A/42/PV.30 General Assembly

The Assembly will first hear an address by the President of the United Republic of Tanzania. Mr. Ali Hassan Mwinyi, President of the United Republic of Tanzania, was escorted into the General Assembly hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the United Republic of Tanzania, His Excellency the Honourable Ali Hassan Mwinyi, and to invite him to address the General Assembly. President MWINYI: First of all I wish to congratulate you, Sir, on your well-deserved election to the presidency of the forty-second session of the General Assembly. I trust that under your able and skilled guidance this Assembly will succeed in realizing the aspirations of all peace-loving people in the world. I should like also to congratulate our Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his untiring efforts to promote international peace, security and co-operation. He needs the assistance of all Member States in this difficult and challenging task. I wish to assure him of Tanzania's continued co-operation and support in this noble endeavour. Delegates will recall that the last time a President of the United Republic of Tanzania addressed this Assembly was during the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. My predecessor, Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere, then renewed Tanzania's faith in the United Nations. He stressed, WIn this, my last address to the General Assembly, I have described events and ••• needs as we in Tanzania perceive them. My country will not stop saying those things when the new President takes over. For we are a poo and underdeveloped country, and we have no power in the world except the powe of speech given by the Assembly - and by our humanity. To be silent when we see danger, to refrain from attacking policies which we see as contrary to the interests of peace and justice, would be to surrender our freedom and our dignity. That we shall never do." (A/40/PV.13, p. 21) So, as the new President of the United Republic of Tanzania, I thought it would be appropriate for me to come and reaffirm that stand before the international community. My country, which became the l04th member of this Organization in 1961, will continue to use the United Nations rostrum to air its concern for and belief in peace, justice and equality. With goodwill towards all the 159 nations represented here, I wish to renew our faith in the principles enshrined in the united Nations Charter. For the United Nations has always played and will continue to play a key role in its primary responsibility, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security. We acknowledge that the United Nations has its iloperfections, but we must also accept the fact that Member States are largely responsible for these shortcomings. The united Nations can only do what its Member States are willing to dOJ thus the collective security system envisaged under the Charter has not worked because some Member States have refused to implement certain provisions of the Charter. The permament members of tQe Security Council in particular have not co-operated very often in resolving conflicts. The majority of the Members of this Organization were not represented at the founding of the United Nations because they were not yet independent at that time. It should not be surprising, therefore, when those newly-independent countries advocate the democratization of this Organization. They do so in order to ensure that their views and interests are fully taken into account in the decision-making process. It is for that reason that they have often called for a fresh look at the (President Mwinyi) deliberately misunderstood by those whose vested interests are well entrenched in the United Nations Charter. Those countries do not want to accept the fact that the changing international scene and the nearly-universal membership of this Organization require that the United Nations be adjusted in order to accommodate the leg~timate interests of its new majority. The detractors of the United Nations have used the demands of this new majority as a pretext for undermining this Organization and the spirit of internationalism. They have often adopted unilateral measures to suit their national interests. We appeal to those countries to reconsider their attitudes towards the United Nations in the interest of global peace. We all agree that there is room for improvement in our Organization. I am sure we can all work together to improve the effectiveness of this Organization. The adoption by consensus at the forty-first session of the General Assembly of resolution 41/213, on the review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations, is an important step towards meeting that objective. In his report to the General Assembly last year the Secretary-General called upon the United Nations "to bring to an early end those conflicts which have long brought terrible tragedy to the countries and people directly involved and inhibited the growth of international confidence needed for the resolution of broader global problems". (A/nIl, p. 1) One such conflict exists in southern Africa. Apartheid, which has been condemned by this Organization as a crime against humanity, continues to pose a threat to peace and security in southern Africa. The South African regime has resorted to unprecedented violence involving the daylight shooting of demonstrators, mass 'detentions, inoluding the detention of innocent children, and the vigorous imposition of a murderous state of emergency. In May this year it opened a new ohapter in repression following elections involving the white minority only. In the euphoria of his victory Mr. Botha declared his determination to preserve his oulture and to break the back of his opponents, especially the African National Congress. While the racist regime is intensifying its brutality against the black majority in South Africa, it is at the same time trying to deceive the world by making flimsy proposals to reform apartheid. Botha's recent proposals to establish a national statutory council and regional service councils with black representation are purely cosmetic in nature. These propos~ls cannot end apartheid. They are intended to involve the black people in entrenching apartheid. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have been rejected by the African majority and its liberation movements. I wish to emphasize that apartheid is an evil that cannot be reformed. It must be abolished. In a frantic bid to maintain his minority rule and to direct attention away from his internal crimes, Botha also continues to carry out murderous raids on the front-line and other neighbouring States. Every State in the sUbregion has been attacked: Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Swazi1and, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Angola has been invaded by South Africa on many occasions, and parts of its territory have been occupied. The MNR and UNITA bandits continue to operate with impunity in Mozambique and Angola, respectively. The damage caused to these States by the racist regime and the bandits has been estimated at well over US$ 10 billion over the past five years. In addition, the front-line States and other neighbouring states have been subjected to economic pressure. The aim of the apartheid regime is to intimidate these States so that they end their support for the freedom struggle against minority rule. What is even more disappointing is that this crime of apartheid is being committed in the twentieth century, before the eyes of the civilized world. This crime against humanity is being fully documented, aired and viewed day after day in international forums and in the living rooms of many homes around the world. have fallen on deaf ears. The world appears completely to have ignored the pleas of the oppressed people of southern Africa. There has been no serious move to stop that blatant crime, let alone punish its perpetrators. surely, generations to come will wonder how our generation could have stood by so passively while such an abominable crime was being committed, in the same way as we wonder how a past generation could have been so passive in the face of Hitler's crimes against the Jews. We urge Member States and the international community as a whole to act decisively and collectively to put an end to this intolerable inhumanity in southern Africa. It is encouraging to note that in many Western European countries and in the united States which have long-standing ties with apartheid south Africa, public opinion is increasingly turning against apartheid. Parliaments, individual legislators, trade unions and women's and youth organizations are exerting pressure on their Governments to take concrete action against apartheid. We were highly encouraged, for example, by the package of sanctions against . South Africa which was approved by the united States Congress over a Presidential veto. We hope that Governments in these countries will live up to the expectations of their peoples and to the aspirations of the victims of apartheid. I wish to stress that the people of Tanzania - and, indeed, the people of the whole African continent - feel deeply grieved by the plight of the oppressed majority in south Africa and Namibia. We consider our own independence and freedom incomplete so long as there is apartheid in South Africa and brutal colonialism in Namibia. We therefore unreservedly support the right ~nd efforts of the majority populations of these countries to regain their freedom and dignity by every means POssible, including, when necessary, armed struggle. I am aware that there are countries whose abhorrence of violence restrains them from supporting armed struggles for liberation. It is a position that we find difficult to understand, for we believe that the victim of a violent crime has the right to ward it off violently. Nevertheless, we respect the position of those countries. We hope, however, that they will support the call for the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. This is the only peaceful means left by which to end apartheid. Such economic pressure will make the South African regime abandon apartheid. without it, South Africa will not dismantle apartheid. We recognize that such sanctions will harm South Africa's neighbours and the front-line States. Their imposition must therefore be accompanied by a practical programme to support these States against the effects of sanctions, including those which a desperate apartheid regime will impose on them. Great sacrifices will be required, but they will be alleviated if sanctions are universally applied and seriously enforced. I wish to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to those countries which have demonstrated solidarity with the oppressed masses of southern Africa by imposing a variety of sanctions against South Africa. We are especially inspired by the sanctions imposed by the Nordic countries, Australia, New Zealand, canada and some countries of the European Economic Community (EEC). It is unacceptable that Namibia remain under the illegal occupation of South Africa in spite of the United Nations having terminated the apartheid regime's Mandate 20 years ago. South Africa has shown its total contempt for and complete disregard of the United Nations by refusing to implement Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We consider the policy of linking the independence of Namibia to the " withdrawal of the Cuban forces in Angola to be fundamentally misconceived and practically flawed. Besides prolonging the agony of the Namibian people under South Africa's brutal rule, it has sent the regime the message that it has powerful and dependable supporters in its policies of apartheid and destabilization. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the only internationally acceptable basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem. That resolution, which has the support of all Member States, does not establish any linkage between Namibia's independence and the withdrawal of Cuban forces. We therefore support the Secretary-General's efforts to get the parties concerned to start implementing that resolution. We also reaffirm our total support for the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people in its struggle to free its country from colonial occupation. The united Nations cannot avoid its historical duty and its role in assisting South Africa and Namibia to be free. Time for a peaceful or less violent change is fast running out. Without decisive action by the international community the situation in southern Africa will further deteriorate and lead to increased bloodshed. We have a moral obligation to avert such a situation. Tanzania is equally distressed by the injustices that are taking place in the Middle East. It is nearly 40 years since the Palestinian people were forcibly evicted from their homeland. For 20 years Israel has illegally occupied Arab territories. We resolutely call for the complete and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from those territories. We reaffirm our support for the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to 'an independent State under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). It is also our sincere hope that a peaceful settlement will be found to the conflict between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic. It is indeed our hope that the people of that Republic will be allowed to determine their own affairs freely and without external interference. Regional conflicts where great-Power interests either converge or diverge exist in other parts of the world. We are pleased to note that in Afghanistan and Cyprus the good offices of the Secretary-General have been invoked in order to protect the non-aligned character of those countries. In Kampuchea, we believe that a political settlement involving all the parties should be arrived at without external interference. This would lead to the establishment of a peaceful, independent and non-aligned country. We believe that the eight-point proposal of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and the proposals made by the Association of South-East Asian Nations constitute an important element in such a settlement. We deplore the aggravation of the situation in Central America by external interference. We support the efforts of the Nicaraguan people and Government to defend their sovereignty. The Guatemala proposal, which was agreed upon by the five Central American leaders on 7 August 1987, deserves our wholehearted support. We are equally concerned about the tension in the Korean peninsula. We believe that the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the peninsula is an important condition of the stability of the region. A dialogue between North and South Korea and the holding of tripartite talks between the two Koreas and the united States should be encouraged. Tanzania has diplomatic relations with both Iraq and Iran. Our people cherish the most friendly feelings towards the Governments and peoples of those two countries. We renew our appeal to them to find a political settlement to their dispoute and to stop the war between them. We urge all great Powers to refrain from taking any measures that would escalate the war and create a more serious threat to regional and global peace. We particularly urge the permanent members of the Security Council to shoulder their collective responsibility and to act in unity in the search for a peaceful settlement of that conflict. We appeal for the exercise of wisdom so that peaceful solutions can be found to all these conflicts. Global peace would be greatly enhanced if all nations would strictly respect the sovereignty and independence ,Of other nations and refrain from interfering in the internal'affairs of others. The threat or use of force should never be made a basis for settling disputes. We should all scrupulously observe the norms of international law governing relations between sOvereign and independent nations. Another great threat to the survival of mankind is the arms race, particularly in nuclear weapons. Over SUS 1 trillion is wasted each year in that senseless race. Resources which could be used for economic and social development are squandered in a competition which threatens the very survival of mankind. Some of us had hoped that the Soviet morator ium on nuclear testing would start a process leading to a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests. Regrettably, the opportunity was lost. Nuclear tests continue to be conducted by all nuclear Powers. As a participant in the six-nation peace initiative, Tanzania renews its appeal to the nuclear Powers, especially the two major ones, to halt nuclear tests and ban the arms race in space. In the name of humanity we appeal for respect for our right to life, which is now threatened by nuclear weapons. We are encouraged by the agreement in principle reached between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. We consider that agreement to be an initial step towards the ultimate objective of general and complete disarmament. Peace and poverty cannot coexist. The economic underdevelopment of the third world, therefore, is also a threat to world peasce. While only one third of humanity thrives in prosperity, two thirds of mankind are submerged in abJect poverty. Hunger, disease and ignorance afflict hundreds of millions of our people. Ironically, this is not because the world lacks the necessary resources to meet the needs of all mankind. We are told by the rich industrialized countries that a fair redistribution of the world's resources can take place only through the virtues of free trade. But we all know very well that the champions of so-called free trade are the very ones that institute strong protectionist measures against the exports of developing countries. As a result of such measures third-world countries are denied access to the markets of the industrialized countries. Prices for their export commodities remain depressed, whie the prices of manufactured goods imported from the industrialized countries rise constantly. This has resulted in unfavourable terms of trade, severe balance-of-payments deficits and an ever growing debt burden for our countries. It is estimated, for example, that the third world owes the developed countries about SUS 1,000 billion. In 1985 alone the developing countries paid sus 115 billion in debt servicing and received only SUS 41 billion in new loans. In other words, there was a net outflow of SUS 74 billion from the poor South to the rich North. The export earnings of non-oil-producing developing countries also dropped from SUS 104 billion in 1980 to SUS 87 billion in 1985. This was caused by declining prices of their export commodities. So, in addition to their export earnings, the developing countries had to look for an additional amount of Sus 28 billion solely to service their debts. There is an urgent need for the creditors and borrowers to discuss this serious problem with a view to arriving at a mutually acceptable solution. The increasing outflow of resources from the poor to the rich through debt servicing and unfavourable terms of trade aggravates the already critical economic situation in the third world. This is a direct result of the existing inequitable world economic system, which only works in favour of the rich industrialized countries. The present system has failed to respond effectively to the development efforts of the developing countries. It is for this reason that the gap between the rich North and the poor South has been widening year after year. It is obvious, therefore, that the success of the development efforts being made by the developing countries, both indiVidually and collectively, through South-South co-operation, will depend to a large extent on the restructuring of the existing world economic system. This is the basis of our pleas for the establishment of the new international economic order. We, the third-world countries, have always demonstrated our willingness to negotiate with our colleagues of the North on this important issue. We feel that there is an urgent need to take concerted measures which will promote the development of the developing countries and establish more equitable relations between the North and the South. Our efforts, however, have often been frustrated by the lack of political will on the part of some developed countries which wish to clinq to their privileged position at the expense of the suffering majority. We appeal to those countries to reconsider their position in the interest of justice and prosperity for all mankind. We also believe that the United Nations has a moral obligation to ensure that the struggle for the establishment of a more equitable world order succeeds, so that all mankind can be saved from hunger, starvation and "abject poverty. We therefore appeal for the revival and early commencement of the global negotiations aimed at the establishment of the new international economic order. These negotiations should put particular emphasis on structural changes in the field of trade and development and on the removal of trade barriers, especially to the exports of the developing countries. The international financial and monetary system should also be restructured. Such a restructuring should take into account, among other things, the need to provide adequate and predictable development resources to the developing countries in order to accelerate their development. Efforts ahould be made in particular to achieve as quickly as possible the long agreed target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries. For an ailing person the key to recovery is the will and determination to live. This also applies to economic recovery. Africa has demonstrated its will and determination to achieve economic recovery by adopting its Priority Programme for Economic Recovery at the 21st summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), in 1985. This Programme stresses the need for increased co-operation between African countries. We recognize, however, that the support of the international community is necessary for the implementation of the Programme. At the thirteenth special session of this Assembly many donor countries expressed their willingness to assist. I should like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to countries and international organizations, especially the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), for the assistance they have so far given. We hope that others will make this assistance available as soon as possible. I wish to conclude by reiterating Tanzania's faith in the United Nations. We ~lieve that the United Nations has a great potential to maintain international peace and to promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples. It is true that the Organization has had some problems, some of which have sometimes threatened its very existence. But we must not let frustration, cynicism or despair overcome us. The idealism which gave birth to the United Nations is still relevant and powerful; the principles upon which the Organization was founded remain valid. We must therefore strive to build a strong and stable world order based on the principles of sovereign equality. We must rededicate ourselves to the cause of fostering coexistence, co-operation and interdependence. We must work with one another constructively to make our Organization both the symbol and the platform for the evolution of a system of universal peace and security, a system which will fully take into account and help to promote the interests ana aspirations of all countries and peoples. I renew Tanzania's pledge to co-operate in meeting the challenge of realizing this noble objective.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the United Republic of Tanzania for the important statement he has just made. Mr. Ali Hassan Mwinyi, President of the United Republic of Tanzania, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall. ADDRESS BY COMMANDER: DANIEL ORTEGA SAAVEDRA, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC Of NICARAGUA.

The General Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Republic of Nicaragua. Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra, President of the Republic of Nicaragua, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of Nicaragua, His Excellency Commandante Daniel Ortega Saavedra, and to invite him to address the Assembly. President ORTEGA SAAVEDRA (interpretation from Spanish): We pay a tribute to the memory of Ernesto Guevara today, the twentieth anniversary of the sacrifice of his life. The Bible tells us that Cain killed Abel in the first confrontation between members of the human species. Envy and pride took possession of Cain and made him commit this crime. "Am I my brother's keeper?" - that is the way Cain replied to the question put to him at the time. The United Nations came into being at the end of the Second World War with the purpose of avoiding further wars, so that cains should not kill millions of other Abels, so that all of us on earth would have the duty to ~e our brothers' keepers. But there have been new wars in various parts of the planet. Millions of us human beings in the developing countries have been and continue to be the victims of such wars. There have been dozens of interventions since 1945 against us, the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Millions of men, women and children have been the victims of these policies. The North, which is trampling underfoot and crushing the South, continues to impose the kind of relationship which suits it besti it staunchly defends an unjust international order, inclUding unequal trade, external debt, protectionist measures, the total closing of markets, and pressures on Governments and organs of multilateral co-operation, disrespect and disregard for the Charter and the bodies of the Uni ted Na tions and for the in terna tional legal order. All that leaves the peoples of the developing countr ies utter ly defenceless. In the midst of such suffer ing, we welcome and applaud the progress made between the Soviet Union and the United States towards taking steps to ensure disarmament, inclUding the prohibi tion and then the el imina tion of nuclear and chemical weapons. As a member of the robvement of Non-Aligned Countr ies, however, we are concerned about wars between brother peoples. We join in the international clamour for the cessation of the war between Iran and Iraq, and We stress the danger of the presence and build-up of foreign military forces in the Gulf. Also as a non-aligned country, we ask ourselves what we are doing and what we can do to prevent the dea th each year of between 20 mill ion and 25 million children under the age of five from malnutrition and disease - deaths which could easily be prel1ented, according to the Brandt report. According to the latest statistics- those of 1986 - 14.1 million children aged five died from disease and malnutrition. Of these, 250,000 were from the industrialized countries - 1.7 per cent of the total - while 13,850,000 were from the developing countries - 98.3 per cent of the total. Who defends this carnage that has caused the death of more than 1 billion children since the end of the Second World War? Who will put an end once and for all to the murderous policy of apartheid, racism and the da~ly killings of the inhabitants of South Africa? Who will put an end to oppression in Chile, Paraguay and Haiti? Who is concerned about this? Either the countries of the North and the international community can take concrete action to meet the just demands of those peoples, or they will continue to be faced with the fait accompli of change, popular movements and revolution. The peoples will not wait for permission to struggle, to fight and to triumph. The peoples will give an impetus to their own processes of change, and then there will be weeping and gnashing 9£ teeth by those that never wished to listen to the peoples and were the accomplices of the oppressors. That is the situation of my country, Nicaragua, where, having intervened militarily and assassinated Sandino, the United States installed the Somoza dictatorship. Against that dictatorship set up by the United States, promoted and defended by the United States, armed and financed by the United States, we Nicaraguans fought to win the freedom which had been denied us. At that time the United States was not concerned about freedom in Nicaragua. At that time the United States did not care about the human rights of Nicaraguans. In those days the United States did not care about the lack of justice. The united States was not concerned then about the thousands of prisoners who were thrown into gaol - including myself, who spent seven years in such gaols. No concern was voiced by the leaders of the United states about the gaols in which we Nicaraguans were suffering or about the killings and tortures that were inflicted on us without asking permission of the United States, and against its policy and will, we overthrew the Somoza dictatorship not only to win our freedom, but also in the hope of establishing a new type of relationship with the United States, one of mutual respect, not relations between slave and master, as had been the case in the Somoza period, but relations between people, between nations, between States. That is what we wanted - that is what we want - respectful relations with the United States. Moreover, we wanted, and want, friendly relations with the United States. But the response of the United States has been to try to wrest from us our hard-won freedom and send Somoza's former guards back to Nicaragua to rule there. For six years and nine months the United States has been trying to sweep away the Nicaraguan revolution, violating ethic and moral principles, international laws and, indeed, the laws of the United states itself. The President of the United States is to blame for over 45,714 human victims in our country and the $2.821 billion loss in our gross domestic product, as a result of the United States policy in Nicaragua. The United States has bled the Nicaraguan people dry and badly damaged the Nicaraguan economy. This policy on the part of the united states has not benefited the people of Nicaragua at all but has come up against the courage, resoluteness, valour and heroism of this people. The policy of setting up a mercenary army was intended to destroy the legitimately constituted Government in Nicaragua, but it has already failed. The United States has reduced its mercenary army in Nicaragua to 6,500 mercenaries, whereas it wanted to have 30,000 by now. Now all it has is 16,000 refugees in Honduras - people who found themselves obliged to leave for Honduras - and a similar number in Costa Rica, and there are 6,500 mercenaries - freedom fighters, as President Reagan calls them - but they are getting fewer in number all the time, because they are dying in combat or accepting the policy of amnesty which has been in effect since January 1985 for anyone wishing to embrace it. The United States policy has failed and President Reagan is running out of time because his second term of office is coming to a close. He has only a few months left now before he has to leave the presidency of the United States, and it was these objective elements, particularly the failure of united States policy in Nicaragua, that led to the Esquipulas Agreement, because, quite frankly, what would have happened if the United States had achieved its objective of destroying the Nicaraguan revolution in a few months, as it suggested to the Governments of Honduras and Costa Rica when it wanted to set up camps there? If it had destroyed the Nicaraguan revolution, as it destroyed the people of Grenada, nothing more would have happened in Central America. Some people find their ears hurt when the truth is spoken and they are incapable of listening, but that is their business. (President Ortega Saavedra) It seems to me that the culprits are annoyed. They have committed aggression against us and they have killed our people, but now they are upset when the truth is told to them. It is thanks to this reality, the capacity of the Nicaraguan people for resist~nce, thaF the policy and the mercenary forces of the United States have been defeatedJ that is what made it possible to, sign the Esquipulas 11 agreements. It is thanks also to the perseverence of the Contadora Group and its Support Group which, in a firm Latin American endeavour, have opposed the interventionist policy of the united States. The Esquipulas 11 Agreement is a transcendental instrument dictated by the common sense of the Latin American leaders, and it is the fruit of the action of the Contadora Group and the support Group. Nicaragua has taken a number of steps in response to the signing of these agreements, so that on 5 November next, the date which marks the end of the gO-day period for the commencement of the implementation process, there will be better conditions for progress to be made in that process - because the end of the gO-day period is not the end of negotiations but rather a point of departure in the negotiation process. The General Assembly yesterday gave its unanimous support to the leaders of Central America who signed the Esquipulas Agreement. Nicaragua thanks the Assembly for this act of solidarity in the name of peace of the General Assembly. We hope that the Government of the United States will comply with that united Nations resolution, and not by just saying it agrees with Esquipulas 1IJ it is our hope that it will respect the Agreement by observing the terms contained in the Agreement of Esquipulas 11. So far, the United States Government has given no indication of willingness to respect that Agreement. That was made clear when President Reagan spoke from this very rostrum earlier in this session of the Assembly, when his tone was one of disrespect for the Esquipulas 11 Agreement and disrespect for the leaders of Central America. In the speech he made yesterday before the Organization of American States (OAS), President Reagan once again showed disrespect for the Central American Presidents and for the Agreement. He endorsed a kind of conduct which has been condemned by the highest court of justice of all. President Reagan's speech yesterday was a violation of the charter of the Organization of American States and the Charter of the United Nations. President Reagan went to the Organization of American States, as he comes to the United Nations, posing as a great judge of the peoples of the world. Who gave him such power? Who gave the President of the United States such representative status? Let me now take up two aspects he mentioned in his statement yesterday before the Organization of American States. Here I have the Esquipulas Agreement, and here are the signatures of the five Central American Presidents: ~resident Oscar Arias Sanchez, President Jose Napoleon Duarte, ~resident Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo, President Jose Azcona Hoyos, and myself. Our five signatures are right here; President Reagan's is not. If President Reagan ~ishes to interfere in our negotiating process, let him sign the Esquipulas ~greement. Then he will be fully entitled to talk about the Agreement as he did oefore the Organization of American States. We should be delighted if the ~resident of the United States were to subscribe to this Agreement; then we should feel he had the right to discuss these matters, for his signature would be on this ~greement. But to start discussing these things and to make allegations, and to try to impose his will in respect of an Agreement he has not signed - that shows iisrespect for those of us who have signed the Agreement, because we are the Leaders of independent sovereign countries. We are not a colony or a neo-colony of :he United States; if we wer~, the President could feel entitled to come along and (President Ortega Saavedra) say that the Agreement needs such-and-such corrections. That is all wrong. The worst thing is that it seems he has not even read the Agreement. I am sure President Reagan has not even read, the Agreement. I am saying this because he said that he was going to ask for $US 270 million for the mercenaries and that, depending on how the Agreement was carried out, he would pass the money on to the mercenaries. Paragraph 5 of the Esquipulas II Agreement states that: "The Governments of the five Central American States shall request Governments of the region and Governments from outside the region which are providing either overt or covert military, logistical, financial or propaganda support, in the form of men, weapons, munitions and equipment, to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements to terminate such aidJ this is vital if a stable ~nd lasting peace is to be attained in the region." (A/42/52l, p. 6) That is quite clear, then• ."The above does not cover aid for the repatriation or, failing that, the relocation and necessary assistance with reintegration into normal life of former members of such groups or forces." When the President goes before the Organization of American States (OAS) and says he is going to ask for $270 million, and also says he supports the agreements, he is being utterly inconsistent. The agreements clearly state that President Reagan should not provide new funds for the mercenary forces; if he wanted to approve new funds, it would have to be for the relocation or repatriation of people who, for example, accept the amnesty, who lay down their arms and go along with the peace process. That money would have to be given to the United Nations, to the Organization of American States (OAS), or to organizations of the International Verification and Follow-up Commission, so that they could make certain the money was truly spent on relocation and repatriation. President Reagan says he supports the Esquipulas Agreement and then he makes a proposal which goes contrary to the agreement. President Reagan also referred to the question of armaments, military manpower, foreign military advisers, and so on. He said the agreement does not take this into account. But on page 7 the Agreement clearly states: ~Negotiations on security, verification and the control and limitation of weapons: "The Governments of the five Central American States, with the Contadora Group acting as mediator, shall continue negotiating on the points outstanding in the draft Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central America with regard to security, verification and' control." (A/-42/52l, p. 7) Here, too, we are clearly talking about a willingness to have all foreign military advisers leave the region - the willingness of the Central American Governments to undertake not to carry out manoeuvres with foreign military advisers, not to set up foreign military bases on our respective territories, and our commitment to convert the Central American region into a zone of peace, free from any foreign military presence. These elements are taken into account in Esquipulas 11. President Reagan is wrong to say that they are not. It bothers us that the President of the United States should take such a flippant and disrespectful attitude to this Agreement without being familiar with it, without having read and studied the text carefully. We are really bothered by this, because this is the President of an economic and military power of world standing who is, judging by his remarks, taking this rather lightly. This pbsition of the President of the United States is not contributing to peace, and 1 think it discredits him further. It bothers us, I say, because it demonstrates a clear decision to press ahead with his policy against all odds. Consequently we are obliged to think that his words are the prelude to the continuation and escalation of a policy which does not rule out the use of United States troops. Logically, Nicaragua rejects the statement of President Reagan before the OAS. The Government of the United States should not forget that the Nicaraguan people has never turned and run, calling for help. There were several invasions in the last century, but we, the Nicaraguan people, responded to those invasions by fighting and struggling to defend peace·. Policies based on force have yielded no results. That must be made quite clear, because when the United States Congress approved the $100 million for the mercenaries, as a consequence of that policy based on force, the very next day the La Prensa was closed in Nicaragua, and a bishop was expelled a few days later, one who advocated and supported the United States policy of intervention. The United States policy of force was what drove us to set up a state of emergency in our country. It hardened the situation in our country, if anything. Had it not been for the agreements of Esquipulas 11, Nicaragua would not have been able to take the steps it has taken. It is thanks to it that no censorship is applied to the press, which is circulating freely in my country. The catholic radio is broadcasting, a national dialogue has been set UPJ we have decreed a cease-fire and formed a National Commission of Reconciliation, and we have taken other steps. WelNicaraguans can reach an understanding fairly among ourselves. But we believe that, just as a dialogue has begun between the Government of El Salvador and the rebels there, the time has come for a dialogue to be9in between the Government of the United States and Nicaragua. Although there is no symmetry between El Salvador and Nicaragua, there is a precedent: before Esquipulas 11, the Government of El Salvador had engaged in a dialogue with the Salvadorian guerrillas. And there is another precedent: before Esquipulas 11, the Nicaraguan Government had engaged in a dialogue with the Government of the United States, at Manzanillo. Those are the precedents, and they correspond to the different realities of the two situations. We have nothing to gain from talking with the leaders of the counter-revolution, and we shall not engage in a dialogue with them. If there is a real desire to take up this matter seriously, the dialogue must be between the Government of the United States and the Government of Nicaragua, for at the rate they are going the mercenaries are likely to disappear, thanks also to the fighting spirit of our people and the Nicaraguan Government's amnesty programme. Thus, we can see that the problem is not really the mercenaries because they may disappear, but the United States will continue its policy of aggression against Nicaragua; when it has no mercenaries, it will use its own troops. The problem is the behaviour of the United States Government and its attitude towards the Nicaraguan revolution. That attitude was clear in Reagan's pre-election platform, before the mercenaries existed. In that political ptatform, President Reagan advocated the destruction of the Nicaraguan revolution - and there were then no mercenaries. Thus, the issue is not one of engaging in dialogue with the leaders of the mercenaries. Yet there is indeed a dialogue on the ground between the mercenaries who are there, in Nicaragua, and who are taking a beating from our forces, which gives them an opportunity to accept the amnesty. A dialogue is therefore already occurring on the ground, in order to promote acceptance of the amnesty. What is the point of talking to the leadership of the contra mercenaries? There is no point, because the entire policy is promoted by the United States Government. As I said, the mercenaries could disappear, but the United States Government would carry on using other methods. If the United States does not alter its policy towards Nicaragua, there could be a military blockade against us; there could be "surgical" strikes; there could be a military invasion. Thus, resumed dialogue would be the logical thing. I say "resumed" because there is a precedent: there already has been a dialogue between us and the Government of the United States. We received Secretary of State Shultz in Managua, where I spoke with him, and there have been other meetings, at Manzanillo, Mexico - meetings which the United States broke off abruptly. If we have already had a dialogue, why do we not sit down again and have another? Here in this United Nations forum, I hereby issue an invitation to the President of the United States: Thirty-five days from 5 November, the United States and Nicaragua should begin an unconditional bilateral dialogue with a view to signing agreements providing security for both States and making possible the normalization of their bilateral relations. Why should this take place 35 days from 5 November? The fifth of November is ~hen the implementation of the agreements will begin, and there follows a 30-day period, at the end of which the International Verification and Follow-up Commission is to meet, with the participation of the United Nations, the Organization of ~rican States (CAS), the Contadora Group, the Support Group and the Central Unerican countries, to analyse progress in the implementation of the agreements. le therefore think it appropriate that the Government of the United States have an >pportunity to observe - not interfere with - the implem~ntation of the agreements, lnd await the analysis by the International Verification and Follow-up Commission. , dialogue could then begin five days later, after the United States has considered :hat analysis. We could take up the dialogue where we left it off. I hope the President of the United States will not act as his delegation acted oday. When President Reagan addressed the Assembly, the delegation of Nicaragua istened to him. We are not afraid of words; we are not afraid of political and ideological debate. A year ago I myself sat in this Hall and listened to President Reagan. I hope that President Reagan will not respond to this proposal for bilateral dialogue in the same way his delegation responded here in the General Assembly Hall today. President Reagan should not hasten to say no to that proposal; let him reflect. Let him ask himself why United States citizens such as Benjamin Linder and Brian Wilson have shed their own blood to prevent more bloodshed in Nicaragua. Let President Reagan ask himself why the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the leaders of evangelical churches have issued several messages calling on him to end his policy. Let the President of the United States ask himself why Roy Bourgeois, a Catholic priest, has spent several months in a high-security prison in Louisiana. Other Catholic priests too are being gaoled for civil opposition to th~ United States Government's policy or death against Nicaragua. President Reaganshould not hasten to say no. Before consulting those who give him hot-headed ideas, such as military options, inclUding outright invasion, let him remember thatRambo exists only in the movies. In Viet Nam the result was the death of thousands of Vietnamese and also of more than 40,000 young Americans who were sent over there to die in Viet Nam, young United States citizens who would today be scientists, educators, technicians, clergy, athletes, farmers or doctors. The peoples do not want Rarnbos; the peoples want men of peace. Before responding to my proposal for a bilateral dialogue, we hope that President Reagan will not rush into saying anything. Let him think. and may God enlighten him and help him choose the road to peace and stop harming the people of Nicaragua.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic of Nicaragua for the important statement he has just made. Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra, President of the Republic of Nicaragua, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall.