A/43/PV.10 General Assembly

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the French Republic. Mr. Franyois Mitterrand, President of the French Republic, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the united Nations the President of the French Republic, His Excellency Mr. Fran90is Mitterrand, and to invite him to address the General Assembly. President MITTERRAND (interpretation from French): I begin by paying tribute to the wisdom of the members of the General Assembly at its forty-third session, who, in electing you President, Si~, have made clear both the deservedly high esteem in which they hold you and the prominent place held by Argentina and, beyond Argentina, by Latin America in today's world. I wish to add that I deeply appreciate the great honour of having this opportunity to address the Assembly again. Having just learned, as the Assembly has, the news about the Nobel Peace Prize, I wish immediately to convey my congratulations to the United Nations on the award of the Pr ize to the Uni ted Na tions peace-keeping forces. When I came to this rostrum five years ago the world was dominated by the East-West confrontation, the proliferation of regional conflicts, the deepening of the gulf between North and South and repeated violations of human rights and the rights of peoples. Have those realities now disappeared? Is our planet decisively turning towards unity and peace? I shall not claim that that is so. In spite of the passing years, I seem to hear too often the same words, the same vain incantations, and to see too often the same hopes being aroused only to end in the (President Mitterrand) same disillusionment. The expectations of too m~y peoples remain unfulfilled. Two centuries after the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen there are still many Bastilles to be taken, many liberties to be won, many rights to be safeguarded. But here and there some progress is being seen. What had seemed for ever immovable has begun to move. Will hope come into its own again in the society of men? We know how much we owe, ~o Hr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev, who have had the intelligence and the courage to have done with the arms race and the escalations of confrontation. Similarly, the adversaries engaged in some regional conflicts - whether they have taken stock of the limits of their action and the attrition of their strength, have changed their appraisal of their people's interests, or have wanted to contribute to the general movement towards the easing of tensions - ace trying to disengage themselves from the tragedy they have been living through. I wish to express my gratitude to peace-loving men and women everywhere who have worked ceaselessly to bring about such a result. Among them I should mention the name of the Secretary-General of the united Nations, Mr. Pere2 de Cuellar. Without his skill, his persistence, his constant readiness to serve and his cultural resources, we should not have come this far. For the first time since the last WOrld war the two greatest Powers have begun to explore the path of disarmament. It must be stated that their agreement on the elimination of United States and Soviet intermediate forces in Europe is a good agreement. On behalf o.f France, I unhesitatingly approved it from the very first day. It is now my expectation that the United Btates and the Union of Soviet Social ist RepUblics will make progress in the reduction of their strategic n,~lear armaments, as they have planned to do. If the negotiations they are conducting (President Mitterrand) lead to agreements consistent with the imperative rules of balance and verification this will do much to strengthen the security of all. These questions are, of course, of tremendous importance. But it will be readily understood that, as the head of a European State, I attach priority to the , reduction of the conventional armaments which are stockpiled in Europe, and stockpiled unequally, to the disadvantage of Western Europe. It is my earnest hope that the 35 participants in the C~nference on Security and Co-operation in Europe will take up the substance of these negotiations as soon as possible. We have been offered an opportunity, unprecedented in the past half century, to ensure the establishment of a stable balance at a lower, sufficient and reasonable level of armaments. Will this balance be achieved? That will depend on the political will of the States involved. But who could assume the responsibility of rejecting this chance out of hand? The objective is easy to formulate: that everyone should be able to defend himself, as is his right, without threatening anyone else. But how shall we go about this? I venture to suggest some elements of an answer. First, by ensuring that no army and no coalition of armies in the area where East and West are facing each other has the means for the sudden launching of a surprise attack, nor for waging a prolonged war. TO that end, it would be desirable to arrange measures in that area for the reduction, withdrawal and deconcentration of troops and equipment - tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery, portable bridges and all other techniques for crossing water barriers - and measures for the limitation of reserves and stockpiles. Secondly, by preparing procedures for verification and inspection to prevent any violation of treaties. (President Mitterrand) These new measures of transparency and confidence would usefully supplement the arrangements arrived at in Helsinki. M~' country has taken a number of initiatives concerning the definition of the area in which these constraints would be applied, the ratio between new military equipnent and foreign equipnent, and the ceiling to be set on the fOt~s of an individual country in relatiori to the whole. It would also be my wish that at the end of the next two years the status of negotiations should be examined. If nothing had been achieved, there would be nothing to prevent PeOple from exercising their freedom. However, a favourable outcome would open vast new prospects for the future of Europe. All of us, Europeans both in the East and in the West, belong to the same continent and der ive our her itage from the same culture. History and geography invi te us patiently to overcome, by every possible means, for the security of all, the confrontation of hostile blocs. As for chemical weaPOnS, whose ravages we have unfortunately observed in the recent past, tfe must eliminate them as quickly as possible. What President Reagan said last Monday about this subject was qui te right. He expressed himself in lofty and urgent. terms, which echoed our alln concerns, and in a manner that is all the more timely because his country possesses such weapons. I noted wi th equal interest that the Soviet Union, which alao possesses chemical weapons, had supper ted this pp:oposal. The proposals put forward by France, which has no chemical weapons, are of three kinds. First of all, my country, the depositary of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, naturally favours a meeting of the 110 signator ies to that agreement. The purpose of such IS meeting, in our: view, would be to solemly reaffirm the (!!esident Mitterrand) commitment not to use chemical weapons, to prevent their proliferation, to encourage new accessions to the Protocol, to improve investigative procedures - in short, to indicate a common desire for the succesa of the work currently being carried out at Geneva wi.thin the conteKt of the Conference on Disarmament. .. secondly, my country wants to increase the role of the Uni ted Na tions in the struggle against the proliferation and the use of chemical weapons. In 1982 France was the originator of the resolution enabling the secretary-General to arrange investiga tions in those parts of the wor Id where chemical "~eapons had reportedly been used. This procedure has already confirmed that such weapons have in fact been used. Let us go further: let us create a situation that would make it impossible for any State to use chemical weapons with impunity to settle its enternal or internal problems. If any State should use them, I think it would become necessary, among other measures, tu impose an embargo on all deliveries of products, technologies and, more generally, weapons to that State. Fbr its part, France is ready, after conSUltation with its partners, to submit a draft resolution to this effect. This would be without prejUdice to any sanctions decided upon by the security Council. The third and last point is the one I particularly wish to stress~ we must prohibit not only the use of chemical weapons but also their manufacture. The risks of the normalization and the proliferation of chemical weapons compel us to accelerate our efforts to br ing about the destruction of stockpiles, as well as to maintain close supervision of the means that would make it possible to reb~lild them. In signing the convention, each State possessing stockpiles of chemical weapons would undertake to destroy them. In the view of experts, this will take several years, and in the meantime the chemical threat will continue to exist. This is why I believe that chemical-weapons factories should be closed as soon as the convention enters into force and, like stockpiles, should be SUbjected to international surveillance before they are dismantled. France declares its readiness, as of this moment, to renounce under the same conditions - that is to say, as soon as the future convention enters into force - any possibility of producing chemical weapons. Of course, the banning of chemical weapons could not be imposed on some if others, including the nuclear Powers, retained a clear field for themselves and did not persevere in their des ice for nuclear disarmament. In this connection, I recall that ;in september 1983, speaking from this rostr urn, I stated the conditions under which my country would agree to par ticipa te, at the proper time, in a nuclear-disarmament conference among the Powers that possess nuclear weapons: a decisive narrowing of the gap between the arsenals of the great Powers and our own; a halt in the anti-missile, anti-!';~tellite and anti-SUbmarine weapons race; and correction of the imbalances in conventional armaments. Tbday I maintain what I said at that time. I would add that limiting the disarmament effort must be extended to space, the common heritage of mankind. That is why France is opposed to an arms race in space but supper ts the use of space-bor ne means of control. Before the INF treaty, the importance of which is becoming more apparent every day, and the on-site ver ifica tion for wh,ich it provides - a clause the imper tance of which can never be over-emJ.itas ized - disarmament negotia tions had stalled over this problem. At the special session of the United Nations last June - the third special session devoted to disarmament - my country advocated control by satellite and by automatic surveillance, as well as the so-called routine or challenge on-site inspections. We can now define, on a case-by-case basis, a combin~tion of means of control adapted to each disarmament agreement. !lit nothing can be done without the political will of States. Coming now to regional conflicts, I can only welcome the developments in the Gulf, what has been initiated in Af9hanistan, and what is expected in the Western Sahara, Cambodia and, perhaps, ~prus. This is the easier for me because France has always refused to recognize the fai t accompli, has ceaselessly condenned terrorist or military intimidation, and has tirelessly pleaded for settlement of conflicts by peaceful means. !. Far be it from me to underestimate the scope of the progress made in the past few, roonths. I have noted, however, that while the rapprochement between the United States and the Soviet Union has contr ibuted to the cessation of fighting, it remains insufficient to restore lasting peace, fo[ the underlying causes persist. In this connection, I have noted that this period of diploma tic calm has not reached several parts of the globe\ the Middle East, Central America, despite the Arias Plan and the action of the Contadora and Lima Groups, which France supports) and 6 while there may be some respite now and again, southern Africa, a direct consequence of the intolerable policy of apartheid. It is the responsibility of the international cotm\unity to consolidate what has been achieved and help extinguish the last remaining pockets of violence. When weapons have fallen silent, so much will remtJl!.UU to be done\ agreements to guarantee, wounds to staunch, adversaries to r.e-concile, economies to be rabu Ht. It will do no good to shower the work and the per son of the 5ecretary-General with praise, if we are going 'Co withhold our support from him tomorrow. For peace has its price\ sending armed troops there, organizing a referendum here, and elsewhere setting up aid for reconstruction. All this has to be financed. I would hate to think that after being so lavish in their war efforts, States, particularly the most powerful, would be tight-fisted when it comes to peace efforts.' .. ' In Afghanistan nO'one can ever be satisfied with replacing an international 'conflict by a civil war. The ~lthdrawal of foreign troops should normally open up the way for the restoration of the sovereignty of that country, the return of refugees and economic reconstruction. But this can only come about with extreme vigilance. It is my wish that the cease-fire between Iraq and Iran will lead, as quickly as possible, to a genuine peace, a settlement of conflicts, the reconstruction of disaster-stricken areas and the restored freedom of navigation in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. Peace is contagious and everyone, the States and the peoples of the region, will reap the benefits. At this time, how can we b.e unmindful of the fate of a minor ity which has suffered in a boo-fold way, such as the Kurdish people? I hope that renewed conciliation in western Sahara will prevail. we could believe it today. This will remove an obstacle to the construction of the Greater Maghreb, bringing with it peace and prosperity, a plan of which France approves. Here we count upon the wisdom of leaders. In the Middle East, the llprising of Palestinian youth and the decision of King liussein of Jordan have shown once again that the status quo no longer protects those who are subject to it, those who seek to benefit from it, and that it is increasingly deadly for those who are subjected to it. Let us go back to the basic pr inciples of a lasting settlement, as defined by the United Nations. All menbers are familiar with them. For my part, I outlined them both in the Knesset in Jerusalem and in the Arab capitals. Israel has the right to exist within safe and recognized borders; the Palestinian people are entitled to aspire to a homeland and to take Gharge of their own destinies. In order to arrive at a peace settlement, which would enshrine these rights, there must be dialogue between the parties. Each side, Israelis and Palestinians, must do its share. Each must be willing to accept for the other what it demands for itself, and each must be able to say this in no uncertain terms. I do understand how difficult it is to take the first step. In order to facilitate dialogue and break down the walls of distrust, the international community must clearly act as an intermediary. A procedure exists: the international conference. It is the only framework within which real partt'lers can meet and establish bilateral contacts between them. The international conference has become a reference point. Let us make it a r lity. I proposed some time ago that a preparatory committee earnestly go about laying the groundwork. Mr. Gorbachev was in agreement wi th me on this idea. Now th.:: time hc.\s come to revive this. I suggest that Cl diplomatic arrangement be made among the five permanent MeJlt)ers of the security Council in conjunction wi th the Secretary-General. This preparatory work should result in recofllRendations on the organization and calendar of the future conference and recommendations about who its participants will be. France, of whose ties to Lebanon I need not remind the Assembly, will not resign itself to watching that country's independence and unity disintegrat~. We call upon the United Nations as a witness to the obstacles which have been placed in the way of the free exercise of the sOll'ereignty of the people. We appeal to the sense of reason of the neighbours of that country. A peacef.ul,reconciled Lebanon is no threat to anyone. A Lebanon dismeJTbered and the object of conflict and dispute will remain an area of insecurity for us all. Let us urge the Lebanese to draw upon their national pride and patriotism to summon the strength and courage to have faith in their country. I can assure the General Assembly, in any case, that France will remain at the side of those who, in mutual respect, are fighting for a democratic future for Lebanon, as well as its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Farther away, towards the Far East, an end to the sUfferings of Cambodia is in sight. The decision announced by the Government of Viet Nam to end its intervention, the initiatives of the countries of the Association of SOuth-East Asian Nations (MEAN), the actions of such leaders as Prince Norodom Sihanouk may bring us closer to the hour of a political set tlement • tItJ country, which facilitated the initi&l meeting between the Canbodian partners, will continue to work even harder at this, and soon, r hope. We stand ready, if they so wish, to invite thP. parties involved to Jne€t in Paris in Que course. At thi~ point in my address, I wish to tell the General Assembly that nothing seems more important to me, whatever the importance of the subjects I have touched upon this morning - disarmament and the settlement of regional conflicts - nothing, I stress, is mou ilnportant to me than closing the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries. The causes of this disparity, as the General AE;senDly knows, are many: political, social, economic, denographic, financial, and so on. They have become so serious that many are tempted to dismiss all remedies as futile. That is not the case with France. For seven years now - and I am certainly not the only one - I have been repeating that it is in the interests of the NOrth to help the SOuth) t,hat there is no such thing as fate; that man can always 1,laster the course of events and that it is urgently necessary to do so. I see in the persistence of the current imbalances the most damaging cause of tremendous unhappiness, a misf~rtune which, more assuredly than any other danger, will drive the world towards the endless chaos of war, or something even worse. Nevertheless, international multilateral or bilateral aid is stagnating or receding. France - which, of all the Industrially advanced countries, allocates the highest percentage of its gross national product to development aid - believes that it has not yet done ita duty. The target of 0.7 per cent remains its ambition. In particUlar, the debt burden calls for immediate action. A number of very interesting initiatives have been launched by one country or another. For my part, I suggested to the major industrialized countries at their Toronto meeting this year that they make the terms of repayment considerably easier for the poorest countries. As for France, it has chosen to cancel one third of the debt owed to it by these countries. This significant step is but a beginning. For other heavily indebted countries, particularly in Latin America and Africa, debt also represents an intolerable burden, and in certain cases a threat to democracy. In the face of this situation the international community must show that it can be more realistic and more imaginative. All debts incurred must be repaid, but the cost of this can be reduced without passing on the burden to the taxpayers of creditor countries. Thus, last year the United States, in a bold move, guaranteed a proportion of the principal of Mexico's commercial loans. Several countries and many experts have thought of creating a multilateral fund which would lower the cost by guaranteeing interest payments. Various methods of financing this fund have been put forward. In th~ view of France, the best techniq~e would be to create a fund in the International Monetary Fund (tMF) to guarantee the payment of interest charged on certain commercial loans converted into bonds. This fund would lower significantly the finance charges payable by debtor countries and would involve them more actively in world trade. In order to finance this, the developed countries would set aside their share of a new issue of special drawing rights for use by the developing countries. I realize that the implementation of this project would represent a significant legal and financial innovation. It would require lengthy preparatory work and many consultations among c~editors and with their debtors. However, this alone would seem to be equal to the challenge. But development requires many other things. i would mention the following; stabilizing the export earnings of countries in the southern hemisphere and diversifying and increasing the value of their production - and the Uruguay Round must take these into account; environmental protection, which only a short time ago was endangered by industrial wastes from the North being disposed of in the South ~ and the international community will have to agree to regulations and the necessary precautions; a massive transfer of technology and know-how from the North to the South - and t would like in this regard to suggest a new approach, modelled on what is known as Europe's EUREKA project, in which Government stimulUS, together with initiatives freely undertaken by ~~panies and universities, leads to co-operation on an equal footing. I continue my brief list; launching major programmes of universal interest which can mobilize our energies to bring help to regions facing catastrophes due to natural causes or the folly of men. I cite as an example the stabilization of the rivers that have been flooding Bangladesh, the cause of a terrible catastrophe, as an appropriate beginning for a project of this kind. France, for its part, is ready to contribute. Two centuries ago France began a revolution that changed the course of history throughout the universe. In doing so, France took a position in the battle which has yet to be won, and is still necessary, for a greater measure of freedom, equality and brotherhood. As we prepare to celebrate this bicentenary, let us defend human rights more fiercely than ever before, from the earliest recognized to the lates\;: human rights, the rights of peoples, the rights of manki.nd. Today, in certain emergency situations, in situations of distress or extreme injustice, we should affirm the right of humanita~ian assistance. Economic and social progress is the only solid foundation on which to build democracYi the moral weight of pUblic opinion and unflagging vigilance will be its best guarantee. So many people are still being denied their most elementary rights and for so many men, women and children poverty is the only world they know, and the absence of rights is their only hor izon. Surely the time has come to acknowledge that rights of mankind exist and should be defined. I am thinking of the protection of our natural environment in the face of the sometimes irresponsible requiremerts of our economy. I was happy to hear the representative of the Soviet Union asking for a plan to be worked out before 1992 on this subject. I am also thinking of the protection of the human species, the ravages of drugs, and the extraordinary possibilities of science, in particular genetics. The conference of Nobel Prize-winners which I convened in 1988 in Paris elerted us to the dangers of this. It is not knowledge in itself that is (President Mitterrand) dangerousJ it is rather the appl.ications of science that must be controlled, that we must master. Since we are accountable in proportion to the power we now possess in transmitting a natural and genetically intact heritage to our descendants, we must lay the foundations for the ethics of the third millennium. I must stop here. Since, with you, I have been looking at the future, I dream orc the day when Europe, as it is trying to take shape, will be able to speak here with a single voice, using, as I have just done, the language of peace among nations and confidence in the destiny of humanity.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the Pres1~ent of the French Republic for the impo~tant statement he has just made. ~. Fran90is Mitterrand, President of the French Republic, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall. ADDRESS BY MR. PAUL BIYA, F-RESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CAMEROON

The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Republic of Cameroon. Mr. Paul Biya, President of the Republic of Cameroon, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the Uni ted Nations General Assenbly the President of the Republic of Cameroon, His Excellency, Mr. Paul Biya, and to invite him to address the General Assembly. President BIYA (interpretation from French); I thank you for the kind words you have just said as you bade me welcome to the Assenbly. Allow me to congratulate you on your well-deserved election to the presidency of this session and to express the hope that, under your guidance, its work will be successful. It gives me great pleasure also to extend my warm greetings to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, whom we had the pleasure of welcoming to Cameroon at the beginning of this year. As you are well aware, Cameroon owes its existence to the Uni ted Nations. It is therefore deeply attached to this Organization, which played a decisive role in its accession to independence. I would like to express our sincere appreciation to the Secretary-General for his devotion to the service of our Organization. I take this opportunity also to reiterate our support for the considerable efforts he is making to prolOOte peace and co-operation in the world in spite of the prevailing economic difficulties. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the United Nations peace-keeping forces, which have just been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. We are on the eve of the year 2000, a turning point in the history of mankind. We will. also be responsible for the sl1Doth or faulty take-off of this new millennium. The duty of each and everyone of us is to ensure the future of generations to come in the best possible circumstances. (President Biya) , . If we take a quick look at the world today the words that keep coming up are: crisis; conflicts; poverty; ignorance; disease; disasters; and injustice. Yet never before have science and technology offered the opportunities they offer today for us to overcome poverty and disease and never before have the various means of communication offered such tremendous possibilities for abolishing distances; but never before has a political and economic crisis reached the extent of today's cr isis. The United Nations, it must be recognized, is doing what it can to improve international relations from both the political and l:he economic points of view. All these efforts notwithstanding, much still remains to be done. Every conflict stands in the way of progress. Progress depends inevitably on entente, consultation and mutual respect. Because of their unavoidable interdependence, States should regard the United Nations as a neutral forum wherein they harmonize their positions and settle their disputes in a peaceful and mutually beneficial manner - and this is possible. PoH tically , the new climate between the Soviet Union and the Uni ted Sta tes is an example. The commitment of those two great nations to report to the international community, in particular to the Conference on Disarmament, on the progress and results of their negotiations is a decisive step towards peace. The determination of the major Powers to work more closely together leads us to expect other encouraging results. In Afghanistan, the partial withdrawal of Soviet troops holds out hope for new developments. In the western Sahara, the peace plan proposed by Mr. Perez de Cuellar has been accepted. The Chad-Libya border conflict appears to be moving towards a rlegotiated settlement. Many leading Afr ican Presidents have made ceaseless efforts to achieve a peaceful settl~1t. Such a settlement would certainly constitute a great victory for them and for the whole of Africa. The situation in the Horn of Africa also allows us to be hopeful. Efforts to normalize relations between Ethiopia and SOmalia should be encouraged and supported. In Angola the peace talks between the parties concerned are continuing in Brazzaville. Fbllowing the ~ease-fire agreement in August, the talks between Iran and Iraq begun in Geneva are to be resumed. However, the odious system of aRartheid is still thriving in South Africa and, to date, in spite of United Nations Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 601 (1987) Namibia continues to be deprived of its independence. A solution to this conflict. would also enable the independent States of the sUbregion to continue, in an atmosphere of peace and security, the work of nation-building which has been undermined by the attacks and acts of economic sabotage perpetrated by the rebels armed by racist South Africa. We will continue to support a people fighting for a just cause, namely human dignity. Our present economic difficulties should not prevent us from honouring our commitments to the Special Fund of the Co-ordinating Committee for the Liberation of Africa and to the Action for Resisting Invasion, Colonialism and ~artheid (AFRICA) Fund. We should also continue to help the freedom-fighters of the SOu th West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the Pan-Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) and the African Na tional Congress of Sou th Africa (ANC), as well as the front-line States. Once more I call on all forces of peace, on all nations, to exert pressure and to adopt comprehensive and mandatory economic sanctions against the racist regime of Pretoria. The situation in the Middle East remains disturbing. Cameroon, which maintains relations of friendship and co-operation with all States of the regIon, condemns the escalation of violence. I sincerely hope that dialogue will replace (President Biya) such violence and enable all parties concerned to seek a just and lasting peace. It is high time fOr the international community to find an appropriate solution. Numerous hotbeds of tension' still persist also in Latin America and Asia, and we must commit ourselves to restoring calm. The encouraging results achiev~d in the Sahara, in Afghanistan, in Angola and in Chad are proof that it is always possible to find an appropriate solution: what is needed is to damonstrate seriousness and good f&ith. Unwavering determination must be applied to resolving the severe economic crisis afflicting the third world. Consultation designed to find solutions to the poverty in which three fourths of mankind is living is as necessary and as imPlrtant as the quest for solutions to conflicts. The economic picture of the past few years has been appalling. Imbalances are worsening. Rich countries are enjoying growing prosperity~ whereas the natural resources of developing countries no longer suffice even to meet the basic needs of their peoples. The African countr ies have now come to realize that they must first count on themselves and on their own efforts. Confronted with this very serious situation we have taken measures aimed at stabilizing our economy and, in the long term, bringing about its recovery. We no longer want to be dependants. We have either abandoned or reconsidered certain development projects and we have cut down on State expenditure. Certain companies have been obliged either to close down or to layoff staff. We are all ~ware of the gravity of the situation. The special session of the Uni ted Nations General Assent>ly unanimausly adopted the Plan of Action for Afr ican Economic Recovery and Development. HOI1ever, within the context of the world crisis it is not enough to constitute subregional bodies or to define short-term priorities to stimulate our growth and reduce the vulnerability of our economies. The pr ices of our basic products have reached the lowest level in the past 50 years. Our export earnings have dropped alarmingly, while the prices of the capital goods and finished products we import are continue ly.rising. As if that were not enough, our manufactured goods meet wi th the protectionist policies of the industrialized North. The result is that our balance of payments is registering a serious deficit. That deficit is further aggravated by the burden of our external debt and by monetary disorders. It is true that we want to settle our debt, but we do not have the means to do so. It is therefore logical and impera tive that we examine wi th our creditors those solutions that will allow us to replay our debts and still save our economies from total collapse. Evervthing that has been done to contain this situation has come up against a hostile international environment. We are working more, we are managing better, we are producing more, yet the sharp drop in the prices of raw materials, the reduction of financial aid for developmer.c, the enormous debt burden, inflation and fluctuating exchange rates, the lack of dialogue, which is crucial to bringing about a more just economic order - all ~Iose elements constitute impediments to the progress of the African continent and threaten the future of the world. As we are well aware, world stability concerns both developed and developing countries. We are waiting for the international community to make greater efforts and to adopt concrete measures. Decisions taken by a cert~in number of developed countries, such as Canada and France, and those taken at the summit meeting ef the Seven in Toronto, constitute the beginning of positive action. We are not asking for charity. We are seeking help in order to resolve the serious problems that concern us all. Everyone of us has a stake in this - it is not a one-way street. Assisting developing countries out of the crisis means opening up new markets to industrialized countries, new markets for their productSr The solutions exist, and all we need is to seek them whole-heartedly. Poli tically, the major PO'.Iers have demonstra ted that when they want something it can be achieved. That applies to the economic er isis as well. We need only have the ·will. For us, the United Nations represents a forum for consultation and for seeking solutions. The United Nations reflects the common determination of nations to work together. The United Nations is an assembly. It is a force to reckon with, a powerful tool for development. Let us learn to use it together.

On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the RepUblic of Cameraon for the important statement he has just made. Mr. Paul Biya, President of the RepubliC of Cameroon, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall.