A/42/PV.33 General Assembly

The General Assembly will first hear an address by the Head of State of the Kingdom of Lesotho. His Majesty Motlotlehi King Moshoeshoe 11 of Lesotho was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the united Nations the Head of State of the Kingdom of Lesotho, His Majesty Motlotlehi King Moshoeshoe 11, and to invite him to address the Assembly. King MOSHOESHOE: On behalf of our delegation and on our own behalf, we wish to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly at its forty-second session. We are confident that under your wise leadership - like that of your able predecessors - the Assembly will live up to its commitment. Our profound tribute and gratitude go also to your immediate predecessor, Mr. Humayan Rasheed Choudhury, who led the deliberations of the forty-first session so splendidly last year. We also wish to pay a special and fitting tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his untiring efforts in managing the complicated and difficult affairs of the United Nations, and for his frequent missions of peace to areas of international conflict, which his high office must constantly monitor and try to resolve - and there are still too many areas of conflict for our general safety and comfort. The issues of war have almost imposed themselves on the yearly agenda of this Organization. That is because war is incompatible with mqn's mission on Earth or even the purpose for which he was created. Today man requires peace more than ever before, as modern technology has refined the instruments of war and increased their capacity to inflict maximum destruction. For man to enjoy the total benefits of peace, the United Nations must be given both the financial and the political means it so greatly requires in order to halt potential conflict situations before they erupt into catastrophies. Only when there is peace can the noble mission of the Organization - to fight the perennial enemies of mankind: hunger, disease, ignorance and homelessness - be realized. The protection and promotion of human rights and the guaranteeing of the dignity of man form the corner-stone of the social, economic and political mission with which the United Nations is charged. We have come to the United Nations General Assembly once again to renew our faith in the noble ideals of the Organization and to reaffirm our commitment to the principles of its Charter. We find it, therefore, fitting for us to call upon those Member States which have consistently violated the goals of the United Nations and its Charter by either deliberately refusing to comply with the Organization's decisions or obstructing its missions for peace to reconsider their position seriously. The result of these violations has been a general perception of the United Nations as an ineffective organization, particUlarly in the field of international and regional conflicts. The pUblic apathy towards the Organization itself continues unabated, as if it is the fault of the Organization itself and not of the few powerful permanent members of the Security Council that place their national interest above everything else. Where interference with united Nations decisions is minimized, successes have been eminent, particUlarly in the areas of health, education and other activities carried out by the specialized agencies. The united Nations needs the full financial and political backing of all Member States, particularly in its efforts to promote peace, disarmament and a generally more equitable international order. improved much since two years ago, when we had the honour of coming to the rostrum to address the General Assembly. The tendency to resolve disputes by force still persists; the world political map has been dotted with at least 150 local wars since 1945. These conflicts have claimed millions of lives more than were claimed in the last two world wars - and that about sums up the sorry state of our world today. Allow us to put before this body some of the serious afflictions currently facing Lesotho and the southern African region as a whole. Lesotho is a small country, entirely surrounded by the Republic of South Africa, and - like most small developin9 countries - still in receipt of much-needed foreign aid. Because of this precarious geographical position, coupled with this dependency on foreign aid, Lesotho - like most small States - is exposed to consioerable problems in coming to a forum such as this one and taking the rightful liberty freely to state its case, concerns, plight, and dilemmas, all of which we feel we desperately need to bring to the attention of the Assembly. As we all know, the kind of problems which small nations face in stating their concerns freely should not exist, because one of the basic and fundamental principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter is to provide a platform for the voice of all Member States to be heard and to provide an arena for small nations, expecially, to mix and participate with bigger nations free from fear of retaliatory consequences. Despite that basic principle, Lesotho and all other small States are subject to considerable external pressures to conform with the wishes and the interests of those to whom they are supposedly beholden and either say nothing or say only that which will please and is required of them. History has placed us in a geographical and economic situation such that we are completely surrounded by one country, the Republic of South Africa, a situation that is unique to Lesotho. We have watched from within the political scenario as it has been evolving, from 1910, when there was a call for a national convention to determine the future of that country and the participation of all in its administration, to the present day, when the social, economic, racial and political conflicts have developed into a violent confrontation. As a neighbour of South Africa and a member of the international body of nations, we have witnessed with growing concern and anxiety the developments in that country and the rest of our subregion. A correct political direction in 1910, guaranteeing the accommodation of the majority black South Africans in the aspirations and political dispensations of the day and rejecting colour as a basis for determining man's worth, would have ensured a happy, non-racial South Africa enjoying a healthy economic and political development. That is what could have happened. The current situation is that all the countries of the subregion are engaged in a bitter struggle for a happy and prosperous future for southern Africa. For the States members of the South African Development Co-ordination Conference to build up development strategies that will en&ure their sustainable economies, dependent on collective security. It is a struggle whose central causes, whose enormous costs in terms of human misery, human degradation and human life, are often obscured and even distorted by other international interests, concerns and priorities. It is a struggle that is surely one of the most urgent and outstanding moral issues of our time to face the Assembly. Its outcome will h~ve profound consequences, not only for us in southern Africa, but for Africa as a whole. It is a struggle that the international community - if it has the political will, for the capacity is there - could bring to a just and early conclusion, both to shorten the suffering it causes and to prevent the consequences of the alternative, which is protracted, violent struggle wherein the peace and political and economic stability of southern Africa could pass beyond the reach of all of us for many years to come. Lesotho's geographical position exposes it to peculiar challenges to its national and territorial integrity, to its freedom of action and to its right to seek more self-reliant, self-sustaining development. Those challenges, and their ~onsequences for the rights of small nations as sovereign States, only serve to increase our sense of unity with those who are struggling for the human rights, human dignity and justice that have long since been secured, valued and respected y most of the big, wealthy and powerful nations. In carrying out our obligations ~der the various international conventions we shall abide strictly by the terms ld conditions therein prescribed. We shall, therefore, expect all concerned to >-operate fully with us in their discharge. Our sense of commitment, sometimes coupled with frustration in the face of the :ealities of Lesotho's position, serves only to commit us more deeply to the cause of the majority in South Africa, our brothers and sisters, our neighbours and friends. Our policies are and will remain one with those embodied in the united (King Moshoeshoel covenants on human rights, all of which prohibit racism and all forms of degrading discriminatory systems based on power, wealth and political manipulations. We are also committed to the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, to the principles that underpin the Freedom Charter and to the African Charter of Human and People's Rights, whose preamble recognizes the duty of all African States to do whatever is in their power to secure the elimination of apartheid and all that itstanas for. The costs - in terms of human life, human suffering and human degradation - of the conflict raging in our region, and the cost of destabilization, far outweigh the costs that would be felt by all of us if apartheid were to be dismantled and abolished immediately. Apart from the inestimable costs in human life, the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference estimated that in the years 1980 to 1984 the destabilization of our economies cost SADCC's member States $US 12,000 million, $US 4,000 million of that total being the result of direct war damage. Those costs continue to rise, outstripping the total amount of foreign aid given to our States. This kind of cost, to nations that desperately need to focus all their resources and energies on their economic development for self-reliance and the abolition of poverty, actually prevents any such development, while also undermining our credibility at home and abroad. The extensive economic potential of our region therefore remains undeveloped, and we continue to suffer from both overt and covert economic sanctions and political blackmail. Today we appeal to all the members of the Assembly actively and urgently to begin to seek the most effective means of helping all of us in southern Africa to begin to lay the foundations for a happier, new, post-aEartheid order based on those principles the Assembly cherishes and has enshrined. We would therefore ask for immediate international support for the SADCC countries through the development (King Moshoeshoe) unnecessary dependency, to develop SADCC's collective security and to promote self-reliant, sustainable economies. If the international community supported such goals while actively deterring all efforts of destabilization against our countries, such support would be yet one more peaceful measure to bring about the desired changes for all of us in the region. For Lesotho, whose economic and political future will depend on its membership in SADCC and the effective help we get through it, it is our only chance to secure the political, economic and national integrity so vital to preserve and strengthen our national identity. In addition to SADCC, there is much to. be gained by supporting our commitment to the Non-Aligned Movement. The securing of true peace and freedom from military threats and economic blackmail can only bring genuine political and economic stability to our region. If the basic principles of the Non-Aligned Movement are objectively examined, one concludes that there are no real dangers in alignment with such principles. Africa is looking for its own political and social forms of organization based on a combination of indigenous factors of custom and culture and 'n world values. Whether it is for the present SADCC members or for our brothers Id sisters in South Africa and Namibia, a strong human-rights posture by all the embers of the Assembly can only enhance the prospects for peaceful transformation n southern Africa as a whole and South Africa in particular. As we stand here today, we humbly appeal to the Assembly to re-examine the ssues at stake in the light of the new realities and the new dangers of the present .ime and to seek to secure the undoubted influence of international pressure to legotiate, now, for a settlement that will bring true peace and genuine security to southern Africa because we may not have such an opportunity for a long time to come. (King Moshoeshoe) We wish this Assembly to recognize that it is no longer a question of whether apartheid should be dismantled and abolished, for we in southern Africa are talking about how it will be abolished, about when it will be abolished, on whose timetable it will happen, and with what kind of outside involvement and help it will happen. It is therefore vital for all of us in southern Africa that the international community see these realities of our present struggle not in terms of any East-West conflict and not in terms of ideologies or alignments. There is a crucial, central interdependence of all the nations and races in such a resource-rich region as southern Africa. The economic experience and expertise of anyone group will always be needed, as will the active partnership and skills of the other groups, in moving towards economic prosperity and stability that can only be to the advantage of all of us. We are all faced with a situation that cannot be compared with the post-colonial era, which involved the departure of one nation or ruler. We have all come to know and accept for many years now that ultimately we shall all have to learn to live together, or we shall perish together. No one will be required to leave, for we all recognize that we need each other; and those in the majority groups hope that those in the minority groups will stay, and not feel threatened or swamped. But such a state of affairs can come about only by means of a common citizenship for all and a universal franchise based on agreed formulas and a carefully worked out system of participation, sharing and representation that safeguards the rights of all. This is no wild dream; it is a vital and urgent necessity, and we seek the active co-operation of the international community to ensure that negotiations on such a transition take place in the very near future. It will not be easy, but it is the only solution if we are to avoid alternatives all too terrible either to contemplate or to allow. (King Moshoeshoe) Because of our very peculiar and vulnerable situation in the region, Lesotho has to make a special appeal for recognition of its special position and its special political and economic needs. We desperately need more specific international help to enable us to achieve a degree of self-reliance - economic political - in order to lessen our dependence, the degree of which at present renders us most vulnerable and inhibits and distorts our genuine efforts towards strengthening, protecting, and defending our sovereignty and national integrity. We have the will, but at present our means are inadequate, hence our special appeal. Today the world is dotted with flash-points of tension and conflict. The peoples of Kampuchea and Afghanistan have for many years now been the victims of war and painful occupation. Lesotho, being a small country that has suffered from war and territorial dispossession in its history, abides strictly by the principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. We therefore believe that we stand on higher moral ground when we request the withdrawal of foreign troops from those countries and many others throughout the world so that their peoples can enjoy peace. We request that their sovereignty and non-aligned status be respected by all. The suffering of the Palestinian people and the people of Lebanon has been Ing and painful. It is obvious that rhetoric has not brought much comfort to the lestinian people. The Middle East situation now requires bold and imaginative litiatives by all the parties concerned. These initiatives should be geared owards bringing about an international conference on the Middle East situation in which all the parties to the conflict participate on an equal footing and without pre-conditions. The right of Israel to exist as a sovereign State with recognized and secure borders and the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their and own and ultimately to independence and sovereignty are essential elements of a lasting and peaceful solution of the Middle East crisis. It would be remiss of us not to express our strong concern about the present situation in the Gulf. The fratricidal war between Iran and Iraq has been allowed to go on for too long, regardless of the cause. Some of us have watched helplessly for years now as two Islamic countries, bound together by traditions of culture, religion and beliefs and Members of the United Nations, have deployed the scarce resources at their disposal to destroy one another. The destruction of economic infrastructure and the disruption of shipping in the area continue unabated. As in all wars tOday, the outside Powers are deeply involved. Today, the outside Powers seek the imposition by the Security Council of sanctions against Iran. To us the imposition of sanctions is tantamount to a declaration of war on another front. We fully support Security Council resolution 598 (1987), calling for a cease-fire in this conflict that has caused so much loss of life and destruction of property. We followed with great hope the mission of the Secretary-General to that troubled area. No effort should be spared to bring lasting peace to those two nations, with which my own country enjoys fraternal relations. We have been greatly encouraged by the recent agreement between the united States and the Soviet Union on the elimination of medium-range missiles in Western Europe. This significant development should be applauded, for it signifies a thaw in the relations between the two super-Powers and a marked reduction in East-West tension. We can hardly draw any comfort from the state of the world economic situation, especially as it affects developing countries. The most serious setback to economic development in developing countries has been the alarming levels and accelerated rates of net transfers of financial reSources from developing to developed countries. The increasing debt crisis of developing countries, which is far from being resolved, remains the most Severe strain on economic growth. This, coupled with the performance of world trade, whereby the developed nations are applying restrictive macro-economic and trade policies, has resulted in the most unpromising economic situation for us in the third world. The current international economic situation has been brought about by the economic and financial order of the present day, which is obviously highly unjust. Being among the least developed of the developing countries, Lesotho is committed to the resumption at the earliest possible date of the stalled North-South dialogue. We also believe that meaningful global economic negotiations are bound to lessen international tensions and insecurities. We therefore call upon the developed nations to show a more positive attitude. We are aware that the recent International Conference on the Relationship Between Disarmament and Development has drawn very encouraging and useful conclusions, which we hope will be regarded as such by all concerned. We have always felt that too many valuable resources are being wasted on rearmament and the production of weapons of mass destruction, resources which could be deployed more usefully for socio-economic development in order to lessen the gap between the leveloped and the developing nations.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the ~ad of State of the Kingdom of Lesotho for the important statement he has just nade. His Majesty Motlotlehi King Moshoeshoe 11 of Lesotho was escorted from the General Assembl~ Hall. (King Moshoeshoe) GENERAL DEBATE Mr. PETERS (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines): Permit me first to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of the forty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly. I am confident that your skills and ability, as exemplified by your illustrious career, will lead this session to significant results. I wish to take this opportunity to express my delegation's appreciation of your predecessor, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, for the effective manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the forty-first session of the General Assembly •. We wish also to express our support for the untiring efforts of our Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, sometimes despite serious setbacks, to find solutions to the many conflicts in the world today. No lasting solutions can be achieved without a genuine effort of peaceful co-operation by all United Nations Member States. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is a small eastern Caribbean State. Like many other States represented in this Assembly, my country is a product of the post-war decolonization process. We gained our independence in 1979 and were admitted to the United Nations in 1980. Our view of the world and the relations we have with other States have been fashioned by our history, our present circumstances and our perceptions of the world around us. If representatives can picture in their minds a small, tropical island 133 square miles in area and approximately 40 other smaller islands stretching for 100 miles along the outer rim of the Caribbean Basin, they may be able to get an idea of the country I represent. The narrow coastal plain and interior mountain valle s on Saint Vincent, together with six of the Grenadine Islands, support a population of 110,000 Vincentians. They should consider also a country in which half the population is under the age of 21, where unemployment is currently at about 30 per cent of the labour force and which three times during the past two years has seen its major export crops destroyed by tropical storms; a country without an international airport to service its most important sector, tourism. Those are some basic facts about my country. Yet, the records of this Organization will be found to contain hardly any pleas from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines for special attention. Forming part of the English-speaking Caribbean, a region characterized by long democratic traditions and the rule of law, we are a people which emerged just over ~OO years ago from the institution of slavery and the plantation system, an even worse form of apartheid than that practised in South Africa today. Cut adrift from the metropolitan Power by the stormy winds of decolonization and without adequate preparation or economic safeguards, we have been forced to draw upon our own spiritual reserves and resourcefulness to survive. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines is governed at the present time by the New Democratic Party, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable James Fitz-Allen Mitchell. In presenting the annual budget in Parliament two months ago, the Prime Minister analysed the problems facing the country in the year ahead and concluded his address as follows: limy Government is anticipating that the new year will be a better one for the people of this country. With it will come new challenges and major decisions, but we are a country of bright, energetic and ambitious people and I am confident that the right decisions will be taken at the right time. 11 Notwithstanding the difficulties we face as a country, there are occasional rays of hope, such as, for example, the International Monetary Fund's June 1987 "In the last few years Saint Vincent and the Grenadines has achieved a major improvement in public finances, which has facilitated a marked recovery in the financial position of the State-owned National Commercial Bank and a considerable strengthening in the country's external position." I'Peace and Justice" is the motto which Saint Vincent and the Grenadines adopted over a century ago. It is not surprising therefore that the United Nations, with the Charter as its centre-piece, holds special significance for my Government and people, for the ideals which the Charter seeks to promote are, indeed, peace and justice. This, our Organization, is one born of bitter wartime experiences and human sUffering. Coming into existence 43 years ago, it then represented, and still embodies today, man's highest aspirations and goals. In the Charter are crystallized mankind's highest ideals, such as the sanctity of life, the dignity and worth of the individual, peace, freedom and social and economic justice. The Charter of the united Nations is the outstanding achievement of our century, and my delegation believes that, now as we approach the twenty-first century, man's best hope of survival lies in his ability to transform the Charter from a mere legal instrument into a living and dynamic principle enshrined in our legal systems and in our hearts. Peace Is a basic condition necessary for achieving the fruits of civilization. To the degree that the arms race and geopolitical and regional conflicts and tensions eXist, to that same degree we fail to achieve the goals of progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. There is a direct relationship betweeen peace and development and, as a corollary, between disarmament and development. Not many deny this. My delegation, like all other delegations represented in this Assembly, therefore welcomes the recent announcement by the United States of America and the Soviet Union of an agreement in principle for the global elimination of land-based lntermediate nuclear weapons. We hope that this historic agreement between the !uper-Powers represents the first sign on the horizon of a new day in which there 'ill be complete elimination of all nuclear missiles, both intermediate and ;trategic, and that it will usher in an era of peace on this planet so satiated ~ith war. Notwithstanding this unseasonal thaw in relations between the super-Powers, the international ,situation remains very volatile and explosive. It is imperative that the present momentum be maintained in order to bring about a more lasting easing of global tension. In my own region, the signing of the Guatemala Agreement in August of this year by the five Presidents of Central America is a most welcome and encouraging development. The Costa Rican initiative based on the invaluable work of the Contadora and its support Groups deserves our fullest support. My country also welcomes the Cartagena Protocol signed last year in the Republic of Colombia, which opens the way for the Caribbean countries of Guyana and Belize to become members of the Organization of American States. The war in the Gulf region between Iran and Iraq cries out for a peaceful sOlution. We support the Secretary-General in his efforts to find such a solution and we call on Iran and Iraq to heed the call of the international community and abide by the terms of Security Council resolution 59B (19B?) for a cease-fire and to put an end eventually to the senseless slaughter. My delegation notes the increased interest on the part of the international community in the idea of a conference on the Middle East. The basis of a Middle East settlement already exists in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). This must include the right of all States in the region, including Israel, to exist within secure boundaries; the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including the right to establish a State of their ownJ and the withdrawal of Israel from all Arab territo~ies occupied since 1967. Afghanistan and Kampuchea still remain under foreign occupation. My delegation supports the efforts of the Secretary-General to find a solution to the problem of Afghanistan. We are also encouraged by the increasing contacts and ongoing dialogue between the countries of the Association of South-East Asian ions and Viet Nam and the various groups in Kampuchea. Afghanistan and Kampuchea, both of them small countries, still remain the victims of aggression and illegal occupation by larger, more powerful neighbours. This is unacceptable to the international community, and my delegation joins in the international consensus calling for withdrawal of all foreign troops from those countries. The Afghans and Kampucheans have the right to determine their destinies free from foreign interference or coercion. My delegation sees the need for increasing dialogue between North and South Korea. Only dialogue and negotiation will lead to a reconciliation of the views of the two parties. It is imperative that the deeply rooted mistrust between the two Koreas be replaced with understanding and. good will, which are surely not beyond the capacity of a people with different ideologies but whose culture is more than 5000 years old. We support the efforts of the Secretary-General in helping the two Cypriot communities to find a just solution to the problem of Cyprus without foreign intervention. We believe also that a negotiated settlement is the only acceptable solution to the question of the Malvinas Islands. There can be no lasting peace in a world without development or a world in which economic inequalities exist. The current global recession has created a number of problems which are very destabilizing to developing countries, especially to small open economies like those of the island States of the eastern caribbean. The international economy is going through a period of deep structural change, and solutions will have to be found for thorny problems such as the debt crisis, unbalanced terms of trade, international monetary instability, and unacceptably high levels of unemployment in developing countries. There is need for an integrated approach to those problems. The solutions adopted must be such that all countries, large and small, might benefit from the new technologies and possibilities of our times. Encouraging signs in this direction are the recently concluded seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the Uruguay Round launched in Punta del Este in Uruguay in September 1986. A strange anomaly of our time is the global waste of precious resources on armaments while millions everywhere suffer from illiteracy and poverty and die from malnutrition and starvation. The International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development held in New York in August and September of this year reminded us of these hard realities. This is a moral problem that strikes at the very roots of human survival. Instead of expenditures on arms, there is an urgent need to allocate these resources to the eradication of hunger and disease, including the deadly threat of AIDS (acquired immune-deficiency syndrome), and to finding solutions to pressing problelRs relating to the environment. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines will support all initiatives at the current session of the General Assembly aimed at putting these issues into perspective. There is a new initiative among the eastern Caribbean States for political and economic integration, in an attempt to harness our very limited resources to provide a better standard of living for our peoples. Serious consideration is being given at the moment to unification as a strategy for development in the subregion. The advantages to be derived from such a union in terms of increasing returns within a widening scope of activities are obvious. The true goal of human endeavour is development and happiness. All our efforts at the national and international levels should have as their aim, as stated in the Charter of the United Nations, the reaffirmation of our faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small. No greater denial or abuse of these rights exists today than that inherent in the monstrous practice of apartheid by the racist regime in South Africa. This is an issue which continues to threaten international peace and security. South Africa has no intention of dismantling the immoral system of apartheid. It has intensified its campaign of terror and brutality against the oppressed masses within its own borders and in surrounding States. The situation is becoming more and more explosive. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines jOlns with the international community in calling for comprehensive, mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter. The Saint Vincent and the Grenadines delegation equally condemns the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa and calls for the immediate independence of Namibia through implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). My delegation condemns all assaults on the rights of man, whether social or political in nature, and condemns all forms of intolerance whether they are based on religion, colour or class. Finally, my delegation congratulates you, Mr. President, on the success of this debate and pledges its fullest support to you for the remainder of the present session of the General Assembly. We should free ourselves from the notion that the United Nations has failed; it has registered considerable success in a variety of areas of international co-operation. While it cannot perhaps negotiate for the world, it can help the world to negotiate. History has saddled us with a heavy burden and responsibility, and as we look towards the twenty-first century, we should redouble our efforts to achieve the goals and ideals enshrined in the United Nations Charter of peace, development, happiness and love for all mankind. The task before us is far too great to waste any more time. We must act now. Mr. SEY (Gambia): Allow me, first of all, to extend to you, Sir, my sincere congratulations on your election to the presidency of the forty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly. My delegation is confident that as a statesman of distinction with well-known qualities of leadership you will guide our deliberations during this session to a successful conclusion. We are confident that this session will continue the good work and even accelerate the momentum and progress generated by the forty-first session. Kindly permit me also to extend a well-deserved tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, for the efficient and dignified manner in which he presided over the forty-first session - a session that will no doubt be remembered as one of the most crucial of this body. I should like, finally, to pay tribute to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his invaluable service to this Organization and his commitment to the peace and security of the world, and the laudable efforts he continues to exert in promoting good will and understanding among all nations. We find ourselves in a momentous period in the history of mankind. The dangers and challenges facing nations, individually and collectively, have been unprecedented in the last quarter in this century. Many of our countries are facing an increasingly critical economic situation as the gap between developed and (Mr. Peters, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines) general state of instability continue to persist in many parts of the globe. We in the Gambia view these negative trends and developments as seriously endangering international peace and security. Only two years ago, amid the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, the President of the Republic of the Gambia, His Excellency Alhaji Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, unequivocally reminded us from this very rostrum that, despite the significant achievements of the united Nations in numerous fields of human endeavours, the commemoration was taking place against a background of continuing tragedies in the vast majority of developing countries. Although important strides have been made over the past two years, poverty, hunger, all forms of social injustice and wars continue to threaten the survival of millions of people around the world. It is against this background that I now wish to examine, briefly, some of the economic and political issues which ought to preoccupy the attention of every delegation in this Assembly. I am of course mindful of the fact that most of the speakers who preceded me have brilliantly made detailed analyses of these issues. I shall therefore confine myself to those which need to be constantly emphasized. My delegation notes with regret that the economic situation facing developing :ountries continues to deteriorate. The difficulties in implementing our levelopment policies, individually and collectively, have been compounded by the ontinuing bleak international economic climate. This unfavourable climate is rought about by the sharp decline in the terms of trade and high interest rates ogether with the shortening of maturities and an increasingly heavy debt-servicing urden exacerbated by the sharp decline in the price of primary commodities. The economies of developing countries in general have continued to show negative signs of growth and, in spite of painful sacrifices made in recent years, the per capita incomes in these countries continue to decline. Underlying these trends is the evidence of the severe strain imposed by the global recession at the turn of the decade. 1bere has also been a significant slow-down of growth in the world economy, with far-reaching consequences on international trade. In the developing countries, incentives for investment and production have sharply eroded in the wake of declining commodity prices and increased protectionism. Faced with these overwhelming odds, developing countries have suffered a serious reversal in their development efforts due to substantial loss of export earnings and mounting indebtedness. (Mr. Sey, Gambia) My delegation therefore firmly believes that there is need for economic preventive medication and a reassessment of the world economic situation, as it is evident that the present economic crisis works manifest injustice on all developing nations. It will be recalled that the threat of a universal economic catastrophe has compelled both developed and developing countries to focus more attention on the need for close co-operation. Notwithstanding this spontaneous awareness of concerted international action to resolve contemporary global economic problems, the necessary political will is regrettably still far from adequate. Yet the worsening economic crisis, which stems from the persistent denial of the developed countries to satisfy the basic needs of the majority of mankind, constitutes the greatest threat to world peace and security. While we recognize that mankind has the vision and capacity to guarantee the maintenance of world peace and the socio-economic development of all nations, we are more than convinced that narrow self-interest are the main stumbling-block to the realization of these global objectives. It is gratifying to note, however, that at the level of the African continent we have with renewed commitment embarked upon a programme of action for the dual purpose of survival and development. I am referring to the United Nations Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at the special session on Africa in ~ay of last year. Mindful of the fact that the socia-economic progress of our continent is primarily our own responsibility, we in the Gambia, like other countries in the developing world, have been pursuing an economic recovery programme. In response to the deteriorating economic situation, in mid-1985 the Government of the Gambia (Mr. Sey, Gambia) adopted a comprehensive economic recovery programme aimed at laying the basis for sustained economic growth while restoring domestic and external financial equilibrium. The programme aims specifically at achieving an annual growth rate of real domestic product of 3.3 per cent during the period 1986/87-1988/89, while reducing the inflation rate from 35 per cent, on an annual basis, in 1985/86 to below 10 per cent in 1988/89. In the external sector, the programme's main objectives were to build up official foreign exchange reserves, reduce the large stock of external-payment arrears, normalize relations with creditors through rescheduling agreements and the timely servicing of non-schedulable obligations. In pursuit of those objectives, the Government embarked on a strategy aimed both at reducing domestic absorption and promoting growth in output. To curtail inflationary pressures and restore external payments balance, the strategy emphasizes prUdent demand management through appropriate fiscal, monetary, exchange-rate, pricing and external-debt policies. To develop the productive sectors, the economic recovery programme aims at promoting private initiative through the provision of appropriate price and other incentives, primarily in agriculture, manUfacturing and fisheries. To achieve greater efficiency in public-sector operations, the programme calls for significant reductions in government employment, a reorganization of the civil service, rationalization and divestiture of major public enterprises, and more stringent project selection to improve the productivity of the pUblic sector. Significant progress has been made in implementing the programme, and the Gambia economic and financial performance to date has exceeded the programme's objective in many respects. Real growth in the gross domestic product in 1986/87 is estimated at 6 per cent, compared with the programme target of 3.3 per cent. At the same time, the rate of increase in the consumer pr ice index is about 20 per cent, from 70 per cent in 1985/86. In 1986/87, the external current account, excluding official transfers, widened to about 40 million special drawing rights (SDR) - 34 per cent of the gross domestic product - or SDR 5 million above the programme target. The overall balance of payments, elCcluding exceptional financing, for which a deficit of SDR 20.4 million was forecast, was virtually in balance. The build-up in gross official foreign reserves plus the reduction in elCternal payments arrears amounted to about SDR 35 million, compared with the initial programme objective of SDR 5.5 million. I must confess that it has been a very painful process, in view of the magnitude of the sacrifices made by our people, but we are also consoled by the fact that the results obtained so far have been encouraging. It is a matter of great concern that, despite the efforts being made by our countries, the international community has not been forthcoming in providing increased flow of official development assistance to the continent and has not adequately addressed the urgent need to solve the menacing problem of Africa's indebtedness. Our efforts to stimulate economic growth and raise the living standards of our geoples are being suffocated by the weight of debt-service obligations. Unless the evastating debt burden and the continued fall in international commodity prices re given urgent attention by the international community, our efforts to revive ~r fragile economies will be futile. The external debt crisis has already reached alarming proportions and, as is ecognized in Genera~ Assembly resolution 41/202, adQpted by consensus at the forty-first session, an integrated approach involving creditor and debtor nations, multilateral financial institutions and international private banks is necessary if (Mr. Sey, Gambia) durable solutions to the debt problem are to be found. The need for an international conference to tackle this problem is becoming even more pressing. The hard fact is that, although debtor countries are willing to repay their debts, they are simply unable to do so in the present economic climate. We therefore urge the forty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly to take a decision to convene such a conference without any further delay. At this juncture I should like to commend the gestures of some countries like Canada, Great Britain, the Scandinavian countries and the Federal Republic of Germany for having decided to write off the debts of some developing countries or convert loans to grants. I appeal to the entire international donor community to focus greater attention on Africa'S indebtedness and help in alleviating this terrible scourge with a view to responding more favourably to our recovery efforts and the plight of our peoples, who are yearning for a better life. Since my country falls within the Sahelian zone, which for more than a decade has been suffering from severe drought, I would be failing in my duty if I did not make even a passing but important observation on the need to address the issues of food security, drought control and desertification, as well as water-resources development and management. All those issues are crucial to our recovery efforts. My delegation strongly believes that if drought-stricken countries do not succeed in effectively addressing those problems - of course, with the full support of the international community - our objectives of increasing agriCUltural production and encouraging self-sufficiency in food for the total well-being of our people will elude us. (Mr. Sey, Gambia) My delegation looks forward with great anticipation to the new round of multilateral trade negotiations agreed upon at Punta del Este, Uruguay, just a year ago. We hope the new round will bring about a significant reversal of present trends in international trade. My delegation is also gratified by the outcome of the seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the adoption of a Final Act which represents a significant commitment by the international community to address the most critical areas of multilateral trade in the light of the special needs of the least developed countries in Africa. We take note with a large measure of encouragement of the fact that the special needs of African countries have become a major focus of attention at the annual meetings of seven industrialized nations. The recent consensus reached at Venice on Africa's indebtedness and on the need for a substantial increase in the special facility for Africa is most reassuring. It is a source of great hope and encouragement also that the eighth replenishment of the International Development Association has been accorded overwhelming support. We are extremely happy to note that in his statement during the recent annual neeting of the Board of Governors of the World Bank, held in Washington, the Right ionourable Nigel Lawson, Chancellor of the Bxchequer of the United Kingdom, stressed the point that special action was required to help the very poorest and lost heavily indebted countries, particularly those of sub-Saharan Africa. We hope that this important and timely proposal will be pursued with vigour and a sense of ~rgency with a view to its adoption by the international donor community. There is no doubt that sustained economic growth and social progress can be achieved in international relations only if everyone recognizes that our mutual interdependence makes it imperative that all nations large and small be able to participate fully in international trade and excnanges, with an underlying While economic questions continue to attract the attention of the vast majority of nations, serious political problems in many parts of the globe still threaten world peace and security. Among these none is more explosive than the issue of apartheid South Africa. Apartheid is a system we all condemn, with total agreement that it should disappear; yet some of us are not merely concerned, but disturbed, that there is still disagreement as regards the adoption of a common approach to the eradication of apartheid. While we continue to have endless debates, the black majority of South Africa remains trapped in the shadow of the most brutal repression and persecution carried out by the Pretoria regime in blatant disregard of the most fundamental values and ideals on which this Organization was founded. The international community has failed to reach consensus on the comprehensive and far-reaching measures necessary to bring apartheid to an end. Rut the heroic masses have remained resolute in their struggle to dismantle apartheid, under the dynamic leadership of the African National Congress (ANC) and the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC), even in the face of arbitrary arrests, imprisonment without trial and indiscriminate killing of victims including religious leaders, women and children. My Government strongly and unequivocally condemns the senseless massacre and the continued denial of fundamental freedoms. My delegation will hasten to participate in any substantive discussions and concerted international action to bring apartheid to its inevitable end. In the meantime, we are of the view that the only sensible means left to deal with apartheid South Africa is the imposition of mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the united Nations Charter. We are also of the opinion that in order to create an atmosphere conducive to peaceful dialogue, Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners languishing in South African gaols must be released immediately and unconditionally. My delegation has read with measured care the speech recently delivered in New York by Mr. George Shultz, Secretary of State of the United States, to the Business Council for International understanding. We are of the view that that important statement on the situation in South Africa was positive in both approach and content and that it could therefore form the basis for negotiations among all interested parties in South Africa with the full participation of the ANC and the PAC. I hasten to add that if any proposed solution is to enjoy serious consideration it must have the support of the front-line States and the members of the Security COuncil. My delegation is saddened too by the situation in neighbouring Namibia, where Pretoria remains intransigent in its defiance of the Security Council. South Africa is clearly on a collision course with disaster, having deliberately frustrated all efforts aimed at a peaceful transition to a multi-racial society. Despite our collective efforts within the framework of the Security Council to exercise authority over the Territory through the adoption of numerous resolutions, South Africa has refused with impunity to obey the Security Council on the question of self-determination and independence for Namibia in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). My delegation fully supports the imposition of mandatory sanctions within the framework of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. We are convinced that this is the most viable solution to the Namibian problem. We find it disturbing that South Africa's neighbours, particularly the front-line States, have become hostages to brutal aggression and destabilization by the Pretoria regime. In that regard, my delegation strongly urges the international community to provide those nations the assitance that would guarantee their territorial integrity and independence. The unending saga of the Palestine tragedy touches the hearts of all those who believe in self-determination. My delegation believes that respect for the Palestinian quest for self-determination is a necessary pre-condition for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We consider the situation in the occupied Arab territories both appalling and unacceptable. It is therefore in this spirit that we consider that the convening of an international conference on the Middle East under United Nations auspices would be an important step in the search for a lasting settlement of this grave human tragedy. Such a conference can be successful only if the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) participates fully and on an equal footing with the other parties to the conflict. The situation in Lebanon is another unfolding tragedy of immeasurable proportions, and one which violates all established international norms. We believe that the time has come for the people of Lebanon to live up to their national aspiration to sovereignty and territorial integrity. To this end, we call for the complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanese territory and demand respect for the territorial integrity and independence of Lebanon. The Gulf war between Iran and Iraq continues to be a major concern of my Government - and indeed of my President, Alhaji sir Dawda Jawara - as the state of hostilities between the two sides drags into its eighth year .and assumes catastrophic new dimensions. As Chairman of the Peace Committee of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the President of the Gambia has, since 1984, been actively engaged in this formidable process of mediation. Recent developments in the region, however, have caused dismay and anxiety in the entire Islamic ~, while further seriously endangering world peace and security. We therefore welcome and applaud ongoing initiatives by the Secretary-General to bring that human tragedy to an early settlement. with regard to the situation in South-East Asia, my Government fully supports the efforts beinq made by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and we maintain the view that the military occupation of Kampuchea constitutes a violation of the fundamental principles of international law embodied in the Charter. The occupation also violates the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States and the rights of the Kampuchean peoples to self-determination. The youth of that country have lived the prime of their lives under the spectre of war and repression, and should be allowed the opportunity to determine their own destiny. It is regrettable that after eight years of foreign domination, and in spite of the noble efforts of the Secretary-General and his Personal Representative, Mr. Cordovez, a political settlement in Afghanistan has still not been achieved. My delegation is of the view that the only sure way of achieving a quick and amicable solution of the Afghan problem is by the unconditional withdrawal of all foreign troops, based on the decision of this Assembly. We therefore urge those responsible for the continuation of hostilities to recognize the rights of the Afghans to exercise self-determination. The problem of Afghanistan is one of foreign occupation, and once the withdrawal of foreign troops is achieved the Afghan people will quickly solve their internal problems, as history has proved time and time again. My delegation would like to place on record our deep appreciation to the Government of Pakistan for its constructive participation in the Geneva proximity talks and the attention given to the millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. The unification of Korea, and in the mean time the admission of both North and South Korea to the United Nations, is of particular interest to my delegation. We are convinced that dialogue between the two sides with an underlyingcomrnitment to the mutual interest of them both will help reduce tension and ultimately bring ~ .. ~..t a resolution of the problem. Although it was as long ago as 1948 that the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, almost 40 years later the civil, political, economic and cultural rights of millions of people around the world continue to be denied them. We in the Gambia are of the view that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) Commission on Human and People1s Rights, which was recently put in place by the summit of African Heads of State and Government, should be an adequate representation of the conscience of all nations. Our responsibilities in the field of human rights transcend the narrow limits of economic self-interest and political expediency. Our task is to uphold and promote the rights of peoples wherever they may be violated, threatened or otherwise compromised. My delegation is of the strong opinion that the time has now come to put an end to the denials of life and liberty and to the inhuman suffering which is the lot of millions of innocent human beings all over the world. We in the Gambia, under the leadership of President Alhaji Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara, are firmly committed to the protection of and respect for human rights. This is a commitment which is built upon the solid foundation of our domestic laws and which is a major determinant of our foreign policy. Respect for fundamental human rights, the corner-stone of Gambian democracy, is also the catalyst of our socio-economic development, for we firmly believe that only in an atmosphere of freedom and security can the individual effectively contribute to the collective good of all. Indeed, the struggle against colonialism, oppression and racism is yet another attempt to raise the level of human dignity. This is the backdrop against which the forty-second session of the General Assembly is being held. It is a period of unprecedented economic uncertainty, in which the gap between rich and poor continues to widen; it is a time of political crises in many parts of the world, when the peace, however fragile, that has prevailed since the founding of the United Nations is seriously threatened. But there is some degree of hope of overcoming these difficulties, since those who genuinely desire peace outnumber the forces of evil. And, because of our collective desire to seek peaceful solutions to the global problems we face, we still have the United Nations, whose machinery can be strengthened and better used, together with our regional organizations, inspired by the quest for development and peace, to translate ideas into action for the common good of humanity. However, I hasten to add that the United Nations can have little concrete impact so long as some members of the international community continue to view the abominable global problems in the narrow perspective of economic, political or strategic self- interest. Mr. STANISLAUS (Grenada): The fact that the Grenada delegation is speaking on the last day of the general debate in no way diminishes my delegation's pleasure at seeing you, Sir, preside over the business of the forty-second session of the General Assembly, with confidence and competence. My delegation joins in the many eloquent expressions of praise and gratitUde to your distinguished predecessor for his outstanding conduct of the forty-first session. The Grenada delegation also shares in the many warm tributes paid to the Secretary-General, for his untiring efforts and great diplomatic skills in the pursuit of peace. My delegation greets, salutes and congratulates the newly appointed Under-Secretary-General for Political and General Assembly Affairs, Ambassador Reed, who is amiable and knOWledgeable. When the curtain fell on the forty-first session many resolutions had been passed, and many situations had been resolved, for which that body could justly be proud. However, as the curtain rose on the forty-second session, certain perennial global issues impinging upon international peace and security remain unresolved. I shall refer to some of them presently. The word I.peace" echoes, re-echoes and reverberates throughout the length and breadth of this Hall, with a frequency that is almost deafening. And this is how it should be. For what the wor~d needs most at this time is peace. If peace is allowed to elude mankind indefinitely, the threat of nuclear war, which hangs over the universe like the sword of Damocles, will continue to contribute to the possibility of man's becoming an endangered species. Peace in the global context is not just the absence of war. Rather, it is a state arrived at when certain geopolitical, social, moral, economic and physical forces are in balance, under the impetus of a catalyst called "justice". Attainment of this state of equilibrium is more easily said than done, for the following reason. Unlike the natural sciences - mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and so forth - for which there exist appropriate equations and formulas for the solution of problems, in the social sciences, where peace, justice, security, morality and other global issues lie, there are no comparable equations and formulas. Resort is therefore made to reason, understanding, conscience, morality, past experience, compromise, good will, and so forth, in the resolution of those knotty global issues which impinge upon international peace and security. And therein lies the dilemma. In the practice of the art of diplomacy to resolve geopolitical issues, there are certain ingredients - association, compromise, confrontation, exclusion - which must be applied in delicate balance for the resolution of those dangerous situations which impinge upon international peace and security. How, when, where, why these ingredients are brought into play becomes the art and challenge of diplomacy. Some of the pressing global issues referred to during the general debate are also of grave concern to my delegation. The Iran-Iraq war, which began as a series of border conflicts in 1980, has now escalated into a full-blown conflagration on land, sea and air, despite the efforts of the Security COuncil and the Secretary-General to mediate the dispute. Of humanitarian concern are the attacks on civilian targets~ the resort to chemical warfare, contrary to the Geneva Protocol of 1925; the treatnlent of prisoners of war; and the interference with the right of free navigation, trade and commerce in international waters. The present situation in the Persian Gulf is fraught with dangerous implications and consequences. It should not be allowed to degenerate further. The pernicious and odious racial policies of South Africa - apartheid - have been of major concern to the international community for at least 35 years. Apartheid is systematized and institutionalized racism, which has no place in civilized society, for it is cruel and inhuman. The security Council has labelled it a crime against humanity. The Prime Minister of Grenada, the Right Honourable Herbert A. Blaize, when addressing the fortieth session of the General Assembly referred to apartheid as "injustice institutionalized". He stated: "There must, therefore, be urgent, united action to rid South Africa of the scourge of apartheid and minority rule, and to bring independence to Namibia". (A/40jPV.35, p. 48-50) Grenada's Minister of External Affairs, in his statement to the forty-first session of the General Assembly, emphasized that "Grenada will to the extent possible, and consistent with its own policies, support any move or action by the international community designed to bring about the dismantling of apartheid and the achievement of majority rule in South Africa". (A/4l/PV.32, p. 8) A Grenadian patriot, T. Albert Marryshow, of beloved and revered memory, the centennial of whose birth we are celebrating this year, wrote in 1917 in a series entitled "Cycles of Civilization" - a veritable literary treasure in the Grenada archives - that the civilized world would have to come to grips with the racist policies of South Africa in the future. I want to emphasize that that was 1917, long before there were many independent African States, long before the United Nations came into being. Marryshow concentrated much of his historical, ferocious, but justifiable attack on General Jan Smuts, one of the early architects of the alone in the colonies in 1917 against what was then considered to be a normal and benign situation. Today the situation in South Africa is the most abnormal and most malignant on the face of the earth - tyranny of the minority, terrorization of the majority. The external-debt problem, with its adverse economic consequences, especially in the developing countries, is a perfect example of how international peace and security can be threatened by a situation which can have dire social, political and economic consequences. Debt repayment and debt servicing, pose a hardship for, and place a stranglehold on, the economy of many developing countries, akin to a millstone around their necks. While the repayment of debt is a legal and moral responsibility of the debtor, debt relief should be a humane and moral consideration of some of the creditors, who in the context of the present global situation may be practising simple justice by putting back into the good earth a little of what has been taken out. History is replete with examples of how exploitation and injustice could have contributed to the debt problem. To the least developed countries, whose social and humanitarian programmes are held in abeyance because of debt repayment and debt servicing, the cynicism mingled with humour of a socio-economist can be applied - namely, that the inherent vice in some economic systems is the unequal sharing of blessings, while the inherent virtue in others is the equal sharing of miseries. In the final analysis, if the external-debt problem is allowed to erode further, the economies of both developed and developing countries stand to suffer. As one of the smallest island developing States Members of the United Nations, Grenada has a special interest in the question of island developing countries. Almost three years ago, on 18 December 1984, resolution 39/121, entitled "Specific measures in favour of island developing countries" was adopted by the General Assembly. That resolution reiterated the call for specific action in favour of island developing countries contained in five previous resolutions. Additionally, three resolutions of the united Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) called on the international community to recognize the special characteristics and handicaps of island developing countries, and to provide appropriate support to them in their development efforts. Unfortunately, nothing has been achieved except that in its resolution 41/163 of 5 December 1986 the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to prepare a comprehensive report, which would include specific recommendations to ensure that the Assembly at its forty-third session would be able to review the situation and act accordingly, in the interest of island developing countries. Grenada's delegation anticipates with high expectation positive results at the forty-third session. With respect to the special needs of island developing countries, my delegation is reminded of the saying of the great Chinese sage and philosopher, Confucius: give a man a fish, and you satisfy his needs for a day, teach a man to fish, and you satisfy his needs for many a day. In Central America, the recent peace initiative undertaken by five Presidents, which resulted in the Guatemala Agreement of 7 August, is a credit to their vision, judgement and spirit of goodwill. The ray of hope, the crack in the door, which the Agreement introduces should be seized upon. After examination, study and modification, where necessary, that historic document can form the basis for peace in the region. The settling of disputes by resort to force and violence is anachronistic and dangerous. All that is right or reasonable pleads for sister republics to make peace within states and among nations. In the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli dispute, which has been festering for some time, is now approaching a chronic state which could complicate the general Middle East situation. The doctrine of the right to self-determination is valid and indisputable. The right of Israel to exist as a State - a fait accompli for nearly 40 years - within safe and secure borders is well established. The existence of Israel is a fact of life which should not be challenged. Similarly, the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland within secure and recognized boundaries is a principle that has validity. The claim of the Palestinian people to a homeland in the land of their ancestors is a matter of history and simple justice. Their claim should not be thwarted as long as there is recognition of the principle of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence. It is believed that through the universal language of music, through the universal medium of sports, the world stands the best hope of attaining the universal goal of brotherhood. with this in mind, it is the hope of the Grenada delegation that the games of the XXIVth Olympiad, which will take place at Seoul, Korea, from 17 September to 2 October 1988, and the preparations for the Games will introduce a healing process so that the Korean problem can be resolved in the best interest of the Korean people. In the meantime the reality is that there are two Koreas, North Korea and South Korea, separated by a demilitarized zone under the supervision of United Nations forces. This interim arrangement will, it is hoped, yield to negotiation and dialogue, to the end that the Korean people may soon take their place in the international community. In Cyprus, Afghanistan, Kampuchea, the Falklands (Malvinas) and other areas of conflict it is the hope and prayer of my delegation that wisdom, understanding and justice will prevail, to the end that peace may eventually be assured. An area of global interest and common concern is the illicit trafficking in drugs and psychotropic substances, which, like the plague, is spreading over the face of the earth and gnawing at the very fabric of society. Concomitant with the craze for those dangerous substances is the proportionate increase in the level of violence, which is fast creating a seamy subculture in some societies. It is generally believed that drugs and international terrorism have a direct relationship. This twin menace is growing bolder every day and wreaking havoc on innocent and unsuspecting people. It should be interdicted at the source. Another area of global concern is the rapid spread of acquired immune-deficiency syndrome (AIDS), which like a scourge is approaching pandemic proportions. In this regard the prestigious United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) should continue to focus on the aetiology, prognosis and therapy for this health hazard, which has dangerous social consequences. The step recently taken by the President of the United states of America and the General Secretary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in agreeing in principle on the elimination of medium-range missiles from their nuclear arsenals is indeed heartening and inspires hope. It is the hope of mankind that, just as a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step, so the first step has been taken down the long, difficult and tortuous road towards total and complete nuclear disarmament. Finally, listening and speaking in this fraternal forum of the United Nations, where confrontational and adversarial issues very often arise, my delegation is chastened by the divine admonition. first have peace in your hearts, and then you will able to give peace to others. Mr.THOMPSON (Fiji): My delegation warmly congratulates you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the forty-second session of the General Assembly. Our thanks and compliments go to your predecessor, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, the Foreign Minis ter of Bangladesh, for his outstanding leadership of the forty-first session. The international community is aware of the recent political and constitutional deve10pnents which have led to the change of Government in Fiji. The situation is an internal matter which the people of Fiji must be allowed to resolve in their own way. Interference of any kind from outside will not help in resolving our domestic difficu1 ties, and we urge all Member States to show understanding of our situation. Looking back at the international scene over this past year, my Government has been gr ea tly encouraged by the many ins tances of pos i tive developments, whi ch indicate that, in spite of serious differences, conflicting countries can come to terms wi th each other. The recent conclusion of the important peace accord between five Central American countries is a case in point. The many trouble-spots which remain must be tackled in the same spirit if they are to disappear from our agenda. Sadly, the Middle East remains an area of violent turbulence and a source of potential international instability. The Iran-Iraq war is a tragic reminder of the futility of the use of force. The recent initiatives, especially by the Security Council and by the personal involvement of the Secretary-General, to bring an end to that conflict are a welcome development, and we pray for their success. My Government remains committed to the pr inciple of the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and the right of all States, inclUding Israel, to safe and secure boundaries. (Mr. Thompson, Fiji) As an indication of our willingness to contribute in whatever way we can to the peace process in this region, we have continued to maintain troops within the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) as well as in Sinai. However, our participation in the United Nations peace-keeping forces in Lebanon has cost us dearly. Twenty-two of our soldiers have lost their lives in that distant land while our country has been burdened with an escalating debt of over $20 million. This is a very heavy and unfair burden on a small country like Fiji. We urge those states which have withheld thir contributions in the past to pay up their arrears and those States still currently withholding them to meet their obligations. We are particularly distressed that the United States, one of the main promoters of UNIFIL, is now the major withholder. Nothing new can be said to describe the appalling situation in South Africa. There are, however, hopeful signs that some moderate elements within South Africa are attempting to find an honourable way forward, but their voices are still too feeble and need support from outside. The international community must continue to exert all pressure on South Africa to abandon apartheid. South Africa's stranglehold over Namibia, and its refusal to implement Security Council resolution 435 (1978) in continuing defiance of the rest of the world, is a sorry indictment of the impotence of the international community when only a few countries keep supporting that regime. Once more, this General Assembly will review the situation in Kampuchea, Afghanistan and Cyprus. The people of those countries have gone through another year of oppression, violence and intimidation but their spirits remain high, hopeful that justice must soon come their way. We again urge the withdrawal of all foreign forces and a return to respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of those countries. While wars are raging in several parts of the world, new ones must be prevented from erupting elsewhere. For that reason it is a matter of urgency that preventive measures be adopted to defuse tensions in areas like the Korean peninsula. We urge the Governments of both South and North Korea to resume dialogue with a view to resolving their differences by negotiation in order to achieve a peaceful reunification. Pending a just and durable settlement, we support the call for admission of both Koreas to the United Nations and meanwhile urge them to coexist peacefully. The recent peace accord in Central America is a bold initiative by the countries concerned. They should be given every support to help the accord to work. We were pleased to be part of the consensus resolution adopted in this Assembly two days ago. Underlying much of the instability in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity. The heavy load of foreign debt now borne by developing countries is being aggravated by the protectionist policies which appear increasingly to be the trend in industrialized countries. The situation has worsened over the past few years, yet those countries wich the power and the resources to change the basis of the disparity, refuse or are reluctant to take effective action. The seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which was launched with so much optimism recently, seems also to have collided with the unwillingness of some developed countries to open their markets. A way must be found to remove the frustration and vicious circle of poverty and depression from the majority of the world's peoples. The final traces of colonialism are still to be laid to rest in many corners of the world. In our region, while the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands has moved towards self-determination, the same cannot be said for New Caledonia. That (Mr. Thompson, Fiji) neighbour of ours in the South Pacific has just gone through a referendum which was boycotted by most of the Kanak people. In spite of the advice and pleadings to abandon the referendum and establish dialogue with the the representatives of the indigenous people so that they too can be part of the political process, France insisted on carrying on. It is sad to see deeper bitterness and racial polarization developing. Our assessment is that a volatile situation exists in this close neighbour and we trust and pray that the principal parties involved will exercise good sense and restraint and work towards finding an acceptable solution to their problems. We trust that the wishes of the indigenous people will remain of priority concern to the French Government. The steady progress being made by other Territories still classified as Non-Self-Governing, under the careful surveillance of the decolonization Committee, is encouraging. Many of these Territories are in the Pacific. Although it should not need repeating, the people of the Territories concerned must be the ones to decide their future form of government, this should not be chosen for them, nor forced upon them, by over-zealous decolonizers. Since the forty-first session of the General Assembly, the South Pacific Nuclear-Free-Zone Treaty has come into effect. This has extended the nuclear-free zone beyond the area covered by the earlier Treaties of Tlatelolco and Antarctica and the three together cover nearly one third of the entire earth's surface. We are happy to note that of the nuclear Powers, both the Soviet union and China have signed the relevant Protocols. Naturally, we are disappointed that the United States, the United Kingdom and France have not seen fit to do so. We renew our plea to the Government of France to discontinue its nuclear testing at Mururoa. We urge France, which is a major Power as well as a permanent member of the Security Council, to heed the concern of the Pacific countries and thereby remove one of the main obstacles to the further promotion and enhancing of the friendly ties and co-operation existing between France and the Pacific countries. The work and recommendations of the Group of 18 has had a salutary effect on the cost and effectiveness of the United Nations bureaucracy. The Secretary-General must be commended for the seriousness and singlemindedness with which he has instituted streamlining and effected economies in administrative structures. Clearly, over the past year what we have seen emerge is a much leaner and, we hope, healthier Secretariat. Yet the tasks before it are certainly nO less difficult and complex, so the challenges facing them are daunting. My delegation pays a tribute to the Secretary-General and all his staff for the extraordinary efforts they have made in the service of mankind. This past year has seen enormous pressures falling upon the Secretary-General and his top aides and we congratulate them on their vigour and energy and on their abiding commitment to the ideals of the united family of nations.

We have heard the last speaker in the general debate. I shall now call on those representatives who wish to speak in exercise of their 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, and should be made by delegations from their seats. Mr. SAEMALA (Solomon Islands): I wish to refer to certain remarks made yesterday by the representative of France in exercise of his delegation1s right of reply after the statement by my Foreign Minister. The French representative spoke of contradictions by representatives from the South Pacific Forum when speaking on New Caledonia, a French Non-Self-Governing Territory. He said, among other things, that the representative of Solomon Islands spoke of the right of self-determination for only the Kanak people. What the French representative said is a misrepresentation of the Solomon Islands' position on New Caledonia. What he said is a grave distortion of my Foreign Minister's statement on New Caledonia and in particular of my Minister's statement on the right to self-determination of the people of New Caledonia. For purposes of clarity, this is what my Minister said yesterday: "I should like to restate here the basic position of Solomon Islands on New Caledonia. New Caledonia is a Non-Self-Governing Territory; therefore France, as the Administering Authority, is obliged to do everything possible to bring it to self-determination and independence. Solomon Islands fully supports independence for New Caledonia and it is our desire to see this objective achieved peacefully, without further bloodshed. (Mr. Saemala, Solomon Islands) "It is our firm posi tion tha t the Uni ted Na Hons, through its appropria te organ, must be actively involved in the decolonization process in New Caledonia. This is the only basis on which a legi timate act of self-determination should be pursued. Without such appropriate United Nations involvement, any de termina tion by the French au thori ties as to the choice of the people of New Caledonia for the future status of that Territory must not be accepted as a choice which has been made through the normal democratic process of free and fair elections. "The role that the Kanaks - the indigenous people of New Caledonia - must have in deciding the future of their homeland is vital to the question of independence. Of all the different ethnic groups in New Caledonia, the Kanaks make up the largest single group. Their position as represented by the FLNKS (Front de liberation'nationale' Kanak' socialiste), which commands the majority support of the Kanaks, is clear: they want to exercise their right to self-determination and independence and they wish to do so with United Nations involvement in accordance with the established principles and practices of the Charter." (A/42/PV.3l, pp. 47-48) The following position in relation to the future was clearly stated by the Prime Minister of western Samoa, the Forum's current Chairman, this morning. He said: "the future of New Caledonia can be assured only by the involvement of those who have long-term residence in and commitment to the Territory. We look to the administering Power to bring about a process of dialogue leading to a free and genuine act of self-determination, consistent with the universally accepted pr inciples and practices of the united Nations. 11 (A/42/PV. 32; "p.' 42) (Mr.' Saemala",' Solomon" Islands) It is very obviously clear that there are no contradictions. It is equally clear that the French delegation is still intent on its disinformation campaign in spite of the clear determination and decision of this Assembly last year in resolution 41/41 A to reinscribe New Caledonia on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. There is no question whatsoever that France has the duty to respect its obligation under Article 73 e of the Charter. Mr. GOLEMANOV (Bulgaria): I have asked to speak in exercise of my delegation's right of reply with regard to the statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey at the 12th plenary meeting, on 25 September. The Bulgarian delegation is following with keen interest the proceedings of the forty-second session of the United Nations General Assembly and is convinced that the positive trends in international relations will undoubtedly impart a new momentum to the work of the session aimed at finding reasonable, just and realistic solutions to the key issues of the present day. The unwarranted and patently slanderous accusations against my country which the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey chose to include in his statement are obviously at variance with these positive trends. His charges aim at diverting the attention of the General Assembly from the serious items included in the agenda of the current session. BUlgaria flatly rejects these charges as totally false. Turkey stubbornly reiterates these slanders, obviously in the hope that the international community and Turkish public opinion can be duped and made to forget the flagrant violations of human rights by and the grave political, economic and social ills of Turkey. Turkey, we are told, is guided by some "humanitarian concerns". This, of course, cannot be taken at face value. It is well known that Turkey is not a (Mr. Saemala, Solomon Islands) party to the International Covenants on Human Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and other international instruments in this field. That is no accident, since Turkish legislation and, above all, the Turkish Constitution are in open defiance of the universally acknowledged norms in the field of human rights. This also is a well-known fact. The blatant, massive violations of human rights in Turkey continue. Hundreds of thousands have been persecuted and subjected to mass arrest, systematic torture and summary execution. In 1980 military rule was imposed on Turkey and has continued in force, in one form or another, to this very day. The decades-old policy of assimilation and physical elimination of the so-called non-Turkish ethnic groups - such as Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs, Bulgarians and others - is still going on. The 10 million Kurds in Turkey are today victims of this outrage. The illegal occupation by Turkey of a sizeable part of the territory of Cyprus, a sovereign Member State of the United Nations, also continues. Along with the rest of the international community, BUlgaria condemns Turkey's inadmissable acts of destruction of cultural, historical and religious monuments and its altering of the demographic composition of the occupied territories in Cyprus, and calls for strict implementation of the many resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council on this question. The allegations about the so-called outer Turks are the latest manifestation of a nationalistic and essentially aggressive policy, since they are designed to justify the illegal claims of Turkey against neighbouring countries, inclUding my own. If the geography textbooks published in Ankara in 1985 are to be believed, vast regions in North Africa, central Europe and central Asia are inhabited by Turks. Even more telling is the recent speech by the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Turgut Ozal. In that speech he suggested that Turkey would act against Bulgaria as it had against Cyprus, and uttered open threats against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of 'the People ts Republic of Bulgar ia and other neighbour ing countr ies. Obviously embarrassed by this roment of truth on the par t of its Pr ime Minister, Turkey has refused to release the text of the speech and has tried to play down its significance. In var ious international forums Tur kish officials con tinue to manipulate the so-called question of immigrants and the spurious issue of some Turkish minority in Bulgaria. In this connection, I should like once aga in to touch upon the real situation. For nearly five centuries the Bulgarian people was under Turkish domination. Upon BUlgaria's liberation, in 1878, hundreds of thousands of Turks and the dE!Pendants of the forcibly Tur keyfied and IslamizedBulgar ians left, following the retreating Turkish administration. In the period up to 1952 over 1 million Bulgarian citizens emigrated to Turkey, for a variety of reasons. This created a problem of divided families. In 1968 an agreement to reuni te the divided famil i es was signed by Bulgaria and Turkey. Having run its course, that agreement expired in 1978. (Mr. Go1emanov, Bulgaria) Over its 10-year duration, about 130,000 people left BUlgaria for Turkey. Later on, a joint press declaration concerning the visit of the Turkish President in Bulgar ia in 1982 read: liThe two leaders found that previous agreements on mass emigration had expired and they agreed, for humanitarian reasons, to consider under their respective legislations individual requests for reunification of divided families in Bulgar ia and Turkey. n There are Muslims in Bulgaria, too, but nowhere except in Turkey is being a Muslim considered tantamolUlt to being a Turk. If we take a look at the relevant multilateral and bilateral treaties, we shall see that they speak of Muslims in Bulgaria and, in particular, of a Bulgarian minority in Turkey. Not a single one of the treaties often quoted by Turkey makes any mention of a Turkish minority in BUlgaria. This is a matter of fact. It is quite evident that the serious problems besetting Turkey today as a result of its flouting of twentieth-century realities cannot be resolved by building up tensions in its relations with neighbouring countries, including Bulgaria. We reject Turkey's charges and allegations against BUlgaria as being absurd and totally groundless. The People's Republic of Bulgaria is doing its best to overcome the present stagnation of bilateral relations wi th Turkey and to restore a mutually advantageous and equitable dialogue on all issues of mutual interest free of interference in each other's relations and in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Un i ted Na tions Char ter. Mr.' IDHIA (Papua New Guinea): I am speaking in reply to the statement made by the representa tive of France yesterday in exercise of the right of reply. He referred to my country in relation to two very important matters - important not only to the region of the Pacific, but to the rest of the world as well. Those two issues are New Caledonia and nuclear testing in the Pacific. I fUlly endorse the statement that has just been made by the Permanent Representative of the Solomon Islands. There is no contradiction in the positions of the Forum countries. The Prime Minister of Samoa has clearly stated the position of the Forum countries on New Caledonia. What we all want is that the aquatic continent of the Pacific be nuclear-free and independent. That is the only way in which we can achieve development and progress as well as harmony and peace in the region and in the world. Any nuclear fall-out in Mururoa Atoll cannot be regarded as safe for Papua New Guinea. France is 20,000 nautical miles from the aquatic continent of the Pacific and, more specifically, from Mururoa Atoll. France is on the European continent. We can therefore claim that this fall-out will not affect France. But it will affect our fish and our marine resources, which are so essential to our day-to-day eKistence in the Pacific. As far as New Caledonia is concerned, we completely reJect France's claims that the majority of the people of New Caledonia have chosen to be part of France. Of the 51 per cent who voted in New Caledonia, the bulk are French citizens. They are civil servants who were brought there, they are soldiers who were brought there, they are policemen and their families who were brought there. In 1984, 7,000 police and army personnel and their families were brought there. On 13 September of this year, those people became eligible to vote, because they had lived there for three years. How ridiculous can one be? I appeal to the Assembly to heed the Charter of the United Nations and to help our people eradicate colonialism, apartheid, racism and eKploitation by a few. Mr. BLANC (France) (interpretation from French): The Prime Minister of Samoa spoke this morning as representative for the Forum countries on the subject of New Caledonia. He stated that those countries could not accept France's position on the referendum on self-determination recently held in the territory as it was expressed by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs in this Hall on 23 September. The attitude held by the Forum countries is not surprising, since it does not hide their opposition to the application in New Caledonia of a principle universally recognized as being the very basis of delOOcracy - that of "one man, one vote". Now, it is that principle that France applied on·13 September in New Caledonia. In fact, as I have already stated, that legitimate, democratic and irreproachable referendum is a terrible embarrassment to the Forum countries. And, as everyone has been able to observe, they are desperately trying, with unusual obstinacy, to criticize that referendum by means of unwarranted, and at times false, assertions. I note, moreover, that they were the only ones - or almost the only ones - to defend these arguments in the course of the general debate. The French delegation will have the opportunity later in the session to return in detail to the arguments presented by those countries. In speaking of New Caledonia, it is necessary to understand the reality of the territory. The New Caledonian reality - whether one likes it or not - is that of a multi-ethnic South Pacific society. All its inhabitants are equal and are free to decide their future. That reality runs counter to the a· priori ideological positions of the Forum countries, but they cannot efface it. Thus, they seek to impose an artificial solution by distorting the fundamental principles of democracy and of the right of peoples to self-determination, which are also the principles of the United Nations. The population of New Caledonia gave its response on 13 September last, letting it be known that it does not want such a solution. (Mr. Blanc, France) Hr. THIOUNN (Democratic Kampuchea) (interpretation from French): In the course of this debate a few representatives, dealing with the situation in I<ampuchea, have said that a political settlement of the problem in Kampuchea should be dependent on national reconciliation between the parties in Kampuchea before the wi thdr awal of Vietnamese forces from Kampuchea. On behalf of my delega tion may I be allowed to return to this important question and to offer the necessary clarification. Since the invasion and occupation of Democratic Kampuchea by Vietnamese troops in December 1978 our Government has given special attention to this question. For that reason our Coalition Government on 17 March 1986 put forward an eight-point , proposal to bring about a just and honourable political settlement of 'the situation in our country in the interests of the Kampuchean people, the people of Viet Narn and in the interests of international peace and security. That national reconciliation, of which we are in favour, must be carried out after the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces and wi thin the framework of an independent, peaceful, neu tral and non-aligned Kampuchea. In this respect, on 30 September 1986, before this Assembly, His Highness Prince Norodom Sihanouk stated that: "the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, on 17 March last, put forward to the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam an eight-point proposal for a political settlement of the problem of Kampuchea, a proposal which is in line with the relevant resolutions of the united Nations and with the Declaration adopted at the International Conference on Kampuchea, held in July 1981. I wish to recall briefly those eight points. They are: "First, negotiation between the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam for the total wi thdrawa1 of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea within a definite time frame. We accept a two-phased withdrawal of Vietnamese forces. "Second, after the agreement on the wi thdrawal there will be a cease-fire. "Third, both the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops and the cease-fire will be supervised by a united Nations observer group. "Fourth, after the first phase of Vietnamese troop withdrawal, Heng Samrin and his faction will take part in a coalition government of Kampuchea which will then become quadr iparti te, with each of the four parties having the same rights as political forces in the national community. "Fi fth, the quadr ipar ti te coalition gover nment of Kampuchea will hold free elections under the supervision of the United Na tions. "Sixth, Kampuchea will become an independent country, united within its own territorial integrity, having a liberal deJOOcratic regime, peaoeful, neutral and non-aligned without any foreign base. Its neutrality will be guaranteed by the United Nations. "seventh, Kampuchea welcomes all countries from West and East, neutral and non-aligned, to help rebuild the country. "Eighth, Kampuchea is willing to sign with the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam a treaty of non-aggression and peaceful coexistence, and to establish economic and trade relations with it." (A/4l/PV~l6,pp~ 20-21) However, immedia tely, wi thout considera tion, Viet Nam rejected our proposal out of hand. Not only did Viet Nam reject our eight-po in t proposal but since the opening of the present session it has been waging an intense diplomatic campaign to sow confusion and mislead the international community about what it believes to be negotiations or national reconciliation. In order to clarify the position for all countries interested in this matter, President Norodom Sihanouk, Son Sann, the (Mr.'Thiounn,Demooratic Kampuch~) Prime Minister of our Coali tion Government, and Khieu Samphan, Vice-President of Democratic Kampuchea in charge of foreign affairs, signed a note dated 1 OCtober 1987, circulated as United Nations document A/42/6l6, which set out the basic differences between our proposal regardin9 national reconcilia tion and the proposal for national reconciliation advocated by Viet Nam. These differences are as follows: "(i) - The CGDK proposes national reconciliation after the first phase of the wi thdrawal of Vietnamese forces wi thin the framework of an agreement to be concluded between the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the CGDK on the total wi thdrawal of those Vietnamese forces wi thin a defini te time-frame, under the United Nations supervision. Vietnam proposes 'national reconciliation' while its forces are still in Kampuchea and no formal agreement has yet been reached on their withdrawal from Kampuchea. "(ii) - The CGDK proposes national reconcilia tion in which the Phnom Penh regime will be included in a quadripartite government ri9ht after the first phase of the Vietnamese wi thdr awal from Kampuchea. Vietnam proposes 'national reconciliation' within the framework of the Phnom Penh regime installed by Vietnam in the wake of its invasion of Kampuchea. "(Hi) - The CGDK proposes a national reconciliation without exclusion or selection, open to each and everyone, wi thout consideration of the past or political tendency, and without any demand for sur render of any kind. Vietnam proposes an exclusive and selective 'national reconciliation' and aims actually at dividing and weakening the national resistance forces. "(iv) - It is for all these reasons that the CGDK appeals to all peace- and jus tice-lov ing coun tr ies member Sta t.es of the Un i ted Na tions to suppor t its eftor ts to reach a political solution to the problem of Karnpuchea, on the basis of the pr inciples enshr ined in the General Assembly resolutions on the situation in Kampuchea. "The CGDK earnestly calls upon them all to reject any proposal of 'national reconciliation' which aims only at perpetuating the Vietnamese occupation in Kampuchea." (A/42/6l6,annex I; paras. 3'and'4) In conclusion, we wish to say how much we apprecia te the suppor t expressed by numerous representatives who in their statements have suppor ted a political settlement of the problem of Kampuchea on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. We are par ticular ly grateful to those who have unambiguously stated that Viet Nam must first withdraw all its forces from Kampuchea if there is to be an eventual national reconciliation in Kampuchea in keeping with our eight-point peace proposals. Mr. HAKTANIR (Turkey): In his statement to the General Assembly, the Foreign Minister of Turkey raised the issue of the oppression of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria in very moderate terms. We were, therefore, expecting the representative of BUlgaria to take advantage of this restraint and to refrain from using his right of reply. If the BUlgarian repres'entative has any illusion that he has replied to our Minister, he is making a great error. No one can deny facts, and in particular facts which have been documented by numerous reports in the world press, by testimony from persons who have been lucky enough to flee BUlgaria, and by international organizations dealing wi th human rights. There is no way the Bulgarian Government and its represen ta tives can any longer hide the crimes which they have been committing against the Turkish minority in BUlgar ia. It is not by changing names, by banning the practising of religious customs, by forbidding the use of a language that Bulgaria will make the world believe that 1.5 million Turks have suddenly become BUlgarians. Even if Turkey did not pursue the matter in international forums, BUlgaria would continue to have a grave problem: wi th the policies they are pursuing now, they can never have internal peace and harmony. That is the crux of the matter, and it cannot be clouded by the allegations of Bulgarian representatives. From the very beginning we have called upon the Government of BUlgaria to negotiate with us about the fate of the Turkish minority whose rights are covered by international treaties. Which party is refusing the negotiations? It is the Government of Bulgaria. As long as they persist in this attitude, Turkey will be obliged to denounce the Bulgarian oppression in international forums and continue to demand wi th determination that the Turks living in Bulgaria should freely decide whether they want to remain there or emigrate to Turkey. a Bulgaria should respond to this challenge. We see today that even the most pampered Bulgarians of Turkish origin - athletes with international fame - are defecting at the first opportunity. It is easy to imagine how all the other less fortunate Turks in Bulgaria would respond if they were given the option to go to Turkey. I am sure they would not be very much impressed by the gloomy descriptions of the situation in Turkey by the representative of Bulgaria, for one thing is very clear; if one is not happy wi th the si tua tion in Turkey, one can always leave the country. However, I am afraid that is not the case in Bulgar ia. The Bulgarian representative made some other allegations about Turkey. We suggest that instead of dealing with irrelevant allegations the Bulgar ian Government would do better to clean its record on human rights. That representative has also distorted a statement of the Turkish Prime Minister. Prime Minister Ozal's intention was to underline the importance we attach to treaty commitments and our determination to ensure their full implementa tion. The Bulgar ian Government knows very well that from the very beginning of the oppression of the Turkish minority in BUlgaria we have consistently asked for a solution to the problem through negotiations. This position remains unchanged. It is not possible, therefore, to interpret any statement by the Turkish Prime Minister as a manifesta tion of bellicose intentions. The Bulgar ian GO'1ernment cannot hide behind such a pretext to cover up its ruthless and brutal oppression of the Turkish minority in that country. The Turkish Government is fully awar~ of and observes meticulously the established norms of international conduct in the framework of which good- neighbourly relations can healthily thrive. We simply expect the Bulgarian side to adopt a similar attitude. Allow me to emphasize at this juncture that the (Mr ... Haktan ir i . Tur key) interest shown over the years by successive Turkish Governments in the fate of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria finds its legal justification in international agreements safeguarding the rights of the Turkish minod ty in that country. The representative of Bulgaria, who referred to actions that could damage Turkish-Bulgarian relations, cannot possibly be unaware that what really casts a heavy shadow on the relations between our two countr ies are the Bulgar ian Government's unlawful and oppressive policies against the Turkish minority and the reluctance of the Bulgarian side to appr ecia te the imper tance and the value of good-neighbourly relations. Mr. 'fOMA (Samoa): I wish to refer to remarks made by the French representative a few minutes ago, in exercise of the right of reply, in which he professed puzzlement at the Fbrum countries' inability to accept the so-called referendum held recently in New Caledonia. My colleague from Papua New Guinea and others have given reasons why we are not at all impressed with the results of the so-called referendum in New Caledonia. The figures are meaningless, and we have given the reasons why they are meaningless. The French representative seems to say that the essence of democracy demonstrated in New Caledonia recently is abO'le cr iticism and that he is puzzled by oUr criticism. I beg to suggest that we are not the only ones who dare to criticize what has happened in New Caledonia; indeed, there are elements in France itself that seem to share our criticism. The French representative seems to suggest that we are just unable to accept the universally established principles of democracy. While we have full respect for democratic principles, we believe that the mere application of procedures taken for granted in normal circumstances to be the exercise of democracy results, within the context of New Caledonia, not in honourable f . alrness associated with democracy but in gross injustice to a colonized people. The French referendum held recently was an empty ritual that sui ted the wishes and served the interests of the majority of the French citizens and settlers who came to New Caledonia because it was a French colony and perhaps value New Caledonia only as a French colony or a French possession. They do not necessarily have a commitment to New Caledonia itself, or a New Caledonia that possibly may not be controlled by France. What has happened is that France, through its colonial policy over the years, has compromised the very in tegrity of New Caledon ia itself to de termine its own political future. In proceeding with the plans that it has started, France is refusing to restore that integrity, while hiding behind a thin veil of democratic pr inciples. Mr. OOLEMANOV (Bulgaria): We feel that the time allocated to rights of reply could have been put to good use by the Turkish delegation in trying to provide some explanation for the belligerent and hostile pronouncements of the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Ozal, vis-a"'vis my country. These pronouncements were drafted in no moderate terms. To be sure, coming up with such an explanation is no easy task. The representative of Turkey failed to provide such an explanation, however, we expect no less from Turkey in this regard. As far as other charges are concerned, allow me to reiterate some points made by my delegation a few minutes ago which were not addressed by my Turkish colleague. The aggressive pan-Turkish ambitions underlying the allegations against Bulgaria are now presented in the guise of some humanitarian concern. As I have already mentioned, back in 1982 the question of emigration was by mutual consent removed from the bilateral relations between the two countr ies. The joint press declara tion from which I quoted is testimony to that. (Mr ... Toma, . samoa) I should like to reiterate that not a single one of the multilateral or bilateral treaties frequently cited by Turkey makes any mention of a Turkish minority in BUlgaria) quite the contrary, these treaties speak of a Bulgarian minority in Turkey. One can justifiably ask: Who has given Turkey the right to equate Moslems with Turks? Does this mean that all Moslems in the world are Turks? (Mr ~ .Golemanov i . Bulgar ia) I I ; i,I I,I I I In our view it is high time Turkey stopped provoking tension in its relations with neighbouring countries. It is also high time the illegal Turkish occupation of a large part of the territory of Cyprus, a sovereign and independent Member State of the United Nations, was ended. It is about time the gross massive violations of human rights in Turkey were stc>pped, as demanded by the international community, by the Charter of the united Nations and by international standards in that field. It is time for those in T~rkey who close their eyes to these clear truths to stand firmly on the solid grc>und of political realism and responsioility. That would be in the best interests of the Turkish people and would facilitate the maintenance of peace and s~c:urity in the region and throughout the world. In so far as my country is concerned, the People's Republic of BUlgaria is de>ing its best to normalize its relations with Turkey on the basis of existing realities and in the interests of both countries and peoples. Mr. HAKTANIR (Turkey): The hour is growing late and, since the facts are unClisputed and well known to all, I have no wish to prolong this debate. I must say, however, that the attitude of the representative of BUlgaria leads me to think that, given the peculiarities of that country, he may be genuinely unaware of the premeditated and cruel campaign of Bulgarization pursued by his Government against the Turkish minority in that country. Since my remarks, like those of my Foreign Minister earlier, seem to have fa~len on deaf ears, I should like to refer my colleague from Bulgaria, with no cc>nruments of my own, to a report pUblished in The Economist in January 1986: (Mr. Golemanov, Bulgaria) "Bulgaria has mobilized its scientists in an effort to support its Government's claim that the country's ethnic Turks are in fact full-blooded Bulgarians. An article in a national daily has analyzed the results of anthropological tests supposedly conducted over the past 30 years by anthropologists from the Sofia Institute of Morphology in three districts which contain many members of Bulgaria's Turkish, Macedonian and Greek minorities. The finding: The Bulgarian nation is pure and uncontaminated, and has remained unchanged since the middle ages. "According to the anthropologists, the BUlgarian people took shape in the ninth and tenth centuries as a blending of Slavs, Thracians and Asiatic tribes. This mixture evolved into a homogeneous entity: the people now called BUlgarians. The foreign invasions of the past 1,000 years left no racial mark, it seems. The implication is that members of the Turkish minority are merely BUlgarians who happen to speak Turkish. "Experts at the Bulgarian Institute of Brain Research, Yugoslavia's Tanjug news agency reports, have meanwhile been studying the BUlgarian brain. Their preliminary findings, just released, show that it has been toughened by centuries of hardship and has developed its own peculiar way of thinking. But the researchers also found evidence to suggest that Bulgarians are not using their grey matter enough. The Institute's director is said to have called on 'owners of BUlgarian's 9 million brains to keep thinking as much as possible'. They might start by reflecting on the validity of the sort of research into racial purity which went out of fashion with (the Second World War]." It is never too late to be informed, and I think the Bulgarian representative will agree with me that it is high time BUlgaria marshalled the courage to take steps that the whole world, and our bilateral relations, await. (Mr. Haktanir, Turkey) Mr. SAEMALA (Solomon Islands): I too wish to refer to the most recent statement by the representative of France. That statement was further clear evidence of his delegation's evasion of its basic responsibility. New caledonia's decolonization is a subject before the United Nations, by the terms of General Assembly resolution 41/41 A of December 1986. The important fact still remains that France, as the Administering Authority of the Non-Self-Governing Territory of New Caledonia, has the obligation - I repeat: the obligation - to respect the requirements of Article 73 e of the Charter and to abide by the normal established practices of the United Nations in the process of decolonization. My good friend the representative of France implied that the countries of our region hold to the principle of "two men, one vote", or are opposed to the "one man, one vote" principle. That is something we have never stated. In fact, the same thing was said last year by the French delegation. In my statement last year, I said that this was a clear reflection of what was in the French delegation's own mind. There is an old, very true, saying that, "Out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaketh". The Solomon Islands delegation has certainly never mentioned what the representative of France alleges we believe, and it does not subscribe to that kind t of principle. What we are saying is that there is a basic need for a genuine application of democracy. Shorn of French rhetoric and rationalization, the essential fact is that France has conducted a flawed and bogus referendum in a distant colony in the Pacific, the result of which was contrived and predetermined in Paris. e

We have thus concluded our consideration of agenda item 9, "General debate". The impressive speeches of 13 Heads of-State and the statements of 139 Heads of Delegation of Member States, including 10 Heads of Government and 108 Ministers for Foreign Affairs, have in the course of the debate vividly depicted the vitally important issues currently facing mankind. I note with satisfaction that at the outset of the forty-second session the international community reaffirmed its confidence in the United Nations. It is no coincidence that many speakers referred to the report submitted by the Secretary-General to the General Assembly at its forty-second sessio~. We are indeed faced with a great responsibility. The reassuring trend towards a turn for the better in international relations, which was referred to in a number of statements, should be exploited. I think we can say that the work done so far by the General Asserrbly has been marked by an awareness of the problems confronting us, a desire for dialogue and mutual understanding and, on the whole, a businesslike and constructive atmosphere. The general debate has delOOnstrated the desire of peoples for the preservation and strengthening of international peace and security, the overcoming of underdevelopnent and poverty, a peaceful settlement of the tragic conflicts that claim so many victims, and new solutions to economic, ecological, social and humanitarian problems. Our attention has been focused, inoeed, on the concerns of the international community. The agreement in principle between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the united States on the complete elimination of medium-range nuclear missiles, published on 18 September 1987, and the communication concerning further important intentions on both sides received an extremely broad response. It would be difficult to overestimate their importance. I regard the many pronouncements made by the sta tesmen who spoke on this matter as an appeal by the whole world not only to the Governments of the Soviet Union and the United States of America for the conclusion of an appropriate agreement as soon as possible this year, but also to all States to take specific steps to stop the arms race and begin disarmament. In so ooing, States could make an important contribution to strengthening international security and reducing international tension and would prom:>te co-operation between countries. This would release vast resources for the solution of economic and social problems. New proposals and initiatives were put forwaro that, if adopted, would greatly help reduce the debt burden of developing countries. I am firmly convinced that the statements made dur ing the general debate, while containing a wide range of views and ideas, were ultimately intended to achieve the general purposes laid down in our Charter. The debate may be descr ibed as a clear recognition of the need to strengthen the United Nations as an indispensable instrument of dialogue and mutual understanding and as an institution of mu1tilateralism. I believe that these thoughts may be formulated in the following way: we need an active coalition of common sense and realism. The adoption without a vote of the first resolution of the forty-second session, on 7 OCtober, gave a new impetus to an important peace process, and I perceive it as a symbol and a mandate for our session. Acting in the spir it of the main ideas expressed during the general debate, we should str ive to ensure that all possibilities are explored in the search for mutual understanding and, in the final analysis, a convergence of views. Allow me to add one personal remark. I regard it as a further encouraging sign that at the beginning of the general debate, on 21 Septenber, on the initiative of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), there w~s a four-day cease-fire in Lebanon in order to permit the immunization against ravaging diseases of 350,000 children of up to five years of age. In conclusion, I should like to take this opportunity to express my apprecia tion to all the speakers who so kindly congratulated me on my election to the office of President and expressed words of esteem for my country, the German Democratic Republic. In addition, I should like to thank all delegations for their co-operation, which has made it possible to conclude the general debate successfully without holding additional meetings, thereby continuing the positive experience of last year. The meeting rose at6.15p.m.