A/42/PV.27 General Assembly

The Assembly will now hear an address by the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saint Kitts and Nevis. Mr. Kennedy Simmonds, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of ~aint Kitts and Nevis, was escorted to the rostrum.

I have great pleasure in welcoming the Pr ime t>1inister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saint Kitts and Nevis, the Honourable Mr. Kennedy Simmonds, and inviting him to address the General Assembly. Mr. SI~~ONDS (Saint Kitts and Nevis): Mr. President, I wish tirst of all to thank you for the opportunity afforded me to make my second address to this body. I bring to you and to the distinguisned personal~ties agsembled here fraternal greetings from the Government and people of Saint Kitts and Nevis. May I now join the eminent and eloquent speakers who have preceded me and congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the esteemed position you now occupy. Your election to this post is a clear reflection of the high regard in which you are held and of the complete confidence your colleagues place ill you, based, most assuredly, on your personal qualities, diplomatic skills and sincere commitment to the high ideals of the Organization. My delegation pledges its fullest co-operation, in every way possible, with your endeavours to carry out your duties during this, the forty-second session of the General Assembly. I also express congratulations to the previous President of the General Assembly on his capable handling of the critical issues that corrunanded the attention of this body during the last session and on his skilful quidance of the deliberations. My delegation cannot emphasize too strongly the importance it attaches to the role of the United Nations, in general, and to the General Assembly 1n particular, in recommending solutions for the peaceful settlement of international political conflicts, for the improvement of international economlC condltions, and tor the maintenance of human rights and freedom the world over. We firmly believe in the link established between international peace and security and political and socio-economic development. They are not mutually exclusive. They are interdependent and complementary one to tne otner. We, as citizens of the world community, are committed to redouble our efforts to preserve global freedom and peaceful coexistence of wnich we here in thlS body are the sole arbiters. It is a sad reality, however, tnat our cornbined efforts to achieve and preserve lasting peace and freedom are constantly thwarted by adverse national and international economic conditions, regional ana locallzed conflicts, and repeated violations of human rights. Indeed, war and the threat of war are issues which constantly demand the attention of the world Organization. However, we are not succeeding in beating the swords raised in anger around the world into ploughshares, as is 60 clearly set forth as a serious objective by the Organization. Too often we find that the prospect of peace is dangled tantalizingly before a world that is eager for a respite from war - a respite that would give us all an opportunity to build rather than to destroy. Just as often, we find that prospects for peace vaniSh like a soap-bubble blown into the air. My delegation supports the peace initiative with regard to Iran and Iraq undertaken by the Secretary-General. The world is weary of this seven-year-old war of attrition between Iran and lrag that has wasted vast amounts of human and natural resources. Recent events in that region clearly demonstrate the risk of the widening of the conflict, ana even the possibility of super-Power involvement if the conflict continues, thereby posing a genuine threat to international peace and security. The Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis fervently suppurts resolution 598 (1987) unanimously adopted by the Security Council in July of this year, the text of which demands an immediate cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war. We call upon both combatants to comply with the resolution, and States members of the General Assembly to be prepared to display the political w11l to exert the diplomatic pressures required to elicit compliance by the belligerents. Also in the Middle East the question of the inalienable rignt of the Palestinian people to a well-defined homeland and to a just and lasting peace is still considered the core of the Middle East conflict. However, this must coexist with the right of the people of Israel to live within secure boundaries. Here, too, strong and persistent action is needed to have all part1es adhere to the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly on the issue. With respect to the situations in Afghanistan and Kampuchea, my delegation notes with sad regret that these localizea occupations are no closer to an end today despite repeated resolutions that call for the withdrawal of foreign troops from these occupied territories. The hopes and aspirations of the people of Afghanistan and of Kalllpuchea are being sacrificed in the cauldron of these conflicts. I call upon the General Assembly to continue to register its stron9 support for the liberation of the people of Kampucnea and Afghanistan. The United Nations has a special responsibility to support its Members in their efforts to preserve individual sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence, and to denounce and act against those aggressive nations that violate the fundamental rights of other weaker and vulnerable nations. Those among us who value peace must not be dominated by others who readlly resort to war. People everywhere, whether they be in the east or the west, in the north or the south, should be free to choose the government which best reflects their political convictions and aspirations. On the question of peace and stability on the American continent, the situation in Central America preoccupies us. My delegation is particularly concerned about the possible implications for the peoples of ~entral America, Latin America, and the Caribbean that a worsening of the crisis in this area may have. The Car ibbean and Latin Amer ica need an economic rev~val, but thls revival cannot come in the midst of civil wars and guerrilla activity. My delegation welcomes the ~eace initiat~ve recently worked out by Government leaders of Central America. It is a peace plan by Central Americans for Central America. It should be given every op~ortunity to be effective. I call upon all combatants throughout Central America and the Caribbean to observe the cease-fire and then to negotiate in good faith for a lasting peace leading to the realization of true democracy throughout the region. Also in relation to our partner in the Caribbean ~ommunity, belize, my delegation calls for early ratification of the Cartagena Protocol as a contribution to the lowering of tens~ons 1n the reglon. The fact is that the various conflicts throughout the world are being supplied with arms from seemingly inexhaustible sources. This fact, however, receives scant ~ttention from the international community. Our attention is focused instead on tne prospects for an arms reduction ~greement between the United States and the Soviet Union, mainly in relation to nedium-range nuclear missiles. There is great concern about tne danger of nuclear weapons, and this is certainly justified because no corner of the world can be considered safe from the fallout of nuclear explos10n. While, however, we seek to prevent this potential calamity, the reality is that every day all over the world destruction of life and property is be1ng wrought by convent10nal weapons. It is imperative that our forum here at the United Nations spearhead urgent and continuing efforts to achieve genuine" and meaningful prog~ess in disarmament to include all weapons, conventional and chemical, as well as nuclear. It is then and only then that we will be able to mobilize fully the resources of rich and poor nations alike to address the serious economic problems which obstruct our attempts at achieving a better quality of life for all. Article 55 of the Charter of the United Nations recognizes that conditions of stability and well-being are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations. In turn, peace and friendly relations among nations are necessary prerequisites to the achievement of steady economic growth worldwide. The world debt problem is yet another deterrent to economic development. It runs counter to the efforts of this booy to alleviate the syndrome of poverty and underdevelopment crippling half of the world's population as it currently bedevils all attempts by the developing countries to bring a better quality of life to their people. 1 share the sentiment that a concrete solution can only be envisioned if the issue is treated as the international crisis that it is. The Assembly has had to concede that the International Development Strategy for the First and Second United Nations Development Oecades has remained largely unfulf i lled • As we approach the end of the Third Development Decade, the developing countries do not deny the existence of their external debt, nor shun a measure of responsibility for its solution. We realize that the pr irnary responsibility for improving our economies rests upon our shoulders. However, we cannot go it alone in this world where even the super-Powers recognize some level of interde~endence. We are buffeted by changing conditions in the world at large, and are at the mercy of conditions over WhlCh we have no control. The debt ~roblern can only be addressed in a meaningful way by a process of North-South co-operation. My delegation is highly supportive of the approach to this problem outlined here by the Government of Jamaica. This proposal calls for a longer-term structured rescheduling of debt, accompanied by the provision of additional capital resources, so that economic growth is not stultified by the burden of debt servicing, but rather continues in tandem with it. The more affluent countries cannot, nor should they try, to shirk their responsibility to increase the capital resources available to the developing nations. It is the developed countries which reduct:! the price that they pay to us tor the primary commodities we produce. It is the developed countries which increase the price of the machinery and equipment they sell to us to be used in the production of the same primary commodities, and in other vital development areas. This is the situation in which saint Kitts and Nevis is placed in relation to its primary export commodity, sugar. The price is severely depressed. Quotas are drastically reduced. But the price of machinery to improve the efficiency of production continues to escalate. The plight of the sugar-producing countries in the Caribbean, and indeed throughout the world, cannot be addressed by platitudes or the current attitude of benign neglect. It requires the urgent serious and sympathetic consideration of the developed countrles. It is clear that economic strangulation can and does lead to political instability within and between nations. Many countries find it increasingly difficult to cope with growing social and economic demands in the face of drastic adjustments. Our vigorous efforts neea to be c~nplemented by increased international assistance and co-operation. It is not enough to call for structural adjustment. This is not by itself the universal panacea. Indeed, this is already being undertaken in many developing countries. In my own country, Saint Kitts and Nevis, we have already embarked on a programme of diversification which expands our agricultural sector, places greater emphasis on touri::>m development and gives impetus to the growth of light industry, while at the same time employing greater fiscal prudence in the PUblic sector. It is unfortunate that some - I repeat, some - ex~erts from the developed countries have a biased view of structural adjustment. Their interpretation in relation to the developing countries is: increasing taxation on already overburdened peopleJ reducing programmes for social and cultural developmentsJ and cutting back on provision of employment by the I?ublic sector. For the developed countries, however, their interpretation of structural adjustment can include: reducing taxes; increasing spending on implements ot war; and reducing assistance to developing countries in the grip of structural adjustment. This approach will only further increase the imbalances which exist and widen the gap between the rich and the poor countries. In the final analys~s, all of us need to realize that there must be a humane side to structural adjustment. The fiscal and economic measures which are employed nationally, regionally and internationally to improve the abstract indices of growth and development must also address the educational, social, cultural and health needs of people everywhere. The real essence of development is the development of people. The world has risen to many a challenge in the past to provide a better quality of life for people everywhere, and the United Nations has been in the forefront of the struggle. Diseases once the scourge of IIlankind, like smallpox, tuberculosis and poliomyelitis, have been defeated. Once again we must mobilize; we must defeat malnutrition, poverty, drug abuse and the more recent scourge, acquired immune deficiency syndrome, AIDS, which threaten to destroy the flower of our youth who hold the keys to the future of our nat10ns. The time has come for us to take a more humanitarian look at the world, and to divert more of its resources away from creating and proliferating the means of destruction into prov1ding constructive and effective solutions to the problems of underdevelopment. I have so far projected a general view of developing countries. However, it has come to be universally recognized tnat there is within this broad framework a special category of developing countries whose problems require special consideration. This is the category of island developing countries. A number of analytical and descriptive studies, including a study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), have shown that island developing countries have characteristics distinct from those of developing countries in general. As a result, the type of development strategy regarded as appropriate in general and promoted by the United Nations may in some aspects be inappropriate for these countries in particular. The studies have also highlighted certain specific handicaps facing small island countries and dispelled some myths concerning them. Our handicaps are basically derived from tne smallness and remoteness of most of us. They include vUlnerability to natural disasters, such as hurricanes, to which islands in the Caribbean are particUlarly vulnerable; special transport problems, which are even more acute in archipelagic countries; highly limited internal markets; lack of natural resources; and heavy dependence on imports. These imports in turn are financed by a small number of foreign-exchange-earning activities - commodity exports, tourism or emigrant remittances, for example. Given the high per capita cost of building and maintaining the economic and social infrastructure for small and isolated populations, small islands lack the critical mass to provide basic services economically for their populations. However, these services must be provided. People in island comaunities have as much right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and basic amenities as people in large metropolitan societies. Growing recognition of the conclusions regarding island developing countries is reflected in the five resolutions on island aeveloping countries adopted unanimously by the General Assembly between 1976 and 1982. The international development strategy for the Third United Nations Development Decade specifically highlights our problems. Other organizations have also begun to focus on this group. For instance, the Commonwealth Heads of Government endorsed, in 1~79, a special programme of action in favour of the smaller Commonwealth countries, anCl the Lome Conventions make special provisions for these countries. However, a number of countries and institutions are clearly sceptical anout the specificity of island developiny countries, ana some are against the proliferation of such special categories of developing countries. I say to the sceptics that the existence of sovereign island nations is a tact of life. We are real, we exist, we have a voice which is heard and must continue to be heard in international forums, and we are sovereign. We are no flgment of anyone's imagination. We are here, and here to stay. I therefore call for urgent, concerted and constructive action to give effect to the resolutions in relation to island developing countries already adopted by the Assembly. The effective functioning of the United ~ations in its various dimensions is vital to the resolution of conflicts, the achievement of peace in the world, and the marshalling of the resources of the world for the effective resolution of problems. Here we can come together to heal wounds and facilitate co-operation between nations. It is in this context that we renew our call for North and South Korea to become Members of the United Nations This is not to deny or preclude the goal of reunification of the Korean peninsula. We must, however, address situations as they exist, and not merely as we would wish them to be. Both countries on the (l-1r. Simnlonds, Saint Kitts and Nevis) Korean peninsula amply satisfy the requirements for Inembersnip. Besides, the realities of the existing deadlock dictate the need for the stimulation ana maintenance of dialogue between the two sides within such a structured and supportive framework as the United Nations can provide. Finally, I turn to the question of human rights, the violation of which is another threat to international peace and security. Developing countries like Saint Kitts and Nevis are acutely aware of the premium which must be placed on human resources. Our greatest potential lies in our people, and in drawing from them the qualities of patriotism and service which can flourish only in an atmosphere wtllch guarantees the dignity and worth of the human person. I Yet, nearly 40 years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right of peoples and nations to self-determination as a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights is still being aenied. Nowhere is such violation more flagrant and agonizing than in South Africa, where the evil policy of apartheid is insensitively ~erpetuated and consolidated. The United Nations has been in the forefront of the opposition to apartheid, and now appears to be ~rowing weary in its etforts to bring an end to its perpetuation. Perhaps this is the designJ perhaps the design of Pretoria is continually to confront tne international cOlffillunity with arrogant defiance and frustrate it into wearied resignation and silence. My delegation refuses to be lulled into silence on this issue. We will take every opportunity publicly to proclaim our abhorrence for the system of apartheid, because it is inherently evil, and we exhort the international community and the oppressed of South Africa to stand firm in their opposition and struggle. We laud all the countries that have heeded the appeals of the various resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and the Security Council and have imposed sanctions on South Africa. We are optimistic that if a perseverlny world unified against apartheid continues to send this siqnal to Pretoria the stubborn walls of apartheid must eventually crumble. We can accept nothing less than the equality of all men. St. Kitts and Nevis also reaffirms its support for Security COuncil resolution 435 (1978) and the United Nations independence plan for Namibia. The world is so closely knit and interdependent that conflicts or tensions anywhere and of whatever nature affect us all, because we are citizens of one world. We are our brother's keeper, and as brothers we are equal. (Mr. Simmonds, Saint Kitts and Nevis) The Uni ted Na tions is like a grea t lens which is made to capture the powerful but diffuse rays of the sun and distil and concentrate them into a unified force directed into any selected focal point. The United Nations can and should attract the diverse energies, resources and creativity of all the nations and concentrate them into a unified powerful force to be focused upon the various problems that beset mank ind. I am conv inced that in th is way effective solutions compa tib1e with the preserva tion of human dignity can be achieved.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of saint Kitts and Nevis for the important statement he has just made. Mr. Kennedy Simmonds, Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sa int Ki t ts· and Nev is, was escor ted· from the· ros tr urn.

I shall call on representatives who wish to make statements in exercise of the right of reply. May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply are limited to 10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second intervention and should be made by de1ega tions from the ir sea ts. Mr. BLANC (France) (interpretation from French): In his speech this morning, the representative of Vanuatu made some incorrect statements about New Caledonia. That prompts me to make things clear by recalling a few basic tru ths. First., like a large number of other countries, France voted against the draft resolution which became resolution 41/41 A and lrlas submitted by the countries of the Pacific Forum to the General Assembly last year. So far as my Government is concerned, New Caledonia is indeed a French territory, and it will remain so as long as the people want it to. On the very day when the majority of the people of New Caledonia want independence, independence will be attained. Secondly, it was precisely the appearance in the territory of an independence movement that prompted France to organize there, in application of the principle of self-determination, a vote in which the option of innependence waS offered. That referendum took place on 13 September last, in a calm atmosphere and in accordance with the strictest rules of democracy. The result, challenged by no one, was that a clear majority of the people of New Caledonia rejected independence. Vanuatu has the right to regret that result and to wish that it had been otherwise, but Vanuatu cannot challenge its validity without rejecting the very principles of democracy. Thirdly, offering the choice between independence and the maintenance of the territory in the French Republic, the referendum posed a simple question - in fact, the only auestion relevant to the existing problem. The independentist factions decided to boycott this democratic consultation. One might wonder why they did so. The reason is this: These are minority factions and they know it. Moreover, they feared that a vote on the question of independence - which is the very heart of their claims - might reveal the disparity between reality and those claims. Fourthly, in referring to the people of the territory, the representative of Vanuatu tried to draw a distinction between "those who were French" and "those who were not". That way of looking at things is in contradiction with the most !lementary truth. In New Caledonia there are people of Melanesian, European, )olynesian and Asian origin. They are all French citizens; they enjoy the same :ights as all the other inhabitants of my country. In New Caledonia there is no distinction whatever based on race, colour, religion or beliefs. Thus, for instance, two out of three of the representatives of the territory to the French That is quite a different picture from the simplistic and false one that has been painted in an attempt to persuade the members of the General Assembly. Fifthly, the representative of Vanuatu stated also that France had encouraged a massive influx of immigrants into the territory. The figures on the various components of the population of New Caledonia show, on the contrary, a balance between those components. I must tell the representative of Vanuatu that here again he is on shaky ground. If he wants to develop this interesting theme, I would suggest that he turn his attention to the major countries of the South Pacific region, where massive influxes of immigrants did indeed SUbmerge the original inhabitants. Mr. VAN LIEROP (Vanuatu): The Government of Vanuatu finds it very interesting - although not surprising - that representatives of the Government of France now profess to speak for, and understand the motives of, the colonized people of New Caledonia with respect to their successful boycott of the purported referendum recently conducted in New Caledonia by France. We find that interesting but not surprising because throughout history colonizers have always professed to understand the motivation and the driving factors behind colonized peoples. It is not at all surprising that today France not only should attempt to deny the people of New Caledonia the right to be heard and the right to determine for themselves their own future, but also should profess to interpret the motivation of the Kanak people. How many times before Zimbabwe became independent did representatives of Ian Smith come before the world and say that elections had been held and that the people of what was then Southern Rhodesia had expressed themselves and had decided that they wanted to continue to be Rhodesians rather than to be Zimbabweans - which is what they were. The representative of France has also questioned the comment we made with respect to France's policies of consciously attempting to outnumber and overwhelm the colonized people of New Caledonia. Last year I had occasion to quote from a letter that was written by Mr. Messmer, then Pr1rne Minister, on 19 July 1972 to Mr. Deniau, Secretary of State in charge of overseas departments and territories. The current representative of France was not with us then. Perhaps he is unaware of that letter. To enlighten him, let me quote briefly: "New Caledonia, a colony of settlement, although dedicated to a multiracial mixture, is probably the last non-independent tropical territory in the world where a developed country can encourage the emigration of its inhabitants. It is therefore necessary to seize this ultimate chance to create another, additional francophone country. The French presence in New Caledonia can be threatened - except, of course, in the event of world war - only by a revival of nationalist spirit among the indigenous people supported by some other possible allies in the ethnic communities coming from the Pacific. In the short term and medium term, the massive immigration of French metropolitan citizens and those from overseas departments should allow us to overcome this danyer by maintaining and 1mproving the relative size of the population groups in New Caledonia. In the long term, the indigenous nationalist demands can only be avoidea if the groups which do not originate in the Pacific represent a mass demogra~hic majority. One cannot obtain this long-term demographic effect without the systematic immigration of women and' children. The circumstances are such that in 20 years New Caledonia will be a small, prosperous French territory comparable to Luxembourg and representing (Mr. Van Lierop, Vanuatu) Europe. The success of this enterprise, indispensable to the maintenance of French interests east of Suez, depends, among other conditions, on our capacity to succeed finally, after so many setbacks in our history, in an operation of settllng people overseas." Imperfection teaches humility. I must thank the representative of France for creating the circumstances that allow me the opportunity to speak again today. This morning, when I made our statement, I inadvertently lost my place and neglected to read a very brief paragraph which was part of my text. I apologize to the Assembly for this imperfection and the slight, inadvertent omission on my part. I will now read that paragraph into the record to close my reply to the representative of E'rance. This morning, when discussing the prestige and glory of France, I inadvertently omitted the following paragraph: "Therefore, we once again appeal to '&'rance to set an example. Show us your faith in the United Nations by co-operating with the Cornmittee of 24 on this question. Open a fair and just dialoyue with the Kanak people through their representative, the l!'LNKS (Front de liberation nationale Kanak socialiste). Let the Kanaks deciae for themselves what they wish to be." We rest our case. Mr. BLANC (France) (interpretatlon from French): I did not quite follow everything the representative of Vanuatu said. I am not here to indulge in sterile polemics or rhetorical effects. I have explalned the position of my country. For this evening, I shall stop there. Mr. VAN LIEROP (Vanuatu): Perhaps the representative of .l!'rance would be best advised to stop there because we also have in our possession documents front the FLNKS inaicating that the referedum in New CaLedonia was not the unchallenged or uncontested exercise that the representative of France indicated. Should delegations be interested in learning a little luore about that exercise, I am certain that these documents can be made available to them. The meeting rose at 6.05 p.m.