A/40/PV.65 General Assembly

40.  QUESTION OF PEACE, STABILITY AIID CO-OPERATION IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA Mr. MORENO-SALCEDO (Philippines): Let me begfn by saying that the Philippines ardently seeks peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia. At the same time let me also st~te that such peace, stability and eo-operation cannot be attained in our region unless the rule of law is oberved by all the States located therein. In discussing, therefore, the agenda item before us, we must begin by answering the question: Is the rule of law observed by the States of South-East Asia in their relations with each other? In 1975 the war in Viet Nam ended, bringing with it hope for peace in South-East Asia, a region that had for so long witnessed turmoil and internecine conflict. The States ~embers of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), in particular, believed that a new era of regional order was possible. The first ASEAN summit meeting was convened at around this time in Bali, where ASEAN decided to embark on a revitalized programme of co-operation within the organization, leaving the door open to more harmonious relations with Viet Nam. It was ASEAN's hope, an aspiration it corntinues to nourish, to establi~~ South-East Asia as a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality. But peace has so far eluded the region. On 25 December 1978 Viet Nam invaded and occupied Kampuchea and brought a new and dangerous dimension to the unsettled political climate in the ~egion. The Vietnamese occupation of Kampuchea, with the resulting acute and unremitting GUffering of the Khmer people, became and remains today the central source of tension and insecurity in South-East Asia. The protracted struggle between the resistance forces of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and the Vietnamese troops continues to claim many lives. It has effectively prevented the development of that unfortunate country. It threatens to spill over into neighbouring countries and thus constitutes a source of possible regional conflict. It has likewise given rise to the problem of refugees, which, in addition to the misery it has visited on its victims, constitutes an onerous burden on the ASEAN countries, particularly Thailand, as countries of first asylum, as well as on other countries which are called upon to accept refugees for resettlement. The situation, moreover, invites intensified rivalry among outside Powers. We believe that an essential requirement for achieving peace is that the states of the region observe the rules of law, namely, non-intervention in the affairs of other states, respect for their territorial integrity and independence, and the peaceful settlement of disputes, so that an atmosphere of trust and goodwill may prevail among the countries of South-East Asia. In this respect, the ASEAN countries have continually demonstrated their willingness to co-operate in seeking a peaceful and comprehensive political solution of the problem of Kampuchea. In July of this year the ASEAN Foreign Ministers put forth a proposal for exploratory and continuing talks, or proximity talks, between the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea on the one hand and Viet Nam, with representatives of Mr. Heng Samrin participating if they so wish, on the other. Viet Nam's acceptance of this proposal would be an important step in our quest for peace. The continued presence of Vietnamese troops in Kampuchea is the principal source of instability in the region. Unless these troops are withdrawn and the Kampuchean people are allowed to exercise freely their right to self-determination, peace in South-East Asia will continue to be a distant goal. We need not dwell now on the substance of the Declaration of the International Conference on Kampuchea and the United Nations resolutions on Kampuchea. These have all been dealt with extensively in the recently concluded debate on the situation in Kampuchea. Suffice it to say that since the question has been placed on the agenda of the General Assembly resolutions on the question have been adopted by an overwhelming and increasing majority - a definite indication of the shared desires of the international community. Unfortunately, these remain unheeded by Viet Nam, which continues to occupy Kampuchea in flagrant violation of international law and the United Nations Charter. Viet Nam must do its part if it truly desire6 peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia. It must demonstrate through concrete actions, not with mere unsupported pronouncements, that it observes the rule of law, in order to gain the trust and confidence of its neighbours. This is the key to any meaningfUl dialogue on peace, stability and co-operation in South-East ~sia. We must ask Viet Nam to consider the higher political interest of a peaceful and stable South-East Asia and put it above whatever. are its perceptions of the short-term advantages of its present policy. We call on Viet Nam to shoulder its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations in South-East Asia, by discharging its obligations to its neighbours and thus contributing to the peace and security of the region. Then we can once again look forward to an era of peace and resume our quest for a zone o( peace, freedom and neutrality for South-East Asia. Mr. VELAZCO SAN JOSE (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): Once again the General Assembly has on its agenda the question of the situation in South-East Asia. The delegation of the Republic of Cuba attaches great importance to this debate, because, in spite of the opening words of the United Nations Charter, which reflect the determination of the peoples to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, there are many parts of the world which have not known peace, however much they may have desired it. This has been due primarily to the expansionist policy of imperialism, which not only generates conflicts but encourages and promotes them. In this context, it is the peoples of South-East Asia which have been called upon to suffer constantly from its acts of aggression. Indeed the development of events shows once again that the imperialist forces have not given up their efforts to bring that area back within their economic and political orbit. It is well known that for a long time now the United States considered that region a major staging area, and it is that area which, in the Pentagon's view, constitutes the starting point for rapid intervention operations in the Gulf, the Mid~le East, the Indian Ocean and other areas of the world where Washington chooses to see its famous vital interests threatened. (Mr. Moreno-Salceao, Philippines) The imperialist tactics based on the principle of "divide and rule" have a particularly destabilizing impact upon the international situation in South-East Asia. The United States and its allies have been desperately trying to provoke a confrontation between the countr iea members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), on the one hand, and the three countries of Indo-China, on the other. It is a secret to no one that at present the major thrust of imperialist policy vis-A-vis the various countries in South-East Asia is directed precisely against the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Lao People's Demcratic Republic. Those countries, despite the heroic victories they won against that common enemy of peoples, have still not come to know peace, and they are continuing to pay a high price for their independence and freedom. In contrast to that international policy of imperialism, Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea are pursuing a consistent policy of peace, founded upon the normalization of the situation in SOuth-East Asia and the establishment of relations of peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial co-operation in their region. Proof of that is the conferences which the Foreign Ministers of those countries have been holding every year since 1980 and which have adopted a detailed, complex and realistic progranme to improve the atmosphere in the region and transform it into a zone of peace and stability. That programme has met with a considerable international response, and the constructive measures contained in it are widely known. The Foreign Ministers also proposed that the decisions of the Seventh Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March 1983, should serve as the basis of negotiations. In that connection, the Political Declaration of the Seventh Summit Conference expressed concern over the conflicts and tensions in the region, stressed the urgent need to de-escalate those tensions through a comprehensive political solution, and urged the States in the region to settle their differences through dialogue and negotiation, to establish a zone of peace and stability and to eliminate the involvement and threats of intervention by Powers external to the region of South-East Asia. That extremely useful agreement by the Seventh Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries rallied the consensus of all the Heads of State or Government of the Movement, including those from the Indochinese countdes and ta'1e ASEAN countries, and it should serve as a solid foundation on which to build a fruitful and constructive dialogue. The peoples of Kampuchea, Laos and Viet Ham have endlessly repeated that all the differences between the peoples of the region can be resolved through negotiations, on the basis of the principles of equality, non-interference in internal affairs and respect for the legitimate interests of all. We are convinced that the constructive initiatives of the countries of Indo-China are consonant with the vital interests of all the ~ples of South-East Asia. The~ take into account the political realities of the region and are motivated by the sincere aspiration of those countries to reduce tension and prevent a new crisis in that part of the world. For there can be no objective grounds for hostilities and conflicts between the ASEAN countries and the States of Indo-China. In that connection, my delegation welcomes the talks held between the countries of Indo-China and of ASEAN, as the sole way of peacefully settling the problems of the region. The fact that the two groups of countries are continuinq useful contacts and dialogue, despite the existing differences between them, is encouraging. We are firmly convinced that once intervention by the imperialist forces in ~e internal affairs of the countries of South-East Asia has stopped, those countries will be able to resolve all the existing differences between them by themselves. Consequently, Cuba entertains th(! hope that all the countries affected will come to see that in South-East Asia there is an objective possibility of mutual lh'derstanding and that any path that does not lead to dialogue will serve only to exacerbate and prolong the situation of tension and instability in that sorely tried part of the world. Only negotiation and dialogue can bring closer the attainment of the objective sought by all peace-loving peoples: the transformation of that region into a zone of peace, stabil.ity and co-operation. Hr. 'l'SVETKOV (Bulgar ia) (interpretation from Prench): In the present complex and tense international situation, there is an increasing and real risk that local conflicts can become uncontrollable world-wide confrontations. That is why the international community must urgently take practical steps to, among other things, eliminate dangerous areas of tension from various parts of the world. That observation applies particularly to South-East Asia, which for forty years has been the constant target of foreign aggression and intervention. Consequently, the People's Republic of Bulgaria attaches special importance to this debate on the question of peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia. The debate offers an appropriate setting for an objective and detailed analysis of the situation in that part of the world, with a view to achieving a just and lasting solution to the problems afflicting it. Unfortunately, there is still an explosive situation in that region. The principal cause of that situation is the imperialist and reactionary forces' long-term strategy, whose aim is to destabilize the region, to use all means to prevent the development of good-neighbourly relations, and to interfere in the internal affairs of the various countries of the region in order to dominate that part of the world. Developments during the past year have shown that, far from having learned the lessons of history, those forces - driven by their ambition to ensure strategic (Mr. Velazco san Jose, Cuba) revenge and to recover positions they have lost - continue to raise obstacles to the normalization of the situation in the region. To achieve their selfish goals, these forces sow hatred and discord and do their utmost to pit the two groui?S of States of the region against each other. The three Indochinese countries remain the target of their hostile actions and their huge propaganda campaign designed to discredit and isolate those countries. This bitter campaign uses as its main instrument the so-called quezticn of Kampucnea and the alleged danger from Viet Nam. Particularly dangerous, too, are the plans to involve the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in the global imperialist bloc system and thus transform South-East Asia into another field for political and military confrontation with the sociali~t countries and other nations devoted to progress. We believe that this imperialist policy and these hostile actions are the true cause of tension in the region, and not the "question of Kampuchea", which has been made up out of whole cloth. It is clear that the process of renewal and normalization which is fortunately taking place in the People's Republic of Kampuchea, and its foreign policy devoted to peace, is not to the liking of certain countcies and does not correspond to imperialism's strategic ambitions for the political and military domination of South-East Asia. It is no coincidence that for over seven years there have been ceaseless provocations and intr igues aimed at reversing the march of history in that part of the world through attempts to undermine the democratic c:hanges on which the People's Republic of Kampuchea has so successfully embarked. That is the objective of the so-called Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea which was set up in 1982, and which brings together the reactionaries of all colours, including the Pol Pot clique, men whose hands are stained with the blood of their own people. The years which have passed have offered eloquent proof that this enterprise is completely non-viable. Who could believe in machinations such as the resignation of Pol Pot, designed solely to deceive public opinion? It is high time for all to acknowledge that the People's Republic of Kampuchea has chosen its pa th of development and that no out-of-date politician or outside factor can change its destiny. On this occasion we should like to reiterate our opposition to the absurd situation that the doors of our Organization remain closed to the legitimate representatives of the Kampuchean people. We are firmly convinced that, as in similar cases in the past, justice will prevail and the representatives of the People's Republic of Kampuchea will take their rightful place here in the united Nations. When the people of Indo-China triumphed over United States imperialism and local reactionary forces¥ the situation in South-East Asia altered radically, with the opening up of favourable prospects for improving the political climate in the region and for a negotiated settlement of regional problems. That was a political reality that could not be ignored. In response to the actions of those who do not wish to see peace and stability in South-East Asia, Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea have clearly outlined, ever since the first meeting of their Ministers of Foreign Affairs in January 1980 in Phnom Penh, their foreign policy based on the normalization of the situation in the -region and the establishment of a climate of peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial co-operation. Since that time they have put forward more than one constructive proposal, demonstrating their sincere desire to strengthen peace and security in the area and their desire to arrive at reasonable compromises and embark on a.dialogue with the ASEAN countries on the basis of equality. The eleventh Conference in Phnom Penh of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the three countries of Indo-China further confirmed their constant, steadfast policy directed to creating a climate of confidence in South-East Asia. The Conference also put forward a series of proposals intended to prOVide follow-up action and fleshing out of earlier proposals. Among these new proposals we should note the decision concerning withdrawal of the Vietnamese volunteers from Kampuchean territory by 1990. Then, inspired by a desire to make progress in the normalization of the situation in South-East Asia, the three countries of Indo-China declared themselves ready to consider several of (Mr. Tsvetkov, Bulgaria) the demands of the ASEAN countries. As a demonstration of their good will, they agreed to study proposals by those countries for direct and indirect negotiations on the question of peace and stability in South-East Asia, as well as the proposal by Malaysia relating to talks between the People's Republic of Kampuchea and representatives of various Khmer groups, with the exception of the Pol Pot group. The three countries of Indo-China renewed their proposal that an international conference be convened, participation in which would be determined by negotiations between the two groups of States. The People's Republic of Bulgaria fully supports the tireless efforts of the Socialist RepUblic of Viet Nam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Pe~ple's Republic of Kampuch~a which are intended to put an end to confrontation and to bring about dialogue between the two groups of countries in SOuth-East Asia. We are deeply convinced that these efforts are in accordance with the vital interests of aD t:J:1'~ peoples of SOuth-East Asia, and with the purposes and pr inciples of the rnited Nations Charter, because all the proposals by the countries of Indo-China stem from the idea that there is no problem in their region which cannot be resolved by political means and appropriate negotiatio~s. It seems appropriate to state that the opening of negotiations based on the principles of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and respect for the legitimate interests of all countries in the area seems to us the only proper way of arriving at a just and lasting solution of the problems in South-East Asia. Moreover this approach is gaining incr~asing support in the international community. It is evidence of this that most States which took part in the general debate this year in the General Assembly voiced a preference for a political solution to the problems in SOuth-East Asia. This leads us to conclude that in SOuth-East Asia there already exist conditions favourable to the setting up of appropriate machinery for the political settlement of the problems there. It is encouraging that, despite the differences and divergences that persist between the two groups of countries, the tendency to favour the settlement of problems by negotiation is becoming increasingly marked in that part of the world. The last meeting between the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam and of Indonesia in Djakarta in August is a cause for optimism. All those who are sincerely interested in strengthening peace and security in that part of the world should welcome the presence of this positive trend. The Bulgarian delegation is convinced that the United Nations can also make a contribution to the establishment of a climate of confidence and dialogue between the tw.') groups of countries in South-East Asia. In this spirit, we conunend the tireless efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General and the results which he achieved during visits he made to a series of countries in the area at the start of the year. At the same time, we consider that the United Nations should never be made use of to further unilateral solutions which could lead to a worsening of the situation in that part of the world. The People's Republic of Bulgaria reiterates its whole-hearted support for the constructive peace initiatives by the countries of Indo-China, and on those initiatives it bases its hopes for the normalization of the situation in SOuth-East Asia and for the conversion of that region into a zone of peace, stability and co-operation. ([otr. Tsvetkov, Bulqar ia) Mr. ERDENECHL~UUN (Mongolia) (interpretation from Russian): South-East Asia is a part of the Asian continent which for severa .. decades has not known peace and tranquillity. The situation in that region cannot, in our opinion, be viewed in isolation from the policies and actions of those in imperialist circles towards the peoples of the region. In the past the forces of imperialism tried in vain to suppress the struggle of the peoples of South-East Asia for their national and social liberation. The peoples of those countries were forced to engage in a long, brave fight against attacks on their freedom and independence. Today, imperialist and other reactionary forces are doing all they can to prevent progressive changes in the People1s Republic of Kampuchea because that process hinders the implementation of their own imperialist plans in that region. In those conditions an important stabilizing factor is tha strengthening of co-operation between the three countries of Indo-China. We welcome the constructive initiatives and steps taken by those countries to improve the situation in the region and to resolve contentious questions by political means. That can be seen in particular in the proposals made at the Tenth and Eleventh Conferences of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Viet Ham, Laos and Kampuchea, which form· a realistic basis for a settlement of the question of peace and stability in South-East Asia and of the so-called Kampuchean question. On the basis of those proposals, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Viet Ham, in the general debate at this fortieth session of the General Assembly, stated that if in the near future a political solution were found which would guarantee the sovereignty and security of all States and peoples of that region, including Kampuchea, the complete withdrawal of Vietnamese volunteer forces would be completed by 1990. The Peop1e 1s Republic of Kampuchea has expressed its readiness to begin negotiations with the various Khmer opposition groups or individuals on the question of achieving national reconciliation through the elimination of the Pol Pot clique and the holding of general elections after the full withdrawal of the Vietnamese volunteer forces from Kampuchea. We note with satisfaction that following the achievement of agreement a dialogue was started on substantive questions relating to the problems of South-East Asia. As a result of bilateral and multilateral exchanges of opinion, the parties have reached an understanding on the basic elements of a comprehensive settlement of the problems of South-East Asia. The three States of Indo-China consider it necessary that the Chinese-Vietnamese negotiations be resumed with a view to normaliZing relations between the two countries. Undoubtedly, the restoration of relations of friendship and co-operation between the countries of Indo-China and the People's Republic of China would be an important factor in ensuring peace and stability in South-East Asia and in Asia as a whole. The sincere desire to establish the necessary conditions for improving the situation in the region can be seen in the initiative of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam with regard to negotiations with the United States at the highest level on a comprehensive settlement of the question of those missing in action. ~ similar desire can a~so be seen in the proposal of the Lao People's Democratic Republic to begin negotiations at governmental level with Thailand to solve bilateral problems. The countries of Indo-China have expressed their readiness to begin negotiations on and to sign an agreement with Thailand on the basis of the mutual renunciation of aggression, non-interference in internal affairs and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each other's country. They again supported the convening of an international conference aimed at achieving a comprehensive settlement of the proble~s of South-East Asia• We commend the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations to promote a political dialogue among the two groups of states. All this shows that the necessary prerequisites exist for working out a framework for peaceful co-operation among the countries of South-East Asia and establishing conditions for pe&ce, stability and co-operation in that region. In our opinion the main r ~ed at this time ~s to promote a continuing dialogue between the two groups of countries on the basis of equality, in a spirit of mutual respect and in the light of the legitimate interests of both parties. The United Nations could make its positive contribution to that b.~d, but not, it goes without saying, by interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign State and limiting the complicated problems of the region to the so-called Rampuchean question. In this connection the Mongolian delegation fully supports the joint statement made by the delegations of the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam on 28 OCtober this year in which they stated their fundamental attitudes towards the discussion in the United Nations of the so-called question of Kampuchea. Ne would state again that involving the United Nations in this unseemly procedure could only harm the dialogue which has begun in South-East Asia. It is high time to understand that the changes which have taken place in the People's Republic of Kampuchea are irreversible and that restoration of the bloody regime of Pol Pot is not possible. Today the countries of Indo-China, in their efforts to eliminate the consequences of war and destruction, are successfully establishing a new society and improving the well-being of their peoples. We feel that at this time the efforts of all countries and States in the region sho~ld be directed towards developing and deepening the positive trends, such as, in particular, the initiative of our country on the conclusion of a convention on mutual non-aggression and non-use of force in relations among the States of Asia and the Pacific. The implementation of this and other constructive initiatives and of the proposals of the Asian states would in'our opinion help to transform Asia into a continent of peace, good-neighbourliness and co-operation. Mr. SHELDOV (Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian): Among the problems on the agenda of this session of the United Nations General Assembly, the "Question of peace, stability and co-operation in SOuth-East Asia" unquestionably occupies an important place, because it is directly linked to the central task of the United Nations, namely, the maintenance of peace - and peace is indivisible. Discussing this question at this session now coincides with the days when 68 years ago, as a result of the Great OCtober Socialist Revolution in Russia, the first socialist State in the world was born. It was born with the word "peace" on its lips. Peace without wars, without weapons, this is the ideal of socialism. Its policy stems from the very essence of this social structure, whose highest principle is "Everything in the name of man, everything for the good of man·. That is why it honestly, openly and consistently has advocated peace and co-operation among all peoples, striving for detente instead of tension; instead of pitting peoples against each other, bringing them together in business-like negotiations; instead of a nuclear-arms race, having equal security at the lowest possible level of armaments; instead of "star wars", "star peace"; instead of mountains of weapons, disarmament up and until general and complete disarmament; instead of force and the threat of force, peaceful coexistence and mutual co-operation. This is the approach of the Byelorussian SSR to the efforts within the United Nations framework to settle the question of peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia. This region is the only part of the world where in the past 40 years there has been no peace at all. In trampling upon the legitimate interests of the peoples and States in that region, the aggressive imperialist forces have carried out a policy of military banditry and crude interference in their internal affairs. Their own variations of "freedom" and "democracy" had been imposed by the imperialists on the peoples of Indo-China through b~rbaric bombings and the use of napalm and other chemical weapons. Economic pressure, political discrimination, gunboat diplomacy and its force have thus far been used as an instrument of their policy of adventurism. For purposes of recovering the past positions that they have lost and in order to execute their global strategic plots, these outside forces, relying on reactionary circles in the region, continue to provoke tensions among South-East Asian States and to use every means possible to carry out an unpardonable speculation in the past differences and mutual suspicions remaining among those countries. They have maliciously exploited the so-called KampuChean question to keep some countr ies of the Association of South-East Asian Hations (ASEAN) within the orbit of the aggressive policy and harmful actions they have carried out against their neighbours in SOuth-East Asia. Moreover it goes without saying that a definite role is also being played by those who are governed by their own selfish interests and who ignore the full danger implicit in the openly inimical policy of the imperialist and expansionist forces with regard to the States of Indo-China and, indeed, with respect to all peoples of South-East Asia. A special role in carrying out their far-reaching plans is given by the imperialists and reactionary forces to those individual countries that a~e members of ASEAN and which, while stating verbally their concern over the situation in the region and their desire for a political settlement of its problems, in fact do not show a due sense of realism but rather continue to hope that it is possible to force the peoples of Indo-China to surrender their chosen way of life and path of development. Common sense and a realistic assessment of the situation in South-East Asia quite clearly shows that the aforementioned actions and other similar actions are shortsighted, have no f.uture and do not reapond to the present or long-term interests of the peoples either of the individual countries or of the region as a whole. The ttme is long past for understanding that the thrust and content of the social, political and economic transformations that have been carried out by the peoples cl Indo-China, including the Kampuchean people, are irreversibleJ and it makes no difference whether this pleases anyone. In particular, as was pointed out at the Fifth Congress of the National Revolutionary Party of Kampuchea which was held last October in Phnom Penh, the Kampuchean people ov~rcome extreme hardships and in the last seven years have managed to achieve significant successes in restoring and developing their economy and defending the gains of their revolution. There are some who ought to take into account the fact that only as a result of the victories of the Vietnamese, Laotian and Kampuchean peoples in heroic, bloody and lengthy struggles against the aggression of imperialist and expansionist forces and their decisive rebuff to continuing external interference in the internal affairs of those States was it possible to establish and maintain the genuinely favourable conditions for normalizing relations and developing equitable and mutually beneficial co-operation in the region as a whole and between the countries of Indo-China and those of ASEAN. There is no doubt that the achievement of peace, stability and co-operation in solving accumulated problems in South-East ~sia is possible only on the basis of equality, respect for the legitimate interests of each group of countries, renouncing the imposition of one's own will on another and excluding the possibility of external interference. South-East ~sia is a zone of vital interest to those states which are located there. Primarily they are the ones which need to seek ways and means for joint progress towards mutual understanding. There is reason to feel that pre-conditions fo~ normalizing relations between the two groups of cQuntries in the region do exist. In spite of all the difficulties and the complexity of the problems remaining in the region at~ in spite of the suspicions stirred up from without, the trend towards an equitable dialogue on seeking ways to settle contentious questions is making increasing headway. Special praise goes undoubtedly to the three Indo-Chinese countries, which have consistently undertaken persistent efforts to replace confrontation with dialogue in which existing differences would be settled only through political means. True to their peace-loving foreign policy, in recent years they have proposed a whole set of initiatives and concrete measures to their neighbours for normalizing the situation in South-East Asia and transforming it into a zone of peace, good-neighbourliness and co-operation; and that was discussed in detail in the statements of the representatives of the Socialist Republic of viet Nam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic during this session of the General Assembly; and the representative of Viet Nam talked about it this morning. We are sure that we will soon hear from the rostrum of the United Nations the voice of the representative of the People's Republic of Kampuchea as well. In the proposals that we are talking about, there is provision for both a comprehensive settlement of the problems of the region and their partial solution, and that includes problems with each individual country. A clear manifestation of the purposeful efforts and realistic and constructive approach of the lndo-Chinese States towards solving the timely problems of the region is to be found in the exceedingly clear proposals - which take into account the interests of all parties - put forward this year at the tenth and eleventh conferences of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of viet Nam, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Lao People's Democratic Republic. In the final documents of those Conferences, the participants, showing goodwill, stated their readiness to consider and implement the proposals of the ASEAN countries if they take into consideration the interests of all parties and are in keeping with the princi.ples of equality, mutual respect and non-interference. They also stated the agreement of the People's Republic of Kampuchea to begin negotiations with various groups of Khmer emigrants provided there was complete elimination of the Pol Pot group from the political arena. The Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the SOcialist Republic of Viet Nam, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Lao People's Democratic Republic also advocated the normalization of relations with China and Thailand, which undoubtedly would be in keeping with the interests of all the peoples of the Asian continent. The countries of Indo-China emphasized that, in order to ensure guarantees and to exercise control over the implementation of the agreements achieved as a result of the dialogue with the ASEAN countries, they were prepared to participate in an international conference on the problems of SOuth-East Asia. The participants in that conference must be agreed upon. Those proposals were highly commended and approved by people of goodwill who considered them a concrete businesslike approach to solving the problems of lessening tension in the region. Improvement of the overall situation in South-East Asia is in keeping with the interests of the participants from ASEAN. It is of no less interest to them than it is to the States of Indo-China. An important common element in the positions of those two groups of countries is the fact that in the past they have agreed with the decision of the seventh Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Countries on the Situation in South-East Asia. As is known, recently there were negotiations between Viet Nam, representing the three countries of Indo-China, and Indonesia, representing the countries of the ASEAN group. These negotiations, as has been pointed out by the Viet Nam delegation at this session of the General Assembly, in spite of some disagreements led to definite positive results. They can open the way to an important dialogue in a spirit of mutual respect, if the legitimate interests of both sides are taken into account, if that dialogue is carried out on ·the basis of equality, if no party imposes on the other its point of view and if there is no outside interference. All of this would be for the purpose of achieving a just solution to the problems of South-East Asia. It is important that the realistic and constructive proposals for a political settlement in the region that have already been mentioned here should be implemented at the negotiating table. Accordingly, there should be an end to any attempts, especially from the outside, to undermine the process of dialogue. In connection with the discussion of this agenda item, I should like again to emphasize that improvement of the political climate in South-East Asia should not be considered in isolation. What is necessary is an overall improvement in the situation in the Asian Pacific region, which no doubt would be helped if there were a positive response from all the countries of region to the proposal of the Soviet Union for the consideration of the entire package of problems related to ensuring se~urity and equitable co-operation among the States of Asia. There should also be a positive response to the proposals of the Mongolian People's Republic, the States of Indo-China and the Korean People's Democratic Republic, all of which would serve the goal of, transforming Asia into a continent of peace, stability, good-neighbourliness and co-operation. This would be facilitated to a great extent through the implementation of united Nations decisions on establishing a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean. In conclusion, the delegation of the Byelorussian SSR would like to expresG its hope that the discussion of this question at this session of the General Assembly will serve to stimulate the development and strengthening of dialogue among the States of Indo-China and ASEAN on the normalizing of the situation in SOuth East Asia and the transforming of that region into a zone of peace, stability and co-operation. For its part, the Byelorussian SSR, as before guided by the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter, is prepared fully to promote this. Mr. SIV (Democratic Kampuchea) (interpretation from French) : Allow me to begin by reading out the following passages by the sponsors of the resolution on the item "The situation in Kampuchea": "Deploring that foreign armed intervention and occupation continue and that foreign forces have not been withdrawn from Kampuchea, thus causing continuing hostilities in that country and seriously threatening international peace and security, ••• "Convinced that, to bring about durable peace in South-East Asia and reduce the threat to international peace and security, there is an urgent need for the international community to find a comprehensive political solution to the Kampuchean problem that will provide for the withdrawal of all foreign forces and ensure respect for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned status of Kampuchea, as well as the right of the Kampuchean people to self-determination free from outside interference, I ' , ; t,,' t-; " "Reitetatin~ thij Cohvichion that, att8f the comprehensive political settlemeh~ dt th~ ka~Pdchean question thrO~gh peaceful means, the countries of the South-~dsh Asl~h ~.~ion can pursue efforts to establish a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality in SOUth-East Asia so as to lessen international tensions and to achieve lasting peace in the region.- (General Assembly resolution 40/7) Is there any obscure wording or ambiguity in the passages I have drawn froll resolution 40/7, which was adopted only yesterday by 114 States? Can there be any doubt as to the responsiblity of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, the perpetrator of barbarous aggression against our country? Can there be any uncertainty as to the cause of the present situation afflicting the South-East Asian region? rt takes arrant cynicism and scandalous contempt towards the whole international community to introduce into the agenda of our Assembly this itell 40 for discussion to,~y, before the ink on resolution 40/7 has even had time to dry• I am sure that many here feel shocked and even horrified at the attitude of the SOcialist Republic of Viet Nam and its die-hard allies. Indeed, Viet Nam, whose criminal activities have been unequivocally condemned by the United Nations, would like nothing better than to sow confusion, it wants 'nothing more than to fish in troubled waters. For to speak of peace, stability and - even more - co-operation in South-East Asia before a stop has been put to Viet Nam's aggression against Cambodia is, as the saying goes, to put the cart before the horse, to confuse cause and effect, to mislead the international community and to induce it to accept the Vietnamese fait Q~compli. It would be tantamount to endorsing the law of the jungle and agreeing that the strong can devour the weak; it would, in short, be a negation of everything that has so far been represented by the letter and spirit of the Charter. No, no one has been taken in, and Viet Nam would be wrong to count on our Assembly's sanctioning its base attempt to colonize our country. It must know that our people will never allow themselves to be subjugated. on the contrary, convinced of the righteousness (: Us cause, assured of the rightful support of peace-loving and justice-loving countries, they will continue unceasingly their struggle for national liberation, whatever sUfferings they have to endure, whatever sacrifices they have to make. Each day they give evidence of this by striking ever harder at the enemy. However, peaceful, believing in progress, desirous of harmony among nations, the Khmer people ardently hopes for a speedy end to the present conflict. That alone can lead to the peace, stability and co-operation throughout SOuth-East Asia that we all wish to see. It is in that spirit that we, for our part, have shown great moderation. I need only recall here the generous peace proposals made from this rostrum by our Head of State, His Royal Highness Samdech Norodom Sihanouk. He said: "On behalf of the Coalition Gr.>vernment of Democratic Kampuchea, headed by me, I put forward the 'foll<7fling proposals to the SOcialist Republic of Viet Nam, provided the latter agrees to respect and implement with us the United Nations resolutions on Kampuchea. "First, the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea solemnly pledges to take no reprisals against local collaborators with the Vietnamese. They will enjoy without hindrance all the rights accorded to members of our nat~onal community. "Secondly, in a spirit of reconciliation and unity, we shall grant hon~~rable positions in our national administration to professionally qualified members of the Heng Samrin and Hun Sen group. "Thirdly, we are ready to sign with the Government of the SOcialist !$public of Viet Nam a treaty of peace, non-aggression, friendship and technical, cultural and economic co-operation. After signing that treaty we shall grant every year to the people of Viet Nam modest fraternal aid in the form of agricultural produce such as rice, corn, fruit and dried fish. "These liberal proposals express our desire to find a just and equitable solution to the 'problem of Kampuchea.' !f the SOcialist Republic of Viet Nam gives them careful et Isideration, it will note that they represent an example unprecedented in history of a victim people proposing to their aggressors peace conditions marked by generosity and a desire for mutual under~tanding between two nations which are by destiny bound to rernain neighbours for ever, neither haVing any interest whatsoever in indefinitely sacrificing its young people on the 'field of death. '" (A/40/PV.60, pp. 19-20, 21) (Mr. Siv, Democratic Kampuchea) I would invite Viet Nam to seize this opportunity to break once and for all the chains of hatred between it and the Cambodian people and to inaugurate a new era of friendship, understanding and co-operation among all the peoples of South-East Asia. There is nothing difficult in that. All it would take would be for Viet Nam to learn to curb the bulimia to which it gives free rein to the detriment of its neighbours, and to realize once and for all that colonialism is a thing of the past. I should like to stress that it is only through the solution of the Cambodian problem that a new era of harmony and hope can be inaugurated for all the nations of South-East Asia, and that this is the road which must be taken even by the State that boasts of having the thi;d largest army in the world. An end must be put to these present debates, not to deprive any State of its right to speak in this Assembly, but out of respect for the Assembly. An end must be put to the creation of endless sUbterfuges and a way must be found to implement the just resolutions of the General Assembly. Mr. ROSHANRAWAN (Afghanistan): The United Nations General Assembly once again has before it the question of peace, stability and co-operation in SOuth-East Asia. This is not only an important question; it is an urgent one as well. The importance of the question arises, of course, from the fact that the task of ensuring peace and security and mutually beneficial bilateral and multilateral co-operation among nations constitutes the prime goal of the United Nations, enshrined in its Charter. It is an urgent question because, unfortunately, during almost the entire 40 years of this Organization's existence, peace and security have eluded the three Indochinese peoples of the region. This is a sorry situation that cannot and should not be allowed to continue. The l;ack of peace, stability and co-operation in the region has not been caused by the people of South-East Asia themselves, but by the intrigues, plots and outright aggression perpetrated against them by forces alien to their region. The defeat of Japanese militarism at the end of the second World war was barely complete before the French colonialists returned to continue the subjugation of the peoples of Indo-China. The defeat of French occupationist forces in Viet Ram, however, brought, not peace, but the aggress ive armed forces of United States imperialism to the soil of the Vietnamese• After long years of heroic but arduous struggle by the Vietnamese freedom fighters United States imperialism was forced to leave lndo-China in the wake of a full defeat. ~rogressive humanity shared the rejoicing 6f the lndochinese people and the hope that finally they would be allowed to live in peace afid to heal the wounds inflicted on them by colonialism and imperialism. Unfortunately, however, that did not prove to be the case. Not drawing the obvious lessons from the defeat in Viet Nam of the greatest imperialist Power, those in Chinese hegemonist circles decided to follow the old policy of Chinese imperial dynasties, which in their drive for expansion always found pretexts for attacking their small neighbour in the south. The hegemonist policies of China in Kampuchea resulted in the instalment in that country of a genocidal regime which, in its drive to model Kampuchea in accordance with the wishes of its masters in Peking, was totally blind to human values and dignity. The Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique turned the whole of Kampuchea into one huge, inhuman concentration camp in which the extinction of a whole nation was the order of the day. The heroic and arduous fight of the Kampuchean people under the heels of such a genocidal, barbaric regime is perhaps one of the best examples of human endurance and struggle for the preservation of man and his values. The treacherous attack by the Pol pot-Iang Sary clique against Viet Nam, acting at the behest of their Chinese masters to assist Peking's aggressive war against Viet Nam in the north, resulted in the disintegration of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary army. This gave the opportunity to the Kampuchean patriots, under the leadership of the National Front for the Salvation of Kampuchea, led by Beng Samrin, to free themselves from the barbaric yoke of the lackeys of Chinese hegemonism. Since then the people of Kampuchea have embarked on the admirable path of national reconstruction and the restoration of normal conditions of life and work in their country. Slowly but surely a new life has emerged there from the ashes and debris left behind by the inhuman rule of the Pol Pot-Ieng Sary clique, which had resulted in the murder of more than 3 million innocent Kampucheans. The situation inside the country is being stabilized day by day. The resounding victories scored by the Kampuchean people in their just fight against the remnants of the genocidal clique, now disguised as the so-called democratic coalition, have demonstrated both the firm support of the Kampuchean people for their popular Government and their resolve to continue on the path that, in the heat of their struggle for national salvation, they have chosen for their happiness and the happiness of their younger generations. In the light of these facts, the least the united Nations can do in supporting the just cause of the Kampuchean people is to return their seat in this Organization to their only legitimate representative, the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. It is our conviction that to allow a non-entity which represents no people and no country to occupy the seat in this Organization that belongs to a sovereign nation is to contradict both the spirit and the letter of the united Nations Charter. The so~idarity and co-operation between the Lao People's Democratic RepUblic, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist RepUblic of Viet Nam have arisen from their common struggle for the defence of their independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of imperialist and hegemonist aggression. This solidarity among the three fraternal Indochinese countries has served the cause of peace, stability and co-operation in their region as well as the cause of building their societies. The joint efforts of the Governments of those countries in prepar~ng the ground for meaningfUl dialogue with their neighbours and the frequent pronouncements made in that regard at the conferences of the Foreign Ministers of those countries ate to be ca.ended by all peace-loving hUllanity. Of particular significance a~e the unilateral decisions of the GovernMent of the People's Republic of Kaapuchea a-~d the Socialist Republic of Viet Ham on the continuation of the gradual withdrawal of the Vietnamese volunteer troops, to be completed in 1990.* As a result of the relentless efforts of the three Indochinese countries, a useful dialogue between those countries and the mellbers of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has started. The united Nations and the international community generally should not fail to support this dialogue, which is designed to achieve peace, security and co-operation in South-East Asia. In this regard, we assess as positive the lead that has been taken by the Government of Indonesia among ~~e ASEAN group of countries. The adoption of a policy of peaceful coexistence, respect for th@ indePendence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the countries of the region and non~interference in one another's internal affairs, as well as non-interference by forces alien to the area in the internal affclirs of the countries of the region, will pave the way for the realization ()f peace, stability and co-operation in that part of the world. In this connection, it is necessary that the present tense ~ituation on the borders between the People's R&public of Kampuchea and Thailand and those between the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Thailand cease to exist. It is also necessary that the three Lac hamlets illegally occupied by the armed forces of Thailand be returned to the sovereignty of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. It is the conviction of the Government of the Demcntic Republic of Afghanistan that th~ interests of all concerned, as well as the interests of international peace and security, are well served by resolving differences through dialogue, by working together for peace, security and co-operation in one's own *Mr. Agius (Malta), Vice-President, took the Chair.' region and not by fanning conflicts and tension ana interfering in the internal affairs of others at the instigation and in the interest of forces alien to the region. Mr. OUDOVENKO (Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) (interpretation from Russian): One of the main topics in the statements of participants in the recent meetings of the General Assembly devoted to the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations was the need for a political settlement of regional conflicts. In the Decla~ation of the Sofia Conference of the Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, the following was emphasized: "Peace is indivisible afid in the present tense international situation each local conflict threatens to escalate into a clash of large, even global, scale. It is therefore necessary decisively to put an end to the imperialist policy of force and interference in the internal affairs of other countries and to acts of aggression, to settle conflicts and disputes among States by peaceful means and to respect fully each nation's right to decide its destiny itself." (A/C.l/40/7, p. 9) That statement is directly related to the tension in South-East Asia. The basis of that tension is to be found in the inimical policy of foreign forces towards viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea and also the continual interference in the internal affairs of that region. As a pretext for carrying out this unseemly policy, the so-called Kampuchean question was chosen and a loud campaign was begun with regard to that question. The initiators of that campaign succeeded, unfortunately, in dragging that topic into the United Nations, and evidence of that is to be found in the discussion that took place yesterday evening on agenda item 22. * *The President returned to the Chair. Many participants in that discussion, hiding behind phraseology about the alleged need to settle the Kampuchean question, actually brought about the opposite result. As was rightly emphasized in the most recent statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, -Any discussion at the united Nations regarding Kampuchea without its presence constitutes gross interference in its internal affairs and a flagrant violation of its independence and sovereignty." (A/40/776, para. 2) The Ukrainian SSR fully shares the position of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam with regard to the unrealistic resolutions that have been adopted on this question - and that includes the most recent resolution. Those resolutions not only do not promote a solution to the contentious problems, but are used by the expansionist forces as a means to prolong disagreement between the three countries of lndo-China, on the one hand, and the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), on the other. The countries of Indo-China were pursuing quite different goals. They proposed that the United Nations participate in the search for ways to establish conditions of peace, stability and co-operation in the region. The sincere desire of Kampuchea, Laos and Viet Nam to strengthen peace and security in South-East ~sia and their readiness to accept reasonable compromise solutions are evident from a whole series of constructive and realistic initiatives taken by them. Those initiatives began at the first conference, in 1980, of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the People's RepUblic of Kampuchea, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. The fact that this policy of normalizing the situation and establishing an atmosphere of confidence and co-operation in South-East Asia has not changed was demonstrated at the eleventh co~ference of the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of those three countries, held in August this year at Phnom Penh. That conference, like the previous ones, demonstrated the good will of the three Indo-Chinese countries and their desire to settle the situation in South-East Asia by means of negotiations. The decision of the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to continue the gradual withdrawal from Kampuchea of the Viet Nam volunteer forces, with the process to be completed by 1990, deserves special attention. We read the following in the message dated 18 September 1985 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Kampuchea: "In case the concerned parties can reach a political solution, the total withdrawal of the Vietnamese volunteers can be achieved even earli~r." (A/40/723, p. 3) Political flexibility and a desire for compromise are evident also in the statement by the People's Republic of Kampuchea of its readiness to begin negotiations with various Khmer opposition groups or individuals to discuss the question of achieving national reconciliation on the basis of the elimination of the Pol Pot clique, which was guilty of genocide against the Kampuchean people. The message.also states the readiness of the People's RepUblic of Kampuchea to hold general elections in the country after the total withdrawal of the Viet Nam volunteer army from Kampuchea. Those who attempt to cast aspersions on the constructive policy of the three lndo-Chinese countries should carefully study other positive steps taken by those countries. Among those steps is the support they have shown for the proposal by Malaysia that a nuclear-free zone be established in South-East Asia and that the concept of a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality should be implemented in that region. During the eleventh conference of their Ministers for Foreign Affairs, the People's Republic of Kampuchea, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam reconfirmed their Governments'readiness to do everything they could do to establish good-neighbourly relations with Thailand. Another commendable initiative is that taken by Viet Nam to start negotiations with the United States for the purpose of achieving a comprehensive settlement of the question of the persons missing in action as a result of the United States aggression in Viet Nam. On the question of relations with the People's Republic of China, the Foreign Ministers emphasized the urgent need for the resumption of Sine-Vietnamese negotiations for the purpose of normalizing relations between the two countries, as has repeatedly been proposed by the Vietnamese side. The contacts between the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and Indonesia, on behalf of, resPeCtively, the countries of Indo-China and those of ASEAN u are a useful form of dialogu~ between the two groups of States. The interested parties must of course be given every encouragement to continue the dialogue, and there must be no intervention from outside. The three Inde-Chinese countries believe that the dialogue should be expanded in order to establish a favourable atmosphere for a final settlement of all questions. They have again set forth the idea of the convening of an international conference. As can be seen merely from the initiatives by the Inde-Chinese countries that I have mentioned, there is no lack of good will on their side or of a readiness to normalize the situation in South-East Asia. But they cannot fail to be put on guard by the attempts of the reactionary forces to hamper the emergence of a useful dialogue between the countries of Indo-China and those of ASEAN, and by the endeavours of those forces to re-establish their military presence in the region and to exert pressure on ASEAN to transform the Association into a military-political bloc. Everyone is also put on guard by the attempts to frustrate the normalization ©~ relations between the two groups of States. The Ukrainian SSR, like other participants in this discussion, decisively supports the struggle of the Indo-Chinese States to overcome the efforts of those forces and to defend the sovereignty and territorial int~~rity of their countries. The Ukrainian SSR, expressing its solidarity with the peoples of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea, fully supports the constructive policies and practical steps of those countries to improve the situation in South-East Asia and to establish an atmosphere of good-neighbourliness, confidence and co-operation in the region. We support their proposals to convene an international conference to that end. We express our solidarity, also, with the People's Republic of Kampuchaa, whose workers are making many sacrifices in their constructive labour to build a new society and to rebuff the plots against them by outside reactionaries. In the People's Republic of Kampuchea, significant success has been achieved in economic, social and cultural rebirth and in the development on the road to social progress. The country's international authority is growing. All those successes demonstrate convincingly that they have taken the right road. They ~emonstrate, too c the extent of the progressive changes in Kampuchea, whose people have chosen the path of building a new society and who are successfully defending their achievements against outside encroachments. Kampuchea's neighbour, Viet Nam, and other brother Sc~ialist countries are giving great, indeed incalculable, assistance in the carrying out of those tasks. We are convinced that a rapid stabilization of the situation in that region would be in keeping with the hopes of the peoples who live there. It would also be in keeping with the cause of the strengthening of peace and security on the Asian continent and in the world in general. A positive role in promoting_the fulfilment of this essential task should be played by the United Nations. To that end, the People's Republic of Kampucbea must be enabled to take its legitimate place immediately i~ the united Nations and in other international organizations, and an end must be put to the attempts to interfere" in that country's ~nternal affairs. All possible assistance must be given in order to establish and improve the dialogue between the two groups of States in the region. (Mr. Oudovenko, Ukrainian SSR) Mr. LIANG Yufan (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The statements made by many representatives during the debate on the agenda item "The Situation in Kampuchea" in the past two days and the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its current session with 114 votes in favour, point to the root cause of tension in South-East Asia. The prolonged invasion and occupation of Kampuchea by Viet Nam have not only flagrantly trampled upon the independence and sovereignty of Democratic. Kampuchea, but also menaced the security of its neighbouring countries and seriously undermined peace and stability in the SOuth-East Asian region. In view of this fact, the General Assembly has at seven successive sessions adopted resolutions demanding the complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Kampuchea so as to let the Kampuchean people exercise their right to self-determination, free from outside interference. However, the Vietnamese authorities have totally ignored the call for justice by the international community and intensified their war of aggression against Kampuchea. During their so-called dry-season offensive last winter and spring, the Vietnamese authorities massed over a dozen divisions which, under the cover of tanks and artillery fire, launched attacks on an unprecedented scale against the patriotic armed forces of Democratic Kampuchea. The Vietnamese aggressor troops in Kampuchea have also wilfully attacked peaceable villages and innocent inhabitants and on many occasions have invaded the territory of Thailand, posing a grave threat to the peace and security of that country. What the Vietnamese authorities have done and are still doing once again proves that they have no sincere desire to restore peace and stability to South-East Asia and that they are aggravating tension in that region. In an attempt to shift the blame on to others, the Vietnamese authorities are trying deliberately to separate the peace and stability of South-East Asia from the question of Kampuchea, and have fabricated many lies to confuse public opinion. They have resorted to the myth of the ·China threat· and ·Chinese interference· time and again. While professing a desire for a negotiated settlement, they accuse China of obstructing the tendency for dialogue in South-East Asia. The facts show that in feigning readiness for negotiations, the Vietnamese authorities are trying to extricate themselves from isolation and cover up the intensification of their aggression. The member countr ies of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) have always stood for a just and reasonable solution to the Kampuchean question in order to remove the threat to peace and stability in South-East Asia, and they have made tireless efforts towards that end. In this connection, they have formally proposed indirect talks between viet Nam and the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. The Coalition Government of Democrati~ Kampuchea, the direct victim of Vietnamese aggression, has also stated its readiness to start negotiations with Viet Nam with a view to settling the question. It has also indicated that, if Viet Nam withdraws its troops from Kampuchea, it is willing to conclude a long-term treaty of mutual non-aggression and live in amity with Viet Nam. However, the Vietnamese authorities have totally ignored all these reasonable proposals. Proceeding from their consistent position of opposing hegemonism, defending world peace and upholding international justice, the Chinese Government and people support the Kampuchean PeOple in their just struggle against Vietnamese aggression. The key to the solution of the Kampuchean question is the withdrawal of all Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea. We support the efforts of the ASEAN countries to find a political settlement of the Kampuchean question and their proposal for "indirect talks" between viet Nam and the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. China has no selfish interest in the Kampuchean question. We sincerely hope that Kampuchea ",ill become a peaceful, neutral and non-aligned country, which is in the interest of peace and stability in South-East Asia. The tension in South-East Asia is the result of the war of aggression against Kampuchea launched by the Vietnamese authorities. There can be no tranquillity or peace, stability or co-operation in South-East Asia as long as the Vietnamese authorities refuse to give up their policy of aggression and to pull out all their troops from Kampuchea. This has been borne out by the facts over the past seven years. The Chinese Government is ready to join efforts with all the justice-upholding and peace-loving countries and peoples for a settlement of the Kampuchean question on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and the Declaration of the International Conference on Kampuche, and make its due contribution to the early realization of peace and stability in South-East Asia. Mr. KULAWIEC (CzechoslOlTakia) (interpretation from Russian): We are deeply alarmed over the continuing tension in SOuth-East Asia. The main cause of such tension is the constant intervention into the affairs of that region by those who quite clearly, have not yet reconciled themselves to the complete defeat they· suffered some 10 years ago in Indo-China. The victorious completion of many years of stru9g1~ by the national liberation and progressive forces of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea created conditions favourable for transforming South-East Asia into a zone of peace, stability and equitable, mu\;ually profitable co-operation among all States in the region. Such a development undoubtedly would have been not only of regional significance but would have contributed considerably to an improvement of the situation on the Asian continent as a whole and promoted world-wide efforts to maintain peace. Unfortunately, we must note that for the time being the conditions necessary for that peaceful development had not yet been prepared. The region of South-East Asia is situated in that part of the wof!a whieh, beeause of its strategic significance and natural wealth, has for many decades been the object of interest by the imperialist Powers. The imperialists have never hesitated to resort to the use of force to subjugate the peoples of Indo-China. Therefore the history of South-East Asia is the history of the heroic struggle of those peoples for their liberation from foreign domination and for their achievement of national freedom and independence. Even at the present time they are still not destined to enjoy in conditions of peace the successes they have achieved in building a new society. Therefore Czechoslovakia welcomes the inclusion of the item "The Question of Peace, Stability and Co-operation in South~East Asia" in the agenda of this anniversary session of the General Assembly. The discussion of this item gives every Member State ""::.;ch is not indifferent to peace and security in this region a good opportunity to do something positive to ensure peace and security. What are the causes of the tense situation in South-East Asia? Those forces which did not learn a lesson from the defeat which put an end 10 years ago to their aggression in Indo-China, are trying by other means to take possession of that region and transform Kampuchea, Viet Nam and Laos into pliable instruments in their hands. As a pretext for their flagrant interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States in South-East Asia they have used the fraternal assistance provided by the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the KampucheLn people, who rose up and toppled the hateful Pol Pot regime which had carried out a policy of genocide against its own people. In order to bring about the chaos and disorder. that would help them achieve their own strategic goals, they have been supporting in every possible way the counter-revolutionary Khmer reactionary bands fighting against'the legitimate Government of the people's Republic of Kampuchea. It is regrettable that the forces of imperialism and reaction are misusing our Organization for the purpose of increasing tension in South-East Asia. The inclusion year after year in the Assembly's agenda of the so-called questi~n ot Kampuchea runs counter to the United Nations Charter and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states. In the,political declaration adopted on 23 October this year by the meeting of the Political Consultative Committee of the States parties to the Warsaw Treaty it was stated: "It is inadmissible to conduct slanderous campaigns which depict in a distorted manner the positions of some countries and their policies. Nothing can justify interference in the internal affairs of other States or countries or policies of State terrorism. No one should encroach upon the sovereign right of each people to live and work under the social and political system it has freely chosen." This categorical demand of the socialist States parties to the Warsaw Treaty is fully in keeping with the Charter of our Organization. We are put on guard by the fact that such a demand is not being observed by a number of States. However, the enemies of the peoples of Indo-China will not succeed in carrying out their plans. An insuperable obstacle for them is the co-operation between Viet Narn, Laos and Kampuchea which is helping the three countries of Indo-China successfully to defend their freedom and independence and to solve complex problems connected with peaceful reconstruction. Through their joint efforts they are restoring systems of communications and have co-operated in food production, the processing of agricultural products and the use of manpower and natural resources. Co-operation among the countries of rnde-China has already had noteworthy results. It is also having a favourable impact on the solution of complicated problems connected with the task of raising the standard of living of the Karnpuchean, Vietnamese and Lao peoples. Czechoslovakia welcomes the successes of those countries, successes achieved despite imperialist intrigues aimed at undermining their efforts to build a new society. Together with the other socialist States, Czechoslovakia is providing them with assistance of all kinds in overcoming the adverse consequences of the wars and sUfferings which have lasted for so many decades. The countries of Indo-China need one thing above all else: to live and work in peace. Historical conditions have led to a situation where, in the South-East Asian region, two groups of States have been formed, the countries of Indo-China and those of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). In spite of the fact that those two groups have different social and political systems, their peaceful coexistence is not only possible but also and above all in their own vital interest. We are therefore firmly convinced that the peoples of that area will find a common road leading to the lessening of tension, the strengthening of mutual contacts and the establishment of lasting peace and stability in South-East Asia. An improvement in relations between the two groups would undoubtedly be helped by a meeting of the States of the region. The first steps taken in order to bring about such a meeting give us hope that peaceful coexistence between the States of South-East Asia will indeed be ensured. The united Nations should provide political support for those regional efforts. Among the basic preconditions for achieving a lasting peaceful settlement of the situation in South-East Asia are the following: an immediate end to foreign interference in the affairs of the States of the region; mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity among the countries of Indo-China and of ASEAN; and recognition of the principle of equal security and respect for the legitimate interests of each party. The constructive proposals made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam are fully in keeping with those preconditio~s. Special attention should be paid to the most recent proposals contained in the communique issued ~his year in Phnom Penh at the Eleventh Conference of the Foreign Ministers of those three countries of Indo-China, which refers to the withdrawal of Vietnamese volunteer forces from Kampuchea by 1990 and the readiness of the People's Republic of Kampuchea to start talks with various Khmer opposition groups to discuss the realization of national reconciliation on the basis of the elimination of the genocidal Pol Pot clique. Once again, it emphasizes the good will of those three countries of Indo-China in desiring to normalize relations with the People's Republic of China and with the United States. Of special significance, in our opinion; is the proposal for holding negotiations with (Mr. Kulawiec, Czechoslovakia) Thailand with a view to establishing relations of good-neighbourliness. The Czechoslovak Socialist RepUblic also supports the idea that existing problems should be discussed at an international conference. Czechoslovakia warmly welcomes those constructive proposals for transforming South-East Asia into a zone of peace, stability and good-neighbourliness~ We are convinced that constructi'e political dialogue, as proposed by the three countries of Indo-China, could lead to a noticeable improvement in the situation in South-East Asia and to the solution of a number of international questions, as well as to detente on the Asian continent as a whole and an overall improvement in international relations. Mr. VONGSAY (Lao People's Democratic Republic) (interpretation from French): During the debate that is now coming to a close, certain delegations, as they have done in previous years, attempted to minimize the importance of the question of peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia. This is not surprising because among the countries they represent are some which are pursuing a policy of confrontation or incitement to confrontation in order to go fishing in troubled waters, whereas others are seeking confrontation between two neighbours in order to gain some material advantage as they did during imperialism's war of aggression against lndo-Chinese countries. Yet others, which have only a superficial knowledge of the region, as was made clear during the debate on the so-called "Question of Kampuchea" yet presume to adopt moral attitudes, are seeking to be more royalist than the King and more deeply "involved" than the protagonists themselves. It is true that those who are accustomed to exploiting this kind of advantage but have never had to endure the tragedy of war do not understand the terrible consequences. The Lao people, after having had to fight a war imposed upon it for more than 30 years, like two other lndo-Chinese peoples, hopes that it will never have to live through that experience again and also hopes that the other peoples of the world may be spared such a tragedy. That is why the Lao People's Democratic Republic, together with the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam and other countries devoted to peace and justice around the world, has continued to fight for the elimination of trouble spots in various regions, particularly in South-East Asia, which has not known peace and stability for 40 years. During these debates some delegations persist in pretending that the principal obstacle to peace and stability in South-East Asia is the situation currently prevailing in Kampuchea. They should have said the situation surrounding Kampuchea, to be more precise, because it is solely and above all ulong the border between Thailand and Kampuchea that tension prevails. Besides, the situation surrounding Kampuchea is not the sole cause of tension in South-East Asia; there are others, and in other areas, such as subversion, acts of provocation and aggression, occupation and unfounded territorial claims and so on. The Lao People's Democratic Republic, already the victim of such actions, described as "state terrorism", not to mention attempts to strangle it economically, is better placed than anybody to realize this. Furthermore those delegations have also exploited General Assembly resolutions on the so-called situation in Kampuchea which they seek to impose on us. My Government's position on this question is well known, and my delegation will therefore refrain from repeating it. Nevertheless, we should like to comment on certain points. First of all, this Assembly should know that there is no conflict at present in Kampuchea apart from the tension along the border with Thailand. In this respect, this is what was said in an article entitled "Who is Cambodia?", which appeared in issue No. 17 of the magazine Indochina Newsletter of September-October 1982: (Spoke in English) "The image of a Kampuchea plunged into chaos, the people yearning for Sihanouk to come with some internationally supported military force to restore order and bring democracy - an image carefully propagated in the West - is totally false. There is no indication from Western visitors in Kampuchea that any sentiment exists even below the surface. Its new Government has further stabilized the country each year. Time is running out for the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer People's N~tional Liberation Front of Son Sann as they found it impossible to secure any territory. The most they can do is to carry out terrorist attacks from time to time and then run back into Thailand for protectionW• (continued in French) Furthermore, those delegations argue~ that the so-called Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea is the legal Government in Kampuchea and that the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, which trUly represents the Kampuchean people, is a Government that was set up by foreigners. Our respective positions on this matter are known and my delegation will refrain from getting in involved in a sterile- debate on theories of recognition under international law. Nevertheless, this is what was said in the aforementioned article on the so-called legal and national nature of this so-called coalition government: (Spoke in English) WThe Coalition Government of which Sihanouk is President was constructed not by Khm~rs but by ASEAN and China with the United States in the background. There is nothing Khmer about it. ay urging the formation of a coalition government, these countries hoped to avoid the embarrassing position of continued support for Pol Pot alonew• (continued in French) In addition to what was said in this article, my delegation could quote a statement made by a Minister of Foreign Affairs of a member of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) who was seeking support for this coalition government shortly after its establishment. I quote again: (Hr. Vongsay, Lao People'. Democratic Republic) (spoke in English) -What Pol Pot did in the past is condemned by every Foreign Minister- - he was referring to his colleagues from ABEAM countries - -but what we are doing is for the future-. (continued in French) Thus by creating that coalition government it was hoped that the situation in Kampuchea could be changed ~ introducing a pro-Western slant. This therefore ignored a major factor in the area, namely, the emergence on the international scene since 1979 of the People's RepUblic of Kampuchea, which is the embodiment of the miraculous renaissance of the martyred Kampuchean people. In view of this undeniable fact it is not difficult now to know which of the two governments truly represents the Kampuchean people. Nobody can deny that 1n South-East Asia there are now two groups of States - the States of Indo-China and those of ASEAM - and that the countries belonging to these groups have different political and social systems. However, despite those differences the peoples of the region have the same aspiration - namely, to enjoy peace and independence so that they may devote themselves fully to the economic and social development of their respective countries. The normalization of the situation in the region requires above all recognition of those realities and consideration of the legitimate interests of all the States and peoples of the region. The three countries of Indo-China have taken those realities into account as, for six years now, they have continued their efforts to start a dialogue with the ASEAN countries to resolve the differences between the two groups of countries. In this context the Lao People's Democratic Republic, ~~ behalf of the People's Republic of Kampuchea and the Socialist RepUblic of Viet Nam, presented to the General Assembly on 28 September 1981, at its thirty-sixth session, a number of principles to govern relations between the two groups of countries. Those principles include: respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of each country, mutual non-agression, non-interference in the internal and external affairs of other StatesJ equality and mutual respectJ mutual benefitJ peaceful coe~istence, respect for the right of the people of each country freely to choose and develop its own political, economic and social system; and the peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiations - based on the idea that all the problems of South-East Asia must be resolved by the countries of the area, taking into account the legitimate interests of each State, without outside interference or coercion, free from the use or threat of force in mutual relations and with respect for the right of any country to individual or collective self-defence in accordance with the principles of the united Nations Charter. Also mentioned were respect for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the countries of the region by those outside the area, the exclusion of all forms of (Mr. Vongsay, Lao People's Democratic Republic) pressure and threat which could create a state of tension and hostility between the countries of the are:; and the commi~~ent by these countries not to allow other countries to use their territory as a base for aggression or direct or indirect interference directed against other countries. These principles also concern bilateral or multilateral co-operation in economic, technical, scientific, cultural, sporting, tourist and other areas in order to strengthen mutual confidence and understanding, as well as relations of friendlship and good-neighbourliness between the two grcups of countries. Furthermore it was made clear that c~operation, whether bilateral or multilateral, between the two groups of countries or between one country of the region and countries outside the region must in no case be prejudicial to the security and interests of other count~ies of the region or be directed against a third country. Those principles would serve as the basis of dialogue between the two groups of countries. The countries of ASEAN declared that they wished to see a political settlement of the problems of the area. It is to be hoped that those were not merely words. A desire for a political settlement does not mean hoping to force one's interlocutor to make concessions or to accept unilateral decisions. A political settlement requires constructive dialogue that ,permits the interlocutors to work together in the search for mutually acceptable peaceful solutions. We know that it is a long process. Consequently, in our desire to see peace and stability established in the area as quickly as possible, and demonstrating political realism, the three countries of Indo-China, on 18 January, at the end of the Tenth Conference of their Ministers of Foreign Affairs, reiterated their desire to begin dialogue with the parties concerned in order to achieve a solution that would encompass: first, the withdrawal of Vietnamese volunteer forces from Kampuchea in Democratic Republic) combination with the exclusion of Pol Pot's genocidal clique; secondly, respect for the ri~~t to self-determination of the Kampuchean people, and first and foremost its right to live free from the threat of genocide; thirdl~, the organization by the Kampuchean people of free general elections with the presence of foreign observers; fourthly, the construction in South-East Asia of a zone of peace and stability where States with differ ing social systems may coexist in peace without permitting their respective territories to be used against other countries; fifthly, respect by States outside the region for the national rights of the countries in the region, and, sixthly, the establishment of a form of guarantee and international supervision of implementation of the agreements. Those proposals take into account the legitimate interests of each party. Of course, our proposals should not be construed as being offered on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The three countries of Indo-China recognize that the ASEAN countries have also put forward a no less interesting initiative involving the conversioll of SOuth-East Asia into a zone of peace, freedom.and neutrality. In the past we have had occasion to say that that initiative, like our own, and the Final Declaration of the seventh summit Conference of non-aligned countries, which took place in March 1983 in New Delhi, constitutes an essential basis for discussion or dialogue between the two groups of countries. This is a flexible attitUde on our part, of which I am sure this Assembly will take note. Although differences exist between the two groups of countries - which is inevitable and natural - we are pleased to note that positive steps have been taken to bring us closer together. At the end of August a meeting took place between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, representing the countries of Indo-China, and his counterpart from Indonesia, the representative of the ASEAN countries. Democratic RepUblic) Furthermore, my country had the honour last month of receiving a ~isit from the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia. Those meetings, as well as helping to strengthen bilateral relations between member countries, also help improve understanding between the two groups of countries. In keeping with that, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the People's Republic of Kampuchea have continuously reaffirmed their desire to turn their respective borders with Thailand into frontiers of peace and friendship. It was in that spirit that three Indo-Chinese countries declared, on 16 August 1985, during the Eleventh Conference of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, in Phnom Penh, the capital of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, that they were prepared to sign, separately or together, with Thailand a treaty based on mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's domestic affairs, respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state within its present borders, rejection of the use of the territory of one State against the others, and peaceful coexistence. If Thailand is worried about its security - and neither Laos nor people's Kampuchea, much less Viet Nam, is going to threaten it - why does it not negotiate with us in good faith so that the treaty we propose may be signed? (Mr. Vongsay, Lao People's Democratic Republic) As to relations between Laos and Thailand, some important questions a~e still pending. My delegation will refrain from mentioning them here out of respect for the General Asseooly. My Government has already reiterated to the Thai Government that it is prepared to negotiate with it at any time, in Bangkok or in Vientiane, in order to ensure strict L~plementationof the joint Lao-Thai communiques of 1979, eatablishing the basis for harmonious relations between our two countries. We hope that the Thai Government will respond positively, because it is only those who have an uneasy conscience who are af~aid of looking facts in the face. Although it is true that the quest for peace and stability in South-East Asia depends largely on the countries in the region themselves, the contribution which countries outside the region can make could also be useful because experience of the last 40 years has shown that it was external intervention which brought war and instability. During the Eleventh Conference of their Foreign Ministers, the three countries of Indo-China once again emphasized that the restoration of relations of friendship, co-operation and good-neighbourliness between Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea on the one hand, and China on the other, would constitute an extremely important factor in ensuring peace and stability in South-East Asia. In the same spirit, Laos and Viet Nam have made efforts to co-operate with the Government of the United States at the humanitarian level in order to find people who were missing in action during the war. The People I s Republic of Kampuchea has also expressed its readiness to assist. We feel that high-level meetings between Viet Nam and the United States in connection with those missing persons, and other problems of common interest, would undoubtedly help to facilitate the restoration of peace and stability in the are3. Democratic Republic) As for Kampuchea's in ~ernal problelll8, the People's Republic of Kampuchea has already reached agreemen~ with the Socialis~ P~public of Vie~ Nam on the ~~al withdrawal of the Vietnamese volun~ary forces from Kupuchea which, in the absence of any mutually acceptable poli~ical solution agreeable ~ all the parties concerned, will take place by 1990. The Lao Government can only welcome such an agreemen~. Furthermore, the Government of the People's Republic of Kaqluchea has declared that it is prepared w begin talks with the various Khmer groups or individuals of the opposi~ion on the subject of na~ional reconciliation, on the basis of exclusion of the Pol Pot clique, and on the organizatiCbi of general elections in the country after the total withdrawal of Vietnamese troops. we see here a gesture of good will on the part of the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea, a gesture which the countries couaitted to peace and justice around the world have hastened w welcome. Thus the time has come for those of the Khmers who collaborated in any way with the genocidal Pol Pot clique to decide to dissociate themselves from it in order to begin negotiations with the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea on national reconciliation. This is a unique opportunity for them, and they must not let it pass. The more they play for time, the more the indulgence ~nd exemplary patience of the Kampuchean people will weaken. It is to be feared that such an opportunity will not come again. It is highly desirable for the international community to encourage that meeting, and those who are sincere in their desire to contribute to the settlement of the Kampuchean problem, and of the problems relating to peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia, must not dissuade their proteges from choosing that solution. This is the internal aspect of the Kampuchean problem, and its settlement will have a decisive impact on any comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the situatic: ~n that region of the world. .DeBocr8~ic Republic) We are convinced that if all the parties interested in the establishment of peace, stability and c:ouoperation in South-East Asia seriously undertake a constructive dialogue with their opposite numbers, this can lead them to a better mutual understanding that will help to create a climate favourable to a comprehensive settlement directed to that end. We recognize that the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and his Special Representative, have been making commendable efforts so far, and we hope that these will be vigorously pursued so that Cl climate of peace, stability and co-operation can finally prevail in South-East Asia. The PRESIDB:NT (interpretation from Spanish): We have heard the last speaker for this afternoon. I shall now call on representatives who wish to speak in exercise of the right of reply. I would remind Members that pursuant to decision 34/401 of the General Assembly, statements in exercise of the right of reply should be limited to 10 minutes fo~ the first statement and five minutes for the second. Statements should be made by delegations from their seats. Mrs. 'roN NU TBI NINB (Viet Nam) : In the concert of voices heard in the last few days, varied but united in their almost universal genuine concern for peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia, Singapore's voice has again struck a lone stray note in its pervasive acrimony and arrogance as illustrated by ~~e rep~e6e"tative of Slngapo~e!s labelling of the p~e6ent debate as a "farce~. The use of this offensive vocable points to his contempt of this Assembly and its sovereign Members. (Hr. Vongsay, Lao People's Democratic Republic) Viet N~~ cannot but be altogether surprised at Singapore's posturing for the past six yea.:s as one of the IIOst vocal champions of the right of nations to self-determination, independence and sovereignty. Viet Nam believes that in South-East Asia we should look to the future. But in view of the overall substance of the statements made by the delegation of Singapore, we are left no choice but to look back, co~re and raise a few questions such as, for example, when and where did Singapore support the Vietnamese people in their arduous struggle for independence and self-determination against the notorious aggression waged by a mighty Power from outside t.'1e region? Was not that country amoa'9 t&'lose that reaped benefits from the war and accumlated wealth out of the suffer ings of the peoples of Indo-China, Kampuchea included, between 1970 and 19751 It is sad to say that in the memory of those peoples, Singapore has distinguished itself with a rather unsavory record of connivance with the forces of aggression and not, as it would like them to believe nOtJl, of support to oppressed peoples. Singapore might understandably prefer to forget this, but it is its own language and attitude that has compelled us to try and refresh its memory. (Mrs. Ton Nu Th! N!nh, V!et Nam) Indeed, if we listen carefully to the delegation of Singapore in its various statements at this United Nations forum, we cannot help wond~ring whether its actual if not avowed motivation might not be a visceral anti-Viet Nam drive. I am afraid that I must confess a lingering suspicion as to the supposedly disinterested concern of Singapore for the fate of the Kampuchean people. Permit me to question further the "why" of Singapore's attitude at this juncture when the mainstream in South-East Asia favours constructive dialogue free from outmoded antagonisms. On the face of Singapore's words and deeds we would unfortunately have to come to the conclusion that they only serve and buttress the policy of tension and confrontation pursued in the region by a Power external to it. As a matter of fact, this morning the representative of Singapore went to great lengths towards the end of his statement to try and conjure the alleged threat to South-East Asian nations of Viet Nam's military might. The peoples of South-East Asia know better. Of their own admission, they know where the real threat comes from. Just as in the not too distant past, Viet Nam's strength allowed it to defend victoriously its independence and sovereignty, its strength today is intended to help counter this real threat from outside the region, as we have demonstrated in that not too distant past. If Singapore persists in its provocative approach and acrimonious tone, it will all the more distinguish itself as a factor undermining peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia and the search for peace and stability that right now is the prime concern of the peoples of South-East Asia as well as of the international community. Mr. CREOK (Singapore): I am surprised that Viet Nam has taken such strong umbrage at my delegation's statement this morning. Singapore, together with all the members of the non-aligned movement, has had nothing but admiration for the struggle that Viet Nam waged in its war of independence against first the French and then the united States. However, Viet Ham, instead of emerging as a paradigm of a small country waging a war of independence, a war to wrest its independence, has become since its invasion of Kampuchea in 1978 an international pariah which has been regularly condemned in the United Nations for its military occupation in lampuchea. The representative of Viet Nam stated that Singapore has an unsavory reputation and is in collusion with the forces of aggression, but the position is the other way around. Viet Nam, in fact, by its very actions, has earned the opprobrium of the international community and this, in fact, has been evident in the continually mounting majorities against its actions, which culminated yesterday in 114 positive votes. Singapore is not anti-Viet Nam. Singapore is in the South-East Asian region. We are intimately involved in the peace and security of the region. ~e are also concerned that, with the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea, the conflict the~e could spill over to one of our neighbours of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASBAN), Thailand. Certainly no one in his right mind would sit back and allow that to happen. Singapore, together with its ASEAN partners, has tried in every forum to achieve a political settlement that will take into account not only the interests of the ASEAN countries in the region, but also the security interests of Viet Nam. That is the centrepiece of the whole ASEAN effort to try to bring about a political settlement in Kampuchea. The Secretary-General, using his good offices, has also made every effort to bring this about, and we appreciate that effort very much. The facts of Viet Nam's military might are very well known and we have stated it for the record. Those facts are not in doubt. They are figures that have been SUbstantiated and we can provide them. The only point in our statement this (Mr. Cheok, Singapore) morning that we did not mention was that the population of Singapore is 2~5 million and that the military forces of Viet Nam amount to 3 times Singapore's population. Singapore does not wish to take a provocative approach to this problem. We try to see both sides of the picture and it is only because of Viet Nam's intransigence and its total failure to heed the calls of the international community that Viet Ham finds it~elf in this position. Mrs. TON NU '!'HI NINH (Viet Nam): As demonstrated by Viet Nam's overall approach to the problems of South-East Asia, my delegation has no intention of embarking on polemics and in order not to waste the time of this Assembly, I should like merely firmly to maintain what I stated in the fi~st exercise of my right of reply. The PRESIDENT (interpretation from Spanish) We have heard the last speaker in the debate and the rights of reply. No draft resolution has been submitted on this item. It has been proposed, after consultations, that, in pursuance of the efforts for peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia, the consideration of the item entitled, -Question of peace, stability and co-operation in South-East Asia- be deferred and that the item be included in the provisional agenda of the forty-first session of the General Assembly. If I hear no objection, it will be so decided. It was so decided.