and
viable way open to them is to conduct negotiations on the basis of equa\ity and
respect for each other's interests, and free from any outside inte~ference.
(ML. Racz, Hungary)
In accordance with this approach of ours, the Hungarian People's Republic has
consistently stressed that direct talks between the interested States are
irreplaceable. We are convinced that the genuine legitimate interests of every
country in the region can be respected within this framework. It offers the best
possibilities for understanding each other's positions and preoccupations, without
trying to bring into the discussion illusory or artificial problems. Attempts to
equate problems of South-East Asia with the issues relating to the "situation in
Kampuchea" are doomed to failure and are aimed only at increasing tension.
T~erefore any involvement, under any pretext, of the genocidal Pol Pot regime is
inconceivable.
The year 1985 has already given us some considerably encouraging and very
noteworthy indications that there is common ground for the resolution of the
comprehensive question of peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia.
In this respect we have particularly in mind the constructive proposals
presented by the Tenth and the Eleventh Foreign Ministers' Conferences of the
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Lao
People's Democratic Republic, aimed at giving a genuine impetus to the dialogue
between the two groups of countries in the region. We welcome the ongoing talks
between Viet Nam and Indonesia as designated representatives of the two groups of
countries in the region. Also, we support and appreciate the readiness of the
Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea to ehter into talks with various
Khmer opposition groups or individuals in order to discuss the achievement of
national reconciliation on the basis of the elimination of the genocidal Pol Pot
clique.
That list of major initiatives clearly shows the earnest readiness of Viet
Nam, Kampuchea and Laos firmly to establish friendly and good-neighbourly relations
(Mr. Racz, Hungary)
with the Member States of ASEAN. The GQneral Assembly should welcome that
readiness to settle the question of peace and stability in South-East Asia.
We once again take note with satisfaction of the constructive Vietnamese
proposal to normalize Sine-Vietnamese relations and, by the same token, we reaffirm
our appreciation for Viet Nam's willingness to settle all problems with the United
States.
All those developments continu~ to deserve our closest attention, for they
open the road to a constructive system of relations as a major step toward creating
the possibility of establishing an Asian collective security system.
The Hungarian delegation believes that the role of the United Nations is to
help create conditions for the countries of the region to engage in a dialogue and
to negotiate, without any outside interference, a lasting resolution of the issues
facing them.
The Hungarian People's Republic remains determined to contribute, within the
limits of its possibilities, to bringing about peace, stability and co-operation in
South-East Asia.
Mr. LE KI~CHUNG (Viet Nam) (interpretation from French): At this
important session commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, the
vast majority of States Members of our Organization have in their statements
expressed their determination to combine their efforts in the struggle against the
arms race, particularly the nuclear arms race, and for the transformation of
various regions into zones of peace and stability free of nuclear weapons, for a
firm and lasting peace throughout the world and for the independence, sovereignty
and development of nations. In the context of a tense and complex international
situation, those same States have also expressed the desire to bring about a
settlement of global and regional problems by means of peaceful negotiations •
(Mr. Racz, Hungary)
Thus, one may note that peace is a powerful aspiration of mankind as a whole, and
that peaceful coexistence has become an irresistible trend in our times. That
observation is valid also for South-East Asia.
(Mr. Le Rim Chung, Viet Ram)
That region is in fact the only one in the world that has known no peace
throughout the past 40 years, having had successively to undergo the most seveze
trials as a result of the manoeuvres and acts of war of the forces of colonialism,
imperialism and international reaction, aimed against the independence and
sovereignty of nations and regional peace and stability. That is why more than any
others the countries of Indo-China, Viet Ram among them, and the other countries of
South-East Asia share the aspirations I have mentioned-and desire to make of
South-East Asia a zone of pea~e, stability and co-operation so as to be able to
devote themselves entirely to building up their respective economies and
establishing prosperity throughout the entire region. That desire has been
specifically expressed in reciprocal visits undertaken in recent years with the aim
of increasing mutual understanding and promoting relations of friendship and
co-operation in the economic, scientific, technical, cultural and other areas among
countries of the region. Proof of this same desire is also to be found in the
various proposals put forward by States of the region, such ae the 1971 Kuala
Lumpur Declaration by the member co~~tries of the Association of South-East Asian
Nations (ASEAN) concerning a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality, the principles
set forth in the ASEAN summit conference in Bali in 1976 and the seven principles
governing relations between South-East Asian countries put forward by the States of
Indo-China in 1981 in the United Nations General Assembly.
Thus it is clear that peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia are
not merely an ardent desire, an urgent demand, of the peoples of that region but
also a real, attainable possibility. The proposals I have mentioned provide a
practical basis for the talks undertaken between the two groups of South-East Asian
countries for the purpose of resolving the disputes in the region, including the
que~tion of Kampuchea, in accordance with the resolutions on South-East Asia
adopted by the 1983 New Delhi Summit Conference of non-aligned countries and the
Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned states in Luanda in 1985. Those
resolutions were endorsed by the two groups of countries, the ASEAN countries and
the countries of Indo-China.
Despite the differences that still exist on specific problems bequeathed to us . by history, in recent years, through the proposals put forward by the two groups of
countries and the bilateral or multilateral exchanges of views in the region,
several common denominators have emerged that could serve as the basis for a
political solution in South-East Asia, on the question of Kampuchea, among other
issues. These are: tbe withdrawal of Vietnamese forces without permitting the
return of the genocidal regime~ national reconciliation among the various Khmer
factions on the basis of the elimination of the Pol Pot cliqueJ peaceful
coexistence among States of the region~ the cessation of all foreign interference
in the affairs of the countries of South-East AsiaJ and an international ~uarantee
of the agreements concluded.
The aforementioned exchanges of views and, more particularly, the recent talks
between Viet Nam, representing the countries of Indo-China, and Indonesia,
representing those of ASEAN, have produced encouraging results, initiating a
process of substantive dialogue for the purpose of finding equitable solutions to
all the problems of the region. The meeting between the Foreign Minister of
Indonesia, Mr. Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, and his Vietnamese counterpart,
Mr. Nguyen Co Thach, in Jakarta last August, the visit to the Lao People's
Democratic Republic in October by the Deputy Foreign Minister of Malaysia and the
bilateral talks between the heads of delegations of the States of South-East Asia
during the Ministerial Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in Luanda in September
and the present session of the united Nations General Assembly have, together with
many other exchanges of views and visits undertaken this year, made an active
contribution to progress in the regional dialogue.
(Mr. Le Kim Chung, Viet Nam)
These diplomatic activities undertaken by countries of the region in the quest
for a political solution in South-East Asia and the "greater convergence of views
on the framework and the main elements around which a comprehensive political
settlement should be built" (A/40/PV.61, p. 33) - to quote the assessment made two
days ago by the delegation of a member country of ASEAN - have been welcomed by a
broad sector of public opinion and are noted by the Secretary-General of our
Organization in his report dated 17 October 1985 (A/401759), which has been quoted
by many delegations.
The situation in South-East Asia over the past six years has revealed the
limitations of the policy of tension and confrontation in the region. All the
measures used against the three countries of Indo-China have come to naught. All
the nefarious activities undertaken with the aim of imposing a unilateral solution
with regard to the question of Kampuchea have been doomed to failure. The three
countries of Indo-China have survived the most difficult period and had
considerable success in the construction and defence of their respective
countries. At the present time, despite the many difficulties that remain, all
three countries of Inde-China have made positive changes in every respect and
continue to press forward with confidence. Steeled by the trials they have known,
their mutual solidarity grows stronger day by day and represents a very important
factor for the establishment of peace and stability in South-East Asia.
(Mr. Le Kim Chung, Viet Ram)
A fact of singular importance is the extraordinary growth of the People's
Republic of Kampuchea, which demonstrates the rapid process of maturity of the
Kampuchean revolution, the forces of which are capable of assuming increasing
responsibility for the defence of their country. That has made possible
four ~artial withdrawals each year since 1982 by the Vietnamese volunteer forces,
which will withdraw completely by 1990 as stated in the communique of the
Conference of Foreign Ministers of the countries of Indo-China held in Phnom Penh
in August last. I should add that that decision was taken unilaterally in the
absence of a political solution.
However, if a negotiated political settlement of the question of Kampuchea can
be reached, the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces will take place simultaneously with
the elimination of the Pol Pot clique, politically, militarily and as an
organization. Thus it will be possible more rapidly and earlier to complete the
total withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea. It goes without saying that
the countries of Indo-China desire and are trying to contribute to a political
solution acceptable to the parties concerned, so that peace and stability can be
re~tored without delay in South-East Asia.
Furthermore, with a view to implementing its policy of national
reconciliation, the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea has stated its
readiness to hold talks with various individuals or groups of the opposition on the
basis of the elimination of the Pol Pot clique, thus opening the door to a dialogue
among the various Kampuchean parties and, thereby, to a settlement of the internal
pr~blems of Kampuchea. In that spirit, the Malaysian proposal for proximity talks
is an initiative which deserves study.
Now that conditions are favourable for a political solution, the only way and
the shortest way to 'settle the problems among the countries of South-East Asia is
to strengthen the substantive talks in a spirit of constructive good faith among
those countries. Time is on the side of those countries which, both within and
outside the region, are striving to contribute to peace and stability in the
South-East Asian region. Quite clearly, the policy of confrontation promoted most
particularly by the shrill cries of a certain country which deliberately works
against the trend towards dialogue and peaceful coexistence, both in the world and
in that region, is outdated and is surely doomed to failure.
Having made innumerable sacrifices to achieve peace, independence and freedom,
the people of Viet Nam have done and will continue to do everything for peace,
stability and co-operation in the South-East Asian region and for lasting peace
throughout the world. In that spirit we call on all countries to combine their
efforts in that noble cause. We express our deep appreciation for the efforts made
in that connection by countries both within and outside the region and personally
by the United Nations Secretary-General.
We desire the restoration of traditional relations of friendship with the
People's Republic of China and the normalization of relations with the United
States. Such relations could only benefit the peoples of Viet Nam, China and the
United States, and serve the cause of peace and stability in South-East ~sia.
We believe that the talks between the United States and Viet Nam on the
question of the united States soldiers who disappeared during the Viet Nam war and
on other questions of common concern, as well as the opening of bilateral talks on
the normalization of relations between Viet Nam and China, as proposed on several
occasions by Viet Nam, will actively contribute to a sound and lasting political
solution to the problems of this still smoUldering region of South-East ~sia.
nuring the past 40 years mankind has enjoyed the longest period without a
world war in this century. Nevertheless, war and instnbility remain a constant
threat for many regions and subregions. Peace is indivisible. World peace, which
all men on earth so ardently desire, requires that each region should enjoy real
peace and stability, and that is something that South-East Asia has not known for
the last 40 years.
However, thanks to the considerable efforts of the countries of IndO-China,
enlightened forces in the region ar~ of other nations that cherish peace, the first
and most difficult step, but a highly promising one, has been taken on the road
towards regional peace, stability a~d co-operation.
We are convinced that, despite the obstacles raised by forces which, both
within and outside the region, continue to cherish ill~$ions regatding their policy
of tension and confrontation, the rest of the course will also be covered, thanks
to ~he joint efforts of two groups of c9untries, namely, those of the Association
of South-East Asian Nations and those of IndO-China, whose endeavours have the
sympathy and support of the internntional community.
Mr. OTT (German D~wocratic Republic): In the United Nations Charter the
maintenance of international peace and security and the development of friendly
relations among Stmtes and peoples are enshr1.ned as the foremost aims of this world
Organization. In view of the extremely serious international situation, and in
particular the growing danger of a world-wide nuclear catastrophe, it is more
imperative than ever to take resolute measures for a turnabout in international
relations.
(Mr. Le Kim Chung, Viet Nam)
In this connection, regional efforts and initiatives for diminishing tensions and
for promoting understanding and confidence have gained in importance. Today,
security is not possible through confrontrtion but only through co-operation.
This is not least true of South-East Asia. The peoples of that region have
had to live through many periods of great suffering. For more than 40 years they
have h~d no peace. Time and again attempts have been made to halt progressive
development; tensions are encouraged and instability provoked. The main thrust is
directed against viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea. Yet the wheel of history cannot be
turned back, not in Indo-China nor anywhere else. The road to a durable peaceful
future will be opened up not by conf~ontation but by mutual respect for the
interescs of all parties concerned and their co-operation. Existing problems must
be solved through common sense, realism and dialogue on an equal footing.
Let it be said very clearly here that it is not Kampuchea that is the problem
in South-East Asia. Even deliberately overheated debates in the plenary meetings
of the General Assembly cannot obscure that fact.
We have repeatedly underlined that those useless exercises are in complete
contradiction to the Charter. They are a futile attempt to prescribe to a people
how to shape its own development. This is all the more true since the only
legitimate representative of the Kampuchean people, namely, the Government of the
People's Republic, is still denied the right to protect the interests of the
Kampuchean people in the united Nations.
Incidentally, the agenda item on the so-called situation in Kampuchea will
peter out in the not-too-distant future. Historical experience teaches that no one
can forever refuse to recognize and respect the realities in the world, which today
include the existence and successful development of the People's Republic of
Kampuchea. More and more unprejUdiced observers and realistic politicians share
the view that the people's power in the country is oteadily consolidating, that the
(Kt. Ott, German Democratic Republic)
economy is advancing, that its entire social life is taking a normal course and
that the armed forces guarantee the security and prosperity of the country.
The German Demcratic Republic, ~hich is linked to the People's Republic of
Kampuchea by a treaty of friendship and co-operation, will continue to affirm its
solidarity with the people of Kampuchea on its road to national and social rebirth.
The real problem in South-East Asia is the continued interference in the
internal affairs of the sovereign State of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. The
problem is that imperialism is trying to regain lost positions and implement
far-reaching plans of expansion in the region. The problem, as was reported in the
newspaper The International Herald Tribune, for example, is that "millions of
dollars are spent annually· by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to stir up
counterrevolution and to disturb the peaceful living together of peoples.
The international public rightly points to the topicality of the purposes and
principles adopted at the Bandung Conference of 1955. What gives rise to optimism
is the fact that 30 years after that Conference, which was so vital to the struggle
against the imperialist colonial yoke and the implementation of the people's right
to 3elf-determination, the South-East Asian States too have reaffirmed ~,eir
commitment to the 10 principles listed in the Declaration on the promotion of
international peace and co-operation that was adopted at that time.
The talks in which the Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach took part
in Djakarta were an important step on the road to peaceful coexistence in the
southeast region of the Asian continent. At the talks both sides underlined their
wi1lingness to make every effort that could contribute to strengthening peace and
stability in the region.
Furthermore, the meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the three Indo-Chinese
States, held in Phnom Penh, has proved again that Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea are
seriously and systematically seeking a dialogue with the member States of the
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Their concrete and realistic
proposals are a clear expression of the wish to solve complicated problems in the
region by way of negotiation. This is also true of the declaration on the
withdrawal of Vietnamese volunteers from Kampuchea by the year 1990. It applies
also to the readiness for negotiations with Khmer groupings and for talks with the
group of ASEAN States:
It goes without saying that there cannot be any place at the negotiating table.
for a representative of the Pol Pot clique. A regime that was responsible for
murdering more than 3 million Kampucheans has for all time f~rfeited its right to
participate in deciding on the country's destiny. There can be no retreat from the
total political and military elimination of that inhuman regime.
The constructive proposals made by the three Indo-Chinese States are aimed at
creating a climate of confidence and co-operation. They are in accordance with the
way in which these countries have been striving, for many years, to transform
SoUth-East Asia into a zone of peace and stability, establish good-neighbourly
relations with all countries of the tegion and settle disputes through negotiation.
As is well known, that b~sic.position has been underscored by a number of
detailed proposals•. We need only think of the proposals made for a regional
conference to create a zone of peace in South-East Asia, to scart a political
dialogue between the ASEAN and Indo-Chinese States, and to elaborate the principles
of relations between the aforementioned groups of States.
All these proposals submitted by the Indo-Chinese States are in conformity'
with the letter and spirit of the Bandung Conference. They require p:omotion and
support. They are characterized by good will, respect for the legitimate interests
of the other side and a readiness to compromise through negotiations.
The same is true of many other initiatives and proposals made by the
Indo-Chinese States. Let us recall the humanitarian endeavours made by Viet Nam
and Laos in response to the United States request to search for missing persons.
(Mr. Ott, German Democratic Republic)
The steps taken to restore and develop friendly relations with all
neighbouring and other countries in the region are of great importance. The
proposal submitted by the peo~le's Democratic Republic of Laos that it enter into
negotiations with Thailand and its re~,::li.ess to conclude bilateral and multilateral
agreements with Thailand based on l"cernational law are highly significant.
The delegation of the Ge[man Democratic Republic supports these constructive
proposals. It is glad that the ASEAN and lnde-Chinese States were able to agree on
starting talks on problems relating to a poiitica' settlement with regard to peace
and stability in South-East Asia, including Kampuchea. The meeting of the Foreign
Ministers of Viet Nam and Indonesia is a first positive step in the right
direction. Further steps must follow if peaceful coexistence is to become a
prevailing aspect of relations between South-East Asian States.
Peace is indivisible: this is one of the most important principles of the
foreign policy pursued by the Warsaw Treaty member S~ates. Therefore, in their
Sofia Joint Declaration, they reaffirmed the principle that conflicts and disputes
among States should be settled by peaceful means and that each nation's right to
decide its destiny for itself should be fully respected. That Declaration states:
"The promotion of peace and co-operation in Asia and in the Pacific OCean
basin, the settlement of the problems of South-East Asia by political means
and the strengthening of confidence and security in those regions are of
particular importance." (A/C.l/40/7, p. 10)
It must be the task of the United Nations to promote this course of dialogue
and mutually beneficial co-operation. Only by fUlfilling that task will the
Organization live up to its purposes.
(Mr. Ott, German Democratic Re...@blic)
May the fortieth anniversary of the united Nations and the International Year
of Peace s~~ve as additional encouragement to all the parties concerned to reach
through dialogue a comprehensive settlement of the problems and to bring about a
strong and durable peace in South-East Asia. The peoples of SOuth-East Asia need
peace. Genuine international security requires peace in all the regions of the
world.
Mr. TROYANOVSKY (Union of Soviet SOcialist Republics) (interpretation
from Russian): The Soviet union shares the view that there is a need for an
active, persistent search for ways to normalize the situation in SOuth-East Asia.
Completion of that taBk would be in the interests of the peoples and States of that
region and in the broader interests of strengthening peace and security in Asia and . throughout the world. we therefore fully support the consideration at this session
of the ~neral Assembly of the question of peace, stability and co-operation in
SOUth-East Asia.
Unfortunately we must say that a tense Jituation still prevails in
SOUth-East Asia. The existence of a conflict situation created as the result of
interference by external forces in the affairs of the region not only runs counter
to the aspirations of the peoples of South-East Asia but, given the complicated
situation in the world as a Whole, could have serious consequences for all the
States of Asia.
We cannot ignore the fact that recently discussion of the so-called question
of Kampuchea was again imposed on the General Assembly. The Soviet delegation
shares the position of the People's Republic of Kampuchea that any discussion at
the united Nations of the "question of Kampuchea" without the consent and
participation of its representatives constitutes interference in the internal
affairs of Kampuchea, an independent sovereign State, and a violation of the United
Nations Charter and the norms of international law.
(Kr. Ott, German Democratic RepUblic)
we believe that the commotion tendentiously stirred up around the question of
Kampuchea at the United Nations is intended further to increase tension in that
part of the world and not to assist in the finding of a political solution to the
problems that persist in South-East Asia.
The People's Republic of Kampuchea is a political reality in the world today.
In the almost seven years since it was established the workers of Kampuchea have
brought their country out of the chaos and devastation into which it was plunged by
the Pol Pot barbarians. Significant success has been achieved in the economic,
social and cultural rehabilitation of Kampuchea. Together with Viet Nam and Laos,
the People's Republic of Kampuchea is making al'~ important contribution by seeking
to improve the situation in South-East Asia and to transform it into a zone of
peace, stability and co-operation.
As was stated at the Fifth Congress, in October of this year, of the
Kampuchean people's Revolutionary Party, Kampuchea is prepared to develop relations
of friendship and co-operation with States of that region on the basis of the
principles of respect for national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity
and non-interference in internal affairs.
It is absolutely untrue that, as some delegations have recently stated,
ten~ion in that region is caused by the presence of Vietnamese troops in
Kampuchea. Such allegations are made in an attempt to distort the meaning of the
events taking place there. The presence of Vietnamese volunteers in Kampuchea is
merely a temporary, unavoidable measure made necessary by the ongoing outside
interference in the affairs of Kampuchea. The main job of those volunteers is to
assist the friendly country to clear its territory of bandits and firmly to prevent
their penetration into Kampuchea, not to threaten Thailand and ASEAN countries. As
was stated in August of this year by the Governments of Viet Nam and Kampuchea, the
withdrawal from Kampuchea of the contingents of Vietnamese volunteers will take
place on an annual basis and will be fully completed by 1990.
As for the demands for the immediate withdrawal of all Vietnamese troops from
Kampuchea while freedom of action is maintained for the followers of Pol Pot, these
are contrary to common sense and the principles of humanity. This would virtually
mean confronting the Kampuchean people with a real threat of the return of the
Pol Pot clique, with all its horrors. The Soviet delegation is convinced that such
a turn of events would not suit not only the friends of the People's Republic of
Kampuchea but most of the countries that, because of their various political aims,
are supporting the Pol Pot so-called Coalition. It is generally known that at the
present time Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea are focusing their efforts on resolving
the many social and economic problems that they inherited from their colonial past
or that are the consequence of the protracted military conflicts on the territory
of those States and primarily the United States aggression. Quite naturally, those
countries need favourable conditions to resolve their complicated problems related
to economic and social development.
(Mr. Troyanovsky, USSR)
The Soviet union has given and will continue to give broad assistance to the
countries of Indo-China and help to rehabilitate and develop industry and
agriculture to enhance the well-being of the workers of those countries and allow
them to satisfy their material, social and cultural needs. That is the meaning of
the Soviet presence in Indo-China to which the representatives of certain countries
sometimes r~fer.
The countries of Indo-China are not interested in confrontation with their
neighbours or in maintaining a state of tension in South-East Asia. The policy of
the countries of Indo-China, as has been made clear in the authoritative statements
made by the leaders of those State~, seeks b, replace confrontation with dialogue
so that the region can be t~a~sformed into a zone of peace, stability and
co-operation.
The eleventh conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, Laos and
Kampuchea that took place in Phnom Penh in August of this year again reaffirmed the
willingness of the countries of Indo-China to engage in dialogue with their
n&ighbours in the interests of reducing tension and encouraging an atmosphere of
peaceful co-operation and mutual understanding. The conference communique stated:
"The five-point position put forward by the Indochinese countries on
18 January 1985 and which was welcomed by broad sections of pUblic opinion in
South-East Asia and the world, provides a basis for substantive dialogue aimed
at attaining a political solution acceptable to the various parties."
(A/40/56l, annex, para. 2)
The documents distributed by the delegations of Viet Nam and Laos and the
statement made today by the representative of Viet Nam go into some detail about
the proposal of the Indochinese countries to resolve contentious issues relating to
the situation surrounding Kampuchea. An important element in that proposal is the
withdrawal of the Vietnamese volunteers from Kampuchea and, at the same time,
(M~. Troyanovsky, US.•R)
the political and military elimination of the Pol Pot clique. The three
Indochinese countries have again called for the convening of an international
conference to discuss all problems relating to peace and stability in South-East
Asia with an appropriately broadly based participation. In so doing, the
Indochinese side reaffirmed its willingness to discuss all proposals that might be
put forward by the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
at such a conference. The constructive attitude of the countries of Indo-China is
borne out by their desire to normalize relations with the United States and the
People's Republic of China.
In our view, the initiatives of the Indochinese countries merit the most
serious and sustained attention by all countries that adopt an unprejudiced
attitude in analysing the developments in South-East Asia. Those initiatives take
into account the basic elements of the position taken by ASEAN. In this connection
I should like to quote from the report of the United Nations Secretary-General on
agenda item 22, in which he states that:
"a reasonable degree of convergence has emerged on the main elements of a
comprehensive political settlement." (A(40/759, para. 13)
In a number of countries - primarily the ASEAN countries - there has recently
been talk of the need for a national·reconciliation in Kampuchea. What prevents
such a reconciliation? The Government of Kampuchea takes a positive attitude to
that proposal. In August of this year the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's RepUblic of Kampuchea, Mr. Hun Sen, at
a press conference held in Phnom Penh, stated, inter alia:
"We have proclaimed our willingness to hold talks with all Khmer opposition
groups or individuals, in order to bring about national reconciliation on the
basis of the elimination of the Pol Pot clique, and to discuss the question of
(Mr. Troyanovsky, USSR)
holding gene~al elections after the withdrawal of the Vietnamese volunteer
forces."
At the same time, the Kampuchean leader noted that he was prepared to meet with
sihanouk and Son Sann anywhere, at any time.
In the light of that constructive position taken by the People's Republic of
Kampuchea, the prospects are now favourable for dialogue between the
representatives of Kampuchea and the opposition groups. Unfortunately no progress
has yet been achieved in this area. The sticking point is that certain people, it
would seem, do not want to renounce support for the vestiges of the Pol Pot clique
that have for seven years now been vainly trying to white-wash their bloody crimes
against the Kampuchean people and, to that end, those people keep the
representatives of that clique in the united Nations. Following attempts to hide
the Pol Pot clique behind the screen of the Coalition Government, there was
recently a new manoeuvre: news of the so-called retirement of Pol Pot. The words
of Sihanouk himself in this connection represent a very telling admission. In ~
Christian Science Monitor of 1 October of this year, he is quoted as saying: "Pol
Pot will stay in the shadow, but he remains the boss." As they say, "No comment."
It is difficult to understand the logic of those who defend the Pol Pot
renegades and yet prevent a political settlement of questions relating to the
situation surrounding Kampuchea, particularly since this is directly linked to the
timing of the withdrawal of the Vietnamese troops from the People's Republic of
Kampuchea. In a letter addressed to the President of the General Assembly and to
the Secretary-General by the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Mr. Hun Sen, stated:
"In case the concerned parties can reach a political solution, the total
withdrawal of the vietnamese volunteers from Kampuchea can be achieved even
earlier." (A/40/723, p. 3)
(Mr. Troyanovsky, USSR)
The countries of Indo-China and ASEAN have no objective reasons for hostility
and confrontation. Naturally, there are many difficulties involving in settling
the situation in South-East Asia. However, it is important to look to the future,
to stress commonsense and to try to transcend the usual cliches. We need to
promote the attainment of political solutions to the region's problems by every
possible means, not to delay that search, and if we truly look forward we must
acknowledge that some positive elements have emerged. As an example, we would
refer to the recent steps taken to develop a dialogue in which the countries of
Indo-China would be represented by Viet Nam and those of ASEAN by Indonesia - in
other words, there is a growing understanding among the countries of the region of
the need for a speedy solution to problems that make the situation in south-East
Asia more complicated, as well as an understanding that the only way to reach that
goal is through dialogue.
It was precisely for such a dialogue, without any pre-conditions, that an
appeal was made to the countries of South-East Asia, in the political declaration
of the Seventh Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned
Countries, held at New Delhi. That appeal was also made at the meeting of Foreign
Ministers of the Non-Aligned Countries held at Luanda in September of this year.
(Mr. Troyanovsky, USSR)
It would be a political mistake and shortsighted to let slip the real
opportunities that are emerging to reduce tension in South-East Asia, to bring
about genuine peace and to create a climate of trust and co-operation. As was
stated in June this year by the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mr. Gorbachev, on the occasion of the visit to
the Soviet Union by a party and governmental delegation from the SOcialist Republic
of Viet Nam:
"The Soviet Union continues to believe that there are no problems in
South-East Aoia that could not be resolved by political means around the
negotiating table. That is why we fully support the consistent efforts that
have been made by Viet Nam, together with Laos and Kampuchea, to establish
relations of good-neighbourliness and co-operation in South-East Asia and to
transform that region into a zone of peace and stability. The Soviet Union
will in future do everything td promote steps in that direction."
The Soviet Union supports the proposal to convene an international conference
on problems of South-East Asia with the participation of the Indo-Chinese States
and the ASEAN countries and also other States that are willing to help to normalize
the situation in South-East Asia. My country, as has been stated, is prepared,
toge ther wi th the other permanent members of the Security Council, to commit itself
to guaranteed arrangements that could be brought about among the countries of
Indo-China and those of ASEAN. An improvement in the climate of South-East Asia
would undoubtedly be helped by the normalization of relations between China and
Viet Nam, an idea which has been consistently supported by the leaders of the
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, and also the holding of negotiations between Laos
and Thailand to eliminate the consequences of the occupation by Thailand last year
of part of the territory of Laos.
(Mr. Troyanovsky, USSR)
We have sympathy for the proposal put forward by certain countries of
South-East Asia that that region be declared a nuclear-weapon-free zone. The
question of proclaiming South-East Asia a zone free from chemical weapons is also
an important matter. The Soviet Union favours good relations between Viet Nam,
Laos and Kampuchea arid the ASEAN States. It favours peace, stability and
co-operation in South-East Asia. This is in the interests of Indo-Chinese
countries and it is in the interests of the States members of ASEAN.
The Soviet delegation believes that United Nations efforts and the efforts of
all those that Ch2i:'ish the interests of peace and international security should
seek to promote the process of the normalization of the situation in South-East
Asia. We are convinced that Ultimately common sense will prevail and that that
region will be transformed into a zone of peace6 stability and co-operation.
Mr. PAWLAK (Poland): Once again the General' Assembly is considering the
important question of peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia. We
believe that the debate on this issue will promote a settlement of the problems of
that region by means of negotiations.
In the past four decades the countries of Indo-China - which constitute a
significant part of the political configuration of South-East Asia - have been
victims of unprecedented aggressiorr and various schemes for foreign domination.
However, neither bloody wars of aggression nor other attempts were successful in
bringing about the subjugation of those countries to foreign Powers. The
Indo-Chinese peoples were able to defeat the aggressors and force them to withdraw
from Indo-China. The Victory of the peoples of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea
brought them independence and freedom. The three Indo-Chinese States have
strengthened their solidarity and co-operation. However, the establishment of the
people's power in Kampuchea and the carrying out in that country of progressive
(Kr. Troyanovsky, USSR)
social and political reforms are not in line with the wishes of some foreign
Powers. They would like the genocidal Pol Pot authorities to assert themselves
once again in Kampuchea. Those Powers are thus provoking tension and jeopardizing
peace and stability in that country and in the region as a whole. This policy of
interference continues to arouse the concern of all peace-loving countries and
harms the efforts of the countries of Indo-China, which yearn for peace and
stability, to heal the wounds of wars and devote themselves to national
reconstruction and development.
The Polish delegation supports consideration of the item before us in the
General Assembly, because we should like to give a helping hand to the peoples of
South-East Asia to find a way to ease tension, strengthen mutual contacts and bring
durable peace and stability to that region.
We have to recognize the historical reality manifested through the formation
in South-East Asia of the group of Indo-Chinese countries and the Association of
South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). Though States belonging to these groups have
different social and political Syf.'.,11S, they share the same desire for peace and
independence. They all belong also to the developing world, str~Qing for
accelerated social and economic progress.
Poland has friendly relations with all South-East Asian countries. It is our
deepest desire to see the same type of relations established also among all
countries of that region. We sincerely hope that through negotiations the
obstacles to the creation in south-East Asia of a zone of peace and co-operation
will be eliminated.
We are in favour of a political solution of all problems in south-East Asia, a
solution in which the existing political realities will be respected by the parties
directly concerned, without any foreign interference.
(Mr. Pawlak, Poland)
As the General Assemly was informed by Mr. Vo Dong Giang, Minister of State
of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, during the general debate on 4 OCtober 1985:
-the recent talks between Viet Nam, representing the three countries of
Indo-China, and Indonesia, representing ~e ASEAN countries, have yielded
positive results; notwithstanding certain differences. These talks have pave&
the way for a process of substantive dialogue on an equal footing, in a spirit
of mutual respect and mutual concern for each other's legitimate
interes~, ~ •• with neither side inposing its views on the other and without
interference from Powers external to the region, with a view to reaching an
equitable solution to the questions of South-East Asia.- (A/40/PV.23, p. 18)
In that process of dialogue an important role has been played by the
fiv~-PO~lt position put forward by the Tenth Conference of the Foreign Ministers of
the Lao People's DeJl¥)cratic Republic, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the
Socialist Republic of Viet Nam on 18 January 1985.
(Mr. Pa",lak, Poland)
It is worth while recalling those proposals: first, the withdrawal of
Vietnamese volunteer forces from Kampuchea, paired with the exclusion of the
genocidal Pol Pot cliqueJ secondly, respect for the Kampuchean people's right to
self-determination, and first and foremost the right to the restoration of a life
free from the threat of genocideJ thirdly, the holding by the Kampuchean people of
free general elections, with the presence of foreign observers; fourthly, the
transformation of South-East Asia into a zone of peace and stability wherein States
with different social syst~ms can liv.e in peaceful coexistence without allowing
their respective territories to be used against other countries, and respect by all
the States external to the region of the national rights of South-East Asian
oountriesJ and fifthly, the e~tablishment of an international form of guarantee and
supervision of the implementation of the agreements.
We welcome also other proposals, such as the initiative of the members of the
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) regarding direct and indirect talks
and Malaysia's proposal on proximity talks, as well as the readiness of the three
Indo-Chinese States to negotiate and sign with Thailand treaties based on
principles of peaceful coexistence. We are also convinced that the talks and
contacts between the Lao People's Republic and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam,
on the one hand, and the united States, on the other, concerning Americans missing
in action and other problems will facilitate the establishment of peace and
stability in South-East Asia.
It seems that, after six years of continuous efforts and the presentation ol
many initiatives by both groups of South-East Asian countries, there is a real
possibility of working out a fLamework for solving the question of peace and
stability in that region, inclUding the Karnpuchean problem. That is why we are of
the opinion that forcing the General Assembly to discuss the situation in Kampuchea
every year, without the assent aud participation of the representatives of the
People's Republic of Kampuchea - the only genuine representatives of the Kampuchea
people - does not serve the cause of solving the problems of South-East Asia.
We welcome the progress achieved by the people of Kampuchea in the
reconstruction of thei~ country. We take note of the important declaration of the
Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea concerning its readiness to enter
into talks with groups or individuals in the opposition, aimed at discussing the
achievement of national reconciliation based on the removal of Pol Pot and the
organization of general elections after the withdrawal of Vietnamese volunteer
forces from Kampuchea. The withdrawal, according to the announcement of the
Governments of the two countries involved, will continue in the form of annual
partial withdrawals, with the final withdrawal of all Vietnamese volunteer forces
by 1990.
Poland welcomes those events and stands for the political solution of all the
problems of South-East Asia through dialogue. The course of tension and
confrontation in that and other regions is contrary to the interests and wishes of
all nations, big and small alike.
The Polish delegation firmly believes that, in spite of all the difficulties
and existing differences, the South-East Asian countries will continue their
dialogue and achieve an agreement that will bring benefits to their peace-loving
peoples. It is our firm belief that the debates in the United Nations General
Assembly will promote dialogue between the States of Indo-China and those of ASEAN
and the normalization of their relations.
As was underlined in the recent Declaration of the Member States of the Warsaw
Treaty:
"The promotion of peace and co-operation in Asia and in the Pacific Ocean
(Mr. Pawlak, Poland)
and the strengthening of confidence and security in those regions are of
particular importance·. (A/C.1/40/7, p. 10)
Mr. MAHBUBANI (Singapore): I should like to begin my remarks with a
harsh but unfortunately true statement: the debate on this item each year has
become a farce.
For the sixth successive year, Viet Nam has proposed for the consideration of
the General Assembly an item entitled ~The question of peace, stability and
co-operation in South-East Asia". We have met on it six times. We have discussed
this issue six times. No resolutions have been adopted. Why? The answer is that
Viet Nam is unable to put forward any draft resolution on this item because it -
just like any other State in South-East Asia, and indeed the entire international
community - knows that there is only one problem affecting peace and stability in
south-East Asia, that is, the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Kampuchea.
We should therefore be grateful that this discussion today is taking place the
very day after the discussion on KampucheaJ for if Viet Nam's purpose in inscribing
this item on the agenda is to find out what the international community really
thinks of the situation in South-East Asia, it should have been here yesterday to
listen and to participate - and not to boycott - the discussions on the Kampuchean
situation. If Viet Nam had participated in yesterday's debate, the discussion
today would have been pointless for Viet Nam would have noted that there were more
co-sponsors this year for the draft ~eso1ution on Kampuchea (58 compared to 55 in
1984), more speakers in the debate - speakers from all regions of the world (45
compared to 38 in 1984), and certainly more affirmative votes for the draft
resolution (114 compared to 110 in 1984). Surely, in the face of this overwhelming
message Viet Nam cannot be in any further doubt about the views of this body on the
situation in South-East Asia.
(Mr. Paw1ak, Poland)
Since it was only yesterday that we said that to achieve peace and stability
in South-East Asia, Vietnamese forces should withdraw from Kampuchea and help bring
about a comprehensive peaceful settlement of the Kampuchean situation, today's
debate is certainly redundant. Logically, we should say that no separate
discussion is required. Indeed, given the pressing agenda we have each year, it is
unfortunate that Viet Ram continues to burden the General Assembly with this item.
Viet Ram would do the General Assembly a major favour by either withdrawing it from
the agenda or - perhaps more logically - merging it with the discussion on
Kampuchea. More critically - and this is the essential point - since Viet Ram has
already rejected the views of this body only yesterday, why does it come here
today, to the sa~e body, to seek its views. Is this not a farce?
(Mr. Mahbubani, Singapore)
Frankly, that is all that I should say here today on this item. However,
since Viet Nam in its previous statements and today has consistently reiterated
some themes, there is a need to respond to those claims and a need to set the
record straight.
I refer again to a joint statement dated 28 october 1985 in which the
delegations of Viet Nam and Laos said:
~hile the dialogue between the Indochinese and ASEAN groups of States has
started addressing the substance of the matter, the continued polemics at the
United Nations aimed at securing an erroneous resolution on Kampuchea as in
the past six years appear all the more negative and outmoded."
There was o..ly yesterday a oo~rehensive and eloquent rebuttal of this
argument by the Permanent Representative of Malaysia as the last speaker on the
Kampuchean situation. There is little for me to add here, but some of his words
bear repeating. He said:
"At the same time we have scrutinized each and every statemerlt from Viet Nam
for signs of a genuine wish to engage in such negotiations.
"Malaysia for its part regrets that it is not yet able to see any such
sign. Instead we have seen much obfuscation. We have seen much clever
propaganda and sophisticated diplomatic evasions. Above all, and regrettably,
we have seen Vietnamese action - and action speaks far louder than words -
which raises fundamental questions about Vietnamese intentions." (A/40/PV.63,
pp. 56 and 57)
The Malaysian Ambassador was referring to the continued Vietnamese military
offensives against the Kampucheans.
I also have some questions for Viet Nam and Laos. First, what gives them the
confidence or the right to assert that a resolution supported by 114 countries is
an ·erroneous· resolution? What would happen to the legal or moral authority of
this General Assembly's resolutions, if all other States decided to follow Viet
Ham's example and declare that some resolutions are ·erroneous"? Have Viet Ham and
Laos paused to consider the possibility that, if over 100 nations have voted
consistently in support of a certain resolution for over six years, those
100 nations may actually be demonstrating wisdom and good judgement in their
voting? It is tragic that the Vietnamese leaders stil~ fail or perhaps, more
accurately, refuse to understand the reasons behind the principled stand of the
united Nations.
The central argument being made here this morning is that this body should not
disrupt or interfere with the ongoing "dialogue" - dialogue has been a magic word
here all morning - which is supposed to be going on between the states of
South-East Asia. For the record, therefore, I should again like to quote the
position of the ASEAN States, expressed so well in the letter from the Acting
Foreign Minister of the Philippines. Writing in his capacity as Chairman of the
ASEAN Standing Committee, he said;
"there is as yet no regional dialogue in South-East Asia on the Kampuchean
problem. It is therefore essential that this international community continue
to be seized of this issue (on Kampuchea)."
This point was further reiterated in the statement made by the Indonesian
Deputy Permanent Representative in his speech on Monday when he said;
•••• as the Foreign Minister of Indonesia observed in the general debate on
26 September, while these ongoing talks between Indonesia and Viet Nam have
brought mutual clariftcation on a number of aspects of the problem,
differences still exist on some important points and these will have to be
resolved if the process towards genuine dialogue is to be sustained. The
(Mr. Mahbubani, Singapore)
principal among those points is the need for recognition by all the parties
that the Kampuchean problem is not one between ASEAN and Viet Nam or the
Indochinese States but one between the Kampuchean people and Viet Nam. Hence,
Indonesia's role as the interlocutor and ASEAN's involvement in general are
essentially those of seeking to facilitate meaningfUl negotiation among the
parties directly involved.- (A/40/PV.6l, p. 33)
This is the key point. If Viet Nam is interested in peace in South-East Asia,
it should talk directly with the Kampucheans. The ASEAN States have made many
helpful suggestions, including most recently a suggestion that there be a proximity
talks between Viet Nam and the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, led by
His Royal Highness Prince Norodom SihanoukJ and to ensure the participation of all
Kampucheans, the Vietnamese-installed Heng Samrin regime could participate in the
Vietnamese delegation.
It is astonishing that while Viet Nam claims to be engaged in a serious
dialogue with the ASEAN States, it seems to be remarkably deaf to the suggestions
made by those States. A dialogue does not merely involve talking. It also
involves listening. When Viet Nam finally begins to listen, not just to its
South-East Asian neighbours but also to the international community, we might then
be spar~d this rather pointless exercise we are engaged in today.
Viet Nam has also claimed several times that it is responsive to the wishes of
the Non-Aligned Movement. Yet at the same time, it does tremendous damage to that
Movement by continuing to defy and obstruct the resolutions of this General
Assembly, a body that the Non-Aligned Movement seriously believes in. Even more
curiously, Viet Nam continues to claim that it supports the decisions of the
Non-Aligned Movement,on the situation in Kampuchea. It is referring specifically
to two paragraphs on SOuth-East Asia, which have been endorsed at every Non-Aligned
(Mr. Mahbubani, Singapore)
meeting since the 1981 New Delhi Ministerial Meeting. OVer the years, those two
paragraphs have not changed. Yet we recall that when they were first drafted in
1981, Viet Nam announced its opposition to those paragraphs because they referred
to the situation in Kampuchea. We are therefore puzzled how Viet Nam could reject
those paragraphs in 1981 and then have endorsed them ever since 1982. We have not
solved this puzzle.
If Viet Ram really wants to heed the views of the'Non-Aligned Countries, I
should like to suggest that it should study carefully the voting results of the
resolution on the situation in KamPUchea yesterday. Almost two-thirds of the
member States of the Non-Aligned Movement voted for the resolution. Very few voted
against. What clearer signal is Viet Nam waiting for to understand the views of
the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement on the situation in SOuth-East Asia?
I certainly hope that Viet Ram is not going to believe that the speakers in
today's debate are a representative sample either of the Non-Aligned Movement or
indeed of this General Assembly. Most of them are indeed closely tied to one
super-Power, as is Viet Nam. If Viet Nam is going to heed the views of that
Super-Power alone, it will be a lvng time before we see peace, stability and
co-operation in South-East Asia. This morning, listening to the statements made, I
have felt genuinely troubled as I hear nations from a distant continent claim that
they know better the "aspirations" of the peoples of South-East Asia.
Finally, we are accustomed to hear in this Assembly discussions on principles,
points for, points against, but perhaps to end my remarks, I should just recite
some simple facts.
(Mr. Mahbubani, Singapore)
Viet Nam often claims that there are two groups of States in South-East Asia, the
ASEAN States and the Indo-Chinese States. Let us ignore for a moment the fact that
the Indo-Chinese States do not form a free association of States as do the ASEAN
States. Let us merely try to jUdge the peaceful orientation of those States by
facts, rather than by arguments. The facts are as follows.
The total population of the ASEAN States is approximately 275 million,
five times that of Viet Nam and ASEAN's combined gross national product is over
$200 billion, more than 20 times that of Viet Nam, yet in spite of that Viet Nam
alone maintains larger armed forces than all the six ASEAN States combined.
Viet Nam in fact has the world's fourth largest military establishment. Of total
armed forces, numbering 1,227,000 in 1984, the Vietnamese army numbered
one million, an army which is the most experienced and battle-hardened in all
Asia. An air force of 15,000, a na~ry of 12,000, an air defence force of 60,000 and
assorted border defence forces and auxiliaries round out the figure for standing
regulars. They are supported by half a million rapidly mobili~~d reinforcement
reserves, a "strategic rear" reserve of two and a half million and militia
numbering between one and three million. Incidentally, the total number of the
Vietnamese armed forces is three times that of the population of Singapore.
I hope that the facts I have mentioned and Viet Nam's action in continuing its
occupation of Kampuchea will speak more loudly here than Viet Nam's apparently
peaceful arguments. Perhaps, therefore, we should tell Viet Nam that if it really
wishes to bring about peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia it
should not come here seeking the source of the problem. All it need do is look in
the mirror.
(Mr. Mahbubani, Singapore)
Mr. KASEMSR! (Thailand): South-East Asia waR designated a regional
entity at the same time that th~ united Nations was born, four decades ago. The
term "South-East Asia", according to the diplomatic historian who chronicled the
emergence of the region on the international scene, Professor Russell Fifield, was
first used during the Second World War to designate a theatre of war in Asia.
Since then, war has always seemed to be the distinguishing characteristic of the
South-East Asian region. Today, as during the past 40 years, that region has still
not escaped the scourge of war.
The first war, the first Indo-China war, was a war of national liberation
against the former colonial Power - France - which had sought to reimpose the old
colonialism on the emerging new nation of Viet Nam. The sympathy of the peoples of
the region was wholeheartedly with the nationalist movement of Viet Nam.
Thailand's co-operation with Viet Nam at that time was evidenced by the fact that
one Vietnamese battalion was named the "Siam battalion". Because of the
righteousness of its cause, Viet Nam was at that time, while at war with the
colonial Power, at peace with its neighbour countries and enjoyed the moral support
of the countries of the entire region.
The second Indo-China war was that between North Viet Nam and South Viet Ram
to determine which sceio-political-economic system should prevail throughout the
whole of Viet Nam. Due to its ideological character, the Vi(~t Nam war became a
part of the East-West conflict. The region, as well as the world, was therefore
divided in supporting or opposing one or other of the Vietnamese parties concerned.
Three years after the end of the Viet Nam war, peaceful coexistence between
the Communist States and the non-Communist States of South-East ~sia was broken.
On Christmas Day 1978, Viet Nam invaded and occupied Kampuchea. On 8 January 1979,
Viet Nam set up the puppet regime of Heng Samrin in Phnom Penh as the People's
Revolutionary Council which, on 11 January, proclaimed the establishment of the
so-called People's Republic of Kampuchea. Three weeks after the invasion, on
18 February 1979, Heng Samrin signed a treaty of friendship and co-operation with
Viet Nam which contained a clause whereby Vietnamese troops were invited to enter
Kampuchea. Since then, the conflict in Kampuchea has become tho crux of the
problem in South-East Asia.
The third Indo-China war, therefore, is the Kampuchean war. That war, which
has been going on for the past seven years, saw the hero of the war of national
liberation become the spearhead of a new colonialism. By using its military
strength to invade, subjugate and populate its smaller neighbour, Viet Nam now
stands isolated from the majority of the countries in the region and from the
international community, and it will remain so as long as it does not withdraw all
its troops from Kampuchea and allow the Kampuchean people to determine their own
future, free from any coercion.
The irony is, how can a country which has relied on military means to resolve
the Kampuchean problem now seek to champion the cause of peace, stability and
co-operation in its region? Yet my delegation believes that the peoples of the
region, including the people of Viet Nam who have for far too long endured the
hardships of so many wars, aspire to peace, stability and co-operation in
South-East Asia.
Apart from disturbing regional stability and security, the Vietnamese
occupation of Kampuchea also creates a huge burden of refugees and displaced
Kampucheans who have had to leave their occupied homeland. Those people have been
a cause of constant concern to host countries, countries of first ref~ge,
politically, economically and socially. Thailand in particular found itself
saddled with an enormous burden when Viet Nam extended its borders across Kampuchea
as far as Thailand's eastern border. Repercussions soon followed, not only in the
form of a massive influx of refugees but also in the outbreak of fighting close to
its own border with occasional spill-overs and deliberate armed incursions into its
territory. Those incidents have occurred not only during viet Nam's dry-season
offensive but also throughout the past seven years•
(Mr. Kasemsri, Thailand)
Thailand and the ASEAN countries would like to see the restoration of peaceful
coexistence in the region of South-East Asia. In pr inciple, MEAN, along with the
overwhelming majority of the international community, cannot accept the Vietnamese
action in Kampuchea as a fait accompli lest an ill~gal and dangerous precedent be
established, not to mention other consequences. A solution taking into
consideration the legitimate interests of all sides must therefore be found, but
not at the expense of the Kampuchean people and nation.
Indeed, ASEAN has drawn up guidelines for the establishment of a zone of
peace, freedom and neutrality for stability and security in the region. However,
that zone has not yet materialized because of the armed conflict in Kampuchea and
the resulting involvement of external Powers in the region.
The road to peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia today must,
however, first pass through Phnom Penh. Only when the question of Kampuchea is
solved can a strong foundation be built for constructive regional co-operation
among all the countries of South-East Asia. History has shown that no peaceful
co-operation can long survive if one of the parties seeks to undermine the
independence and survival of another. The essential element of mutual trust
between countries in the region must be in place before regional co-operation can
grow and thrive. Thus the first ~tep to bring about peace, stability and
co-operation in South-East Asia is the restoration of Kampuchea as an independent,
neutral and non-aligned country free from foreign occupation and coercion. Then
and only then would the dawn of peace begin in South-East Asia.
As for Laos, our ethnic brother through the centuries, Thailand is always
ready to discuss whatever issue poses a genuine problem for the two countries, but
let the discussion be carried out in a fraternal spirit instead of a mood of
confrontation on account of the interests of a third country which maintains some
50,000 troops on Laotian soil, and let both sides abide scrupulously by their
obligations not to resort to subversion or any hostile action against each other •
Thai-Lao relations, unlike those of most other countries, have a unique
character because the two countries are bound together by history, religion, race,
culture and language. The establishment of the Lao People's Democratic Republic
since 1975 did not impede the development of good Thai-Lao relations. On the
contrary, the leadership of both countries tried to strengthen these relations even
further for the mutual benefit of their peoples. This was evident from the regular
exchanges of visits by prominent members of the two GOvernments. Many important
documents were signed reflecting agreement on the various aspects of their
relationship. The Thai-Lao border committee at both the national and local level
was subsequently established as ~he machinery to overse~ the general conduct of
bilateral relations. This machinery to enhance relations and resolve problems
between the "two countries has indeed proved very useful and effective in the past.
It continues to be available at present.
Unfortunately last year - as some speakers have pointed out in their
statements - three remote villages on the Thai-Lao border with a population of
fewer than 1,500 people became an issue when Lao troops harassed a Thai crew
building a road nearby. TO defuse the situation and bring about a peaceful
solution, the Royal Thai Government redeployed the Thai military personnel that had
been sent to provide protection for the Thai work crew to a position well within
Thai territory in OCtober 1984. Accordingly the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Thailand announced this peaceful unilateral action at the united Nations General
Assembly on 2 October 1984.
The issue involving these small border villages should therefore cease to be a
political problem. Thailand also stands ready to conduct a joint technical survey
to ascertain the exact boundary line between the two countries involving the site
of these villages. Laos has thus far declined to co-operate.
(Mr. Kasemsri, Thailand)
Thailand has continued to search for ways and means of areating an atmosphere
conducive to the normalization of Thai-Lao relations. In July 1985 the Foreign
Minister of Thailand dispatched a special envoy to Vientiane, the Lao capital, with
a pe~sona1 message and a proposal for improving ties and contacts among the
officials and peoples of the two countriesr
At present Thailand is actively discussing with Laos ways and means of
resuming talks between the two sides within the framework of existing machinery.
Thailand is confident that with the sincerity and political will necessary to
improve bilateral relations tnere should be no problems that cannot be resolved
through the existing machinery, in particular at the provincial level, where the
peoples and officials of both sides have continued to maintain close contacts and
constructive co-operation as in the past.
As far back as .:)67 South-East Asian peoples arrived at a number of basic
conclusions: that there is an imperative necessity to embark on a regional
approach in facing our common future, that there is the obvious importance of
harmonizing our respective national interests with common regional aspirations,
that there is an urgent need for the enhancement of mutual trust and confidence
among nations in the area that will guarantee our respective 'sovereignty and
integrity and the security and stability of the region as a whole. Therefore the
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) was established. It represented,
besides a practical framework for peace and stability in the region, a brealtthrough
as ~ practical framework for regional co-operation.
While war still rages in Kampuchea, regional co-operation among the six member
countries of ASEAN is flowering. The Association's political goal remains the
creation of a zone o~ peace, freedom and neutrality in South-East Asia. This is
because the ASEAN countries envision a future South-East Asia in which war is no
longer a distinguishing characteristic of the region because all countries will
(Mr. Kasemsri, Thailand)
refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of their respective neighbours. The ~s~~ countries also
envision a future South-East Asia where the peoples will enjoy the rights inherent
in their sovereignty, dignity and equality, and the ASEAN countries envision a
future South-East Asia that is able to safeguard its common interests from any
great Power rivalry to the detriment of the region. Irrespective of differences in
their political, social or economic systems, all the South-East Asian States should
invest their energy and resources in making our region a peaceful and prosperous
part of the world.
It is a regrettable fact, therefore, that as long as the leaders of Viet Nam
show no inclination to support a reasonable and just political settlement of the
Kampuchean problem there can be little peace, stability or co-operation in
South-East Asia. My delegation earnestly hopes that the day will soon come when all
the South-East Asian States can respond to the genuine aspirations of their peoples
for a more peaceful and stable South-East Asia and an improved climate for
constructive regional co-operation.
The meeting rose at 12.50 p.m.
(Mr. Kasemsri, Thailand)