Your accession, Sir, to the presidency of the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly is a source of pleasure and pride for Algeria - pleasure because it is a choice that rewards you for your qualities, experience and wisdom as an accomplished diplomat, which provide our Organization with good reason to expect our work to be accomplished successfully; and pride because in electing you this Assembly has paid a tribute to Bangladesh, a brother country that has found recognition in the United Nations and identifies with its ideals and values.
The Organization that has entrusted you with one of its most responsible posts and paid you the highest honor is aware of the difficulty of the present and the uncertainty of the future. Your mission is not an easy one; we are all aware of that. The tasks that have been given to you are difficult ones; we are clearly aware of that also. You will need our understanding, support and co-operation, and you can expect to receive them. You may be assured of mine and those of my country.
You have succeeded Ambassador Jaime de Piniss. in his brilliant career he has been a respected representative of his country and a far-sighted and dedicated servant of this Organization, to which he has given so much. I hope he will accept my congratulations on work wpII and successfully done and my cordial wishes for his health and happiness.
I am very happy to see the Secretary-General fully recovered and again at the helm of this Organization, which has a secure present and future because of the courage and self-sacrifice of men of goodwill like him, who share his devotion and enlightened convictions. I can testify that the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, works not only for what the United Nations must be but also, and especially, for what it must be as a vision of the future order of the better world that is desired and expected. Against that historical background, we shall.
with him, be the builders of a new stage, and we shall also stand at his side as he strives to maintain the role of the United Nations today and expand it for the
benefit of the changing world it must serve.
A year ago the United Nations celebrated its fortieth anniversary. A few days ago, in Harare, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries commemorated the twenty-fifth anniversary of its emergence in contemporary international relations. The United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement share the same historical path. Their roads have frequently converged and their plans have always centered on oppression that must be abolished, peace for the world, and co-operation that must be established and developed between nations. The United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement are advancing together patiently on the long road to freedom, peace and progress. Non-alignment is thus part and parcel of the whole range of values and ideals of the united Nations. It is completely committed to those values and to the collective work that must be done to ensure their triumph. The collective work that has not been completed is considered incomplete by the Non-Aligned Movement also. What has yet to be accomplished is an integral part of everything for which
the Non-Aligned Movement is still working.
A year ago here the United Nations and a few days ago in Harare the Non-Aligned Movement, in identical summaries, noted that the present world order is not the best possible one. The present order is in crisis. An order that is not prepared and has not the means to respond to the challenges of the latest outrages inflicted upon it by colonial or racial oppression is not the best order. An order that shows neither the imagination nor the capacity to conceive the security of those it protects except in terms of terror, which in turn generates all kinds of excesses, is not the best order. An order which, when it comes to the essential needs of our time - peace and development - can offer no alternative to this tragic
and frightening situation of an armaments race fed by $1,000 billion and a total indebtedness of another $1,000 billion, an order that, ironically, equates resources for destructive purposes with resources for constructive purposes is not the best order.
Finally, an order in which privileged wealth is paid for at the highest price by the deprivation of the greatest number is not the best order. Such an order is neither tolerable nor acceptable. It is an order of insecurity, instability and imbalance. It is an order of division and confrontation. It is not an order of law and equity. It is not an order which has a vision of mankind gathered together
in solidarity. This order must change.
The United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement share this determination to seek change, because the present order has clearly demonstrated its inability to be the creator and guarantor of an authentic collective security system. Similarly, it has offered boundless testimony of its inability to create the conditions and to provide the means for growth and development for the benefit of all. In this order, the principles which we, for a long time, believed had been laid down once and for all and enshrined and, therefore, respected, are still unfulfilled. The sovereign equality of States is challenged even here. Recourse to force in any form whatsoever in the settlement of disputes is internationally prohibited yet, it is still looked upon with some favor. Interference or outside intervention in regional or national affairs is present and serious. The freedom of people and of States to choose their political, economic or social systems is still challenged.
At their meeting in Harare, the Heads of State and Government of the Non-Aligned Movement reaffirmed the validity and justice of the policy of non-alignment as well as the importance of its contribution to balance and stability in the present system of international relations while bearing in mind what is being done by its detractors. The Non-Aligned Movement follows an independent policy, a policy without military, political or strategic alliances, an autonomous policy in its initiatives and actions. Having decided on the measures taken and the measures yet to be taken, the Non-Aligned Movement is determined to come to grips with the great problems of our time and to deal with them.
In so doing, the Non-Aligned Movement has never considered, nor will it consider, itself as a fortress isolated from the affairs of the world, nor has it ever considered itself to be a simple observer merely taking note of developments.
Non-alignment has its position to take and its judgment to make wherever the freedom of people is challenged, where States are threatened or harmed in terms of what they have chosen to do for themselves, or where peace and international security are to be established, or where development is to be protected against the predatory dangers of others. Some wish to identify non-alignment with a false and antagonistic logic of alliances - to say what one believes to be the correct law is not alignment; to say what one believes to be justice, order and the best thing to do with regard to local or regional conflicts, tensions and global problems which the world faces, is not alignment either.
Non-alignment has never meant surrender,, silence or complacency, it is to the honor of non-alignment; it is its asset, its merit and its strength that it has never yielded to those temptations. This is especially true because it is difficult to succumb to the temptation to surrender, to be silent or to be complacent, given the present state of the world. No matter from what angle we look at the world, all we can see are increased signs of agony, danger and destitution.
Simply to note that the valuable resources of mankind are still being used to destroy rather than to build is in itself an eloquent summary of the situation. The spiraling arms race is growing more diversified, more sophisticated and developed. Neither the earth nor the sea lanes, nor outer space has been spared.
It is not the fault of the policy of non-alignment, which has ceaselessly and unrelentingly declared that all living space is the common heritage of mankind. Nor is it the fault of the policy of non-alignment that it has tried everything to draw attention to the stupidity of a situation where man prefers instruments of
death to satisfaction of the most essential unmet needs of mankind. If the common ideal is to be - and indeed is of a single, united, indivisible mankind, there should be no room for anything that threatens its survival. The nuclear age given over to military purposes is the greatest of the dangers looming over the future of the human species. No doctrine, strategy or goal can justify the existence or the improvement of such a nuclear age.
Today is the best time to want to curb the arms race. As limited and weak as
this approach may be, it is none the less a respectable approach. However, one must say again and again that there is no salvation for mankind without general and complete disarmament, conceived as an integral part of an authentic democratically organized and established collective security system. Belief in peripheral, selective systems of security have had their day, have shown their faults and have demonstrated their limits. The truth is that the new system of international security will be genuinely collective and democratic or there will not be a system at all. That is the only peace alternative, which is an absolutely essential condition for international relations to be fair, stable and sound.
The question of peace and security cannot be separated from the question of development. Indeed, each day the development crisis acquires new dimensions which point to insecurity and instability in today's world relations. In some areas this crisis takes the form of survival? in other areas it is the laborious, costly development efforts which are being challenged or compromised.
There are facts to be stated or restated in regard to that crisis. First, we should note that the crisis is structural in nature and global in impact. Indeed, the foundations and functioning of the current system of international economic relations are not adapted to current requirements for growth and development. The same is true of the central parameters of currency and finance, trade and raw materials. If we were to point to the most glaring signs of this inability to adapt, they would be indebtedness, the contraction of world trade and the acute stagnation in the raw material and commodities markets.
Secondly, the recovery that has been presented as a cure-all to the crisis has shown itself to be fragile, precarious and without lasting force. The same is true of the chain-reaction effect that it was thought could be attributed to that recovery.
Thirdly, the structural dysfunctioning of the current system of international economic relations, with its negative consequences for the developing world, is on the one hand destroying what has so laboriously been acquired on the other, including severe internal adjustments.
Fourthly, experiments attempted and carried out have, moreover, strongly proved the senselessness of any solution that separates growth from development. It has now become clear that there is no effective role to be played and no possible solution other than those that include growth and development as interconnected and interdependent elements. From this comes the necessity for a renewed North-South dialog sustained by the resolve of all and directed towards the achievement of all those global adjustments that the present crisis has shown to be so vital.
Fifthly and finally, in the context of the general development of international relations, the North-South gap, which is growing and deepening, is fraught with danger. The growth and deepening of that gap is not measured merely by quantitative size; the main concern should rather be qualitative in nature.
What will the configuration of international relations be tomorrow as the result of an evolution by which some people move towards the post-industrial revolution while others remain subjugated by pre-development? That question encompasses the major political dimension of the present world economic order and of the crisis it has brought about. Mankind is thus facing other choices, and there is only one that is valid - that of orderly and obstacle-free changes and transformations.
To say that the new international economic order is the necessary choice is not to sin by Utopianism or lack of realism. As the expression of a will and of an attempt to bridge the North-South gap, the new international economic order offers a path, which some still hesitate or refuse to take but which remains the only path assuring the stable and orderly development of world relations and leading to a universally shared prosperity.
The Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, which has the double misfortune of counting among its mergers peoples who are still under domination or oppression and regions caught up in conflict or tension, was obliged to make its voice heard so that what needs to be corrected will be corrected with all due respect to their purposes and principles and to those enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations.
This is the case in southern Africa, where apartheid still imposes its outrageous laws. But the pace of history is accelerating in southern Africa, and apartheid no longer has a future there. It is the collective responsibility of the international community to hasten the end of a system that has been branded a crime against humanity. To that end, there is no way other than that of global and mandatory sanctions, commensurate with such a crime.
For the national resistance movements - in South Africa under the leadership of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and in Namibia under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) - as well as for the front-line States, which have known acts of aggression and occupation, we must provide some small comfort to their just struggle.
The. same law of aggression, occupation and persistent spoliation applies to the Middle East and Palestine. There, there is injustice to be corrected and national rights to be restored. No lasting peace can be established without the Palestinian people, outside the Palestinian people and, a fortiori, against the Palestinian people. The national rights of the Palestinian people must be respected. That people has the inalienable right to an independent State in Palestine, its historic land. The occupied Arab territories, including Al Quds Al Sharif, must be vacated. Ravaged Lebanon must once again be able to live in a
climate of national understanding and unity and to enjoy its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
There can be no solution to the crisis in the Middle East other than a global
solution centering round the tragedy of the Palestinian people. For well known
historical reasons, the United Nations has a special responsibility in this respect.
An international conference under the auspices of the United Nations remains the sole framework that would be possible, feasible or credible. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole legitimate and authentic representative of the Palestinian people, must take its place and make its voice hear.
Not far from that region, the distressing conflict between Iraq and Iran is continuing and intensifying, to the detriment of the interests of the two fraternal peoples, and is threatening security and stability in that part of the world.
In the need for good neighborliness and for a responsible, clear and courageous identification of the true interests of the two countries we can find the resources to put an end to the state of conflict and hostilities and to open negotiations leading to a peaceful solution.*
In an identical approach and assessment the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity and, most recently, the Non-Aligned Movement, at its eighth summit meeting, described the conflict in Western Sahara as part of a decolonization process yet to be completed by the exercise of the right of the people of the territory to self-determination and independence.
In this regard the African peace plan, which has now become a universal plan, sets out the framework, the conditions and the means for a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the conflict. The principal political guidelines of this plan concern the appeal for direct negotiations between the two warring parties - in this case Morocco and the POLISARIO Front - direct negotiations between those parties on the conditions for a cease-fire and for a referendum on self-determination and the requirement that that referendum be free from any administrative or military constraints.
Within the framework of the political guidelines which the Assembly laid down at its previous session, the outgoing Chairman of the Organization of African Unity and the Secretary-General of the United Nations have striven to carry out their mission of peace. My country salutes their goodwill and persistence, and congratulates them on what they have achieved. Similarly, my country will encourage the mission of good offices in everything it may do, so that Western Sahara, too, may see the cause of freedom triumph.
If that cause is to find its final expression and its ultimate satisfaction in a referendum on self-determination, that referendum must be orderly and genuine. A referendum ca self-determination whose primary purpose is to confirm and codify a fait accompli is not a true referendum. A referendum on self-determination carried out and sanctioned by the occupying force is not a referendum. A referendum on
self-determination which confines the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations to a declamatory role is not a referendum.
The referendum on self-determination proposed and decided upon now by the international community as a whole is something quite different. It is precisely that kind of referendum which must prevail, in the name of justice, law and peace in the Maghreb.
In this matter it is precisely the building of a unified Great Maghred that is at stake: the area as a whole is an important geostrategic zone. Therefore, we do not doubt that it is the object of ambition and greed. Algeria has no alternative but to work for a unified, stable, secure and non-aligned Great Maghred.
The ill-conceived initiative in introducing the aggressive, destabilizing Zionist factor does serious harm to this worth-while enterprise, which has brought together all people of goodwill in the region.
In my country we venture to believe that the course of unification of the Maghreb is irreversible. No obstacles, whatever their variety, nature or form, can stop it.
Resort to force has caused a brutal outburst in the Mediterranean, filling that region to overflowing with crisis and tension. The acts of aggression committed there are inadmissible and intolerable and must be condemned. That aggression damages the collective enterprise of the coastal non-aligned countries, which have set for themselves the noble goal of making the Mediterranean Sea a zone of peace and co-operation. However, those countries find in the acts of force carried out new testimony to the need for all the things they have proclaimed and what they are working for - that is, to free the Mediterranean from the conditions of war imposed upon it and to restore to it the peaceful status of a place of friendliness, meeting and enjoyment.
Central America is the subject of this same logic of force and its effects. The rights of peoples and States and international legality have not been observed and respected. The peoples and States of the region must be able to live in harmony among themselves and with others, free from unjustifiable foreign intervention. The Contadora Group still enjoys our confidence and support.
The United Nations is experiencing a decisive crisis in its history. It is our common responsibility to understand correctly the facts of that crisis in order to deal with it in the best interests of our Organization. In this context I reaffirm my country's faith in the United Nations and, further, our overriding obligation to protect the Organization. The United Nations must be maintained, preserved and protected. International relations without the United Nations not only are inconceivable, but would be dangerous. The United Nations is the order of dialog and co-operation; to harm it is, directly or indirectly, to harm the order of dialog and co-operation itself. Finally, the United Nations is the most promising augury for the world of tomorrow. If it is challenged or weakened, that long-desired better world will be compromised.
It is our shared goal to ensure that the United Nations becomes more efficient, effective and influential in the conduct of world affairs. If this means the rationalization of structures, better use of available institutions, the elimination of unnecessary expenditure and the abolition of overlapping of functions and duplication, no one will object.
On the other hand, if all it means is challenge multilateralism and the central role therein of the United Nations, there will be reason to question the implications of such a fatal cycle. None of us will benefit if that happens; we shall all be the losers.


It is the irony of the United Nations that so many new leaders have stepped to this rostrum, as I have today, with mixed feelings. Yes, we took power to implement so many cf the ideals that the United Nations stands for. We have restored human rights and liberated our people from the oppression and corruption of a Government that had long since lost their support. Yet, like so many other leaders before me, I am obliged to say that we did that by ourselves. It was the Filipino people alone who braved intimidation and cheating at the polls and, when their victory was stolen from them, turned out into the streets by the million to reclaim and secure it.
Indeed, as our country bled at the hands of a Government that had lost all respect for the rights of our people, its leader's wife came to this rostrum to call piously for a new human order - this when thousands of Filipinos were political prisoners. And in the final months of the dictatorship international solidarity was expressed by ordinary people everywhere, who sat in front of their television sets and watched and cheered our revolution.
In this year of all years, when in so many parts of the world we see people struggling to establish their human rights, I believe one must be frank to be relevant. I mean to use this occasion to share with oppressed people everywhere may own experience of how change is brought about.
My basic conclusion can be stated very simply: to be free one can, as a people, effectively appeal to international standards of human rights set by others, such as the United Nations. Yet, in the end, to vindicate those rights, to achieve freedom, one is on one's own.
The United Nations has stayed out of the internal affairs of nations. Its Charter orders that that should be so. Obviously this is wise in so far as it prevents abuse of the sovereign independence of nations. Yet it has also been an invitation to hypocrisy. The value of this Assembly should rest on us, its members, practicing what we preach. To my mind, that requires both realism and' concern when we address the affairs of others, realism in that we should not promise more than we can deliver.
We should acknowledge what the Filipino people have learned; there is no substitute for action by an oppressed people themselves. But there should be concern about allowing this Hall to be abused by those who claim one standard of behavior and behave according to another back home. Do not misunderstand me. The United Nations should never be an exclusive club for one ideological model, for that would defeat its primary purpose, to keep peace in an imperfect world.
There are many ways to run a country, but there is only one way to treat people; with decency and respect for their uniqueness as individuals. Only if those of us who have the responsibility of leadership respect our fellows and their essential right to find fulfillment in their lives can we hold our heads high here at the United Nations.
The United Nations would lose all purpose if it were to set about judging one political system against another. Yet, equally, if the United Nations does not notice how governments treat people, it is nothing. I need only go back to the rousing words of the United Nations Charter. The United Nations is about people. If it fails them, can it be any better than its most corrupt and oppressive Member State? Even diplomacy, which is pre-eminently about States, cannot ignore, without peril or embarrassment, how States treat their people.
And so, as the leader of a country which has this year enjoyed the sweet taste of freedom, again let me reconfirm our support for what the United Nations at its best stands for: the peace, freedom, dignity and partnership of mankind. But let me also at the same time serve warning to those denied freedom and dignity: do not look beyond yourselves to find them.
He in the Philippines were strengthened in our resolve by knowing that people around the world shared our struggle. On their televisions and in their newspapers, they followed our drama. Further, we know that the rights we fought
for are universally sought after they are enshrined = not entombed, mind you - in the United Nations Covenants. The importance of such international support should never be dismissed. It helped us knowing we were not alone.
But even when the authors of the United Nations Charter stopped short of endorsing any right of interference in any nation's internal affairs, they were responding to more than the jealous realities of intergovernmental relations.
Rather, they were reflecting a more lasting truth about how man prefers to order his life on this planet.
People must be masters of their own fate. The Filipino people have known and been grateful for liberation at the hands of others; in 1898, a liberation that was swiftly betrayed, and in 1946, one which we promptly wasted. Yet now, having known the exhilaration of throwing off our bonds ourselves, I think every Filipino would agree there is only one real liberation.
Only a people, already sovereign in their hearts and deeds, can win and keep their independence and freedom. This is not a pessimistic conclusion because, additionally, I believe that no government can indefinitely resist a people united against it. , It may have the guns, the goons and the gold. Yet, as we found in the Philippines, there is no government that can indefinitely resist a people determined to be free.
And so, while the United Nations may not intervene to bring the sovereignty and freedom .enjoyed by nations to the peoples who are denied them, it should carefully avoid becoming an unwitting partner of their oppressors.
I turn now specifically to the great moral issue that confronts this General Assembly: the situation in South Africa. To Nelson Mandela and his wife, Winnie, and all South. Africans, my prayers are with you. Mr. Mandela's long incarceration in prison, separated from his wife and family, inevitably reminds me of the imprisonment of my own husband, Ninoy Aquino.
The lesson in my country and so many other places such as Argentina, whose President Alfonsin recently visited Manila, is that every act of repression reaps its final return. In the end, human values cannot be held down. They could not be in Argentina; they could not be in the Philippines. They will not be in South Africa.
It is right that we all play our part in creating the environment for change in South Africa. The Philippines will support any action the international community takes to hasten the advent of peace and freedom in South Africa and to show solidarity with its people. But it would help the case a great deal if this forum were to take equal note and action against oppression wherever it occurs, wherever people are abused and degraded, be it blatantly or ostensibly in their own name. I do not believe that the force of moral action is diminished by being spread wherever it is needed. It is strengthened by exercise and weakened by neglect.
Let me say directly to the millions of victims of apartheid in South Africa, to the families of those who have given their lives: do not waiver in your unity; look only to your own strength and determination..
If there is one tactic that served us above all others in our movement for freedom, it was espousing a program of action that kept us united. In our case, this meant the use of non-violence and constant vigilance against the provocation of the authorities. Often, I was urged to go further: to call for a more confrontational line. But my constant concern was to keep the wide coalition of forces that backed our campaign together. Often, I disappointed some of my supporters by approving only limited actions against the Government. Yet it was the rock-like unity of the opposition and the enormous support it enjoyed that overwhelmed the Government. That meant not going faster than any of our supporters were prepared to go. This allowed us to overcome where more narrow-based opposition challenges had failed to dislodge the dictatorship.
Perhaps the United Nations cannot go faster than its most reluctant Member towards its stated goals of peace, freedom and dignity for the peoples of all nations. And perhaps, for its more significant achievement, we should look rather to the peace it has helped preserve, and the co-operation it has fostered, between nations already friends, than to the peace it has failed to keep between nations bent on war. In the same light should we regard the salutary influence of its freedom-practicing members in the counsels of the world. Even so have I come to appreciate the achievement of our own regional organization, the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). ASEAN's faltering steps towards economic co-operation and complementation, in the name of peace and stability in the region, are meant to serve and express the abiding peace and amity among its members that were there from the start.
To nurture a vigorous peace wherever it abides and strengthen long-standing friendships: perhaps this is all that it lies in the power of international organizations to do.
I have always been a firm advocate of peace. Perhaps it is only the tragedy of conflict that teaches us the true value of peace. Let us who are the loyal friends of peace continue to resist the temptation to exploit the conflicts of our neighbors. Those of us in ASEAN understand the crucial importance of these goals. Each of our countries has passed through periods of crisis when great rifts of weakness have appeared, yet none of the others, for all our differences in political systems and beliefs, has exploited the occasion; on the contrary, they have risen to it with encouraging expressions of sympathy and offers of help and mediation, ever respectful of the integrity of their tragic neighbor.
And so my message today is an effort to bring this mission of the United Nations into sharper focus to the end that there shall be no more disappointments over unwarranted expectations. There will be no more wasted hopes on the part of those who must save their strength for the long and difficult struggle for peace and freedom. There will be, on the other hand, a clearer recognition by the United Nations of its irreducible commitments and values, a more jealous regard for their integrity and, for that reason, perhaps, a surer prospect of achieving the United Nations goals of peace, freedom, dignity and the partnership of mankind.


 I congratulate you most warmly and sincerely, Sir, on your election to the high office of President of the General Assembly at its forty-first session. I am sure that, with your wide experience, you will discharge your task with success.
I wish also to thank your predecessor. Ambassador Jaime de Pini6s of Spain, for the exemplary work he did during the historic fortieth session.
My gratitude goes also to the Secretary-General, His Excellency
Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his tireless efforts in administering the affairs of this Organization.
I take this opportunity to convey to all Member and Observer States, organizations and agencies of the United Nations the friendly greetings and felicitations of my Government and people. Five months ago, my country was hit by a most devastating cyclone. It was the worst in our recorded history. More than 100 people died, and some 90,000 were left homeless. Many thousands more were left
without food. The damage to our basic economic and social infrastructure in the key areas of our country was so extensive that it has put us back about 10 years in our development effort.
It was gratifying, therefore, to have had immediate practical assistance from this Organization, from other organizations, and from many friendly States from near and far. To each and every one of them we say, "Tagio tumas an God blesim lufala", which means "Thank you very much, and God bless you all".
During the past year we have witnessed some interesting regional and global developments, in our own region, the seventeenth South Pacific Forum unanimously decided to request that New Caledonia be restored to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. That decision was based on the fact that New Caledonia is in our region and that the indigenous people there have clearly expressed their desire for self-determination and independence. Solomon Islands respects this, and reaffirms its commitment to the Forum leaders' decision, it urges all States Members of this Organization to recognize that the underlying intention is to bring about a peaceful transition in New Caledonia.
My Government believes that the only sensible course is to allow the United Nations to oversee the transition of New Caledonia to independence and nationhood, so that further bloodshed can be avoided. The United Nations has successful supervised such transitions by many countries that are now Member States. We are certain that the United Nations, in co-operation with the Government of France and the indigenous people of New Caledonia, can ensure that the best possible arrangement will be formulated to enable the inhabitants of that Territory to determine their own future destiny.
In that connection, the Government of Solomon islands warmly welcomes the decision on the question Movement. The Non-Aligned Movement's statement clearly shows the importance its members attach to decolonization. It was indeed a historic expression of solidarity and brotherhood with the Forum leaders on this subject, and it is fundamental to the future peace and stability of our region. My Government applauds this initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement and we are grateful to the members of the Movement for the recognition they have given to the South Pacific Forum as an important organization in our region.
The area of fisheries is a key element in our overall economic development. It represents a fundamental resource, both for our own local consumption and for our export earnings. Hence, we are naturally concerned about its orderly development. That concern hinges on the need for recognition of our legislative requirements. Under our Fisheries Act, any foreign fishing vessel must be licensed to fish in our 200-mile fisheries zone. Our license fees are negotiable and are always fair and reasonable. But failure to comply with the Act will result in our having to seize vessels that are caught in illegal fishing.
He have had cases of that in the past, and I can say here that that experience does not augur well Cor the maintenance of cordial and friendly relations. As a peace-loving nation, Solomon Islands subscribes to. international co-operation, and that is why we are determined to tap our fisheries resources, including highly migratory species, in co-operation with those distant water-fishing nations genuinely willing to assist us. Our Fisheries Act is non-discriminatory. He will license any foreign fishing vessel from any nation prepared to pay the right price.
Nuclear testing by France continues to be an issue of grave concern in the South Pacific region. I am therefore obliged to repeat the consistent and genuine position of Solomon Islands*, we are opposed to it. All the countries of the Forum are unanimous in their condemnation of this inhumane activity. It has been claimed that there is no danger involved in carrying out these tests. If that is so, why then does France not conduct them along its own Atlantic coastline?
Super-Power rivalry is an issue of growing importance in the South Pacific region. He have been intrigued by and have observed with much interest certain developments in our region that reflect that rivalry, and we have come to the sad conclusion that the end result can only be the region's destabilization. For Solomon Islands, such rivalry is unwelcome to the extent that it projects a tinge of colonial domination. We do not wish to be recolonized or dominated. He have already determined our philosophy and have decided upon a system of Government that upholds the principles of democracy, and we will not depart from that.
As regards human rights an.d individual freedoms, I wish to stress here that Solomon Islands has them clearly enshrined in its national Constitution. Not only do we uphold them, but we practice them with civility and humility.
With regard to other regional conflicts, I wish to reemphasize our stand on the situations in South Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Kampuchea and the Korean peninsula.
The situation in southern Africa is still a grave cause for concern. Apartheid is the most evil form of human deprivation. As it has in the past, my Government strongly condemns apartheid and urges those States that support, in one way or another, the racist Government of South Africa, to disengage themselves, practically and realistically, from perpetuating the survival of the Pretoria regime. He believe that a concerted effort by the international community to apply economic sanctions would be effective in pursuing this objective. The success of such measures in the liberation of Zimbabwe is a good basis from which to work. We earnestly believe that the time is now right for positive action, for action that will ensure the establishment of freedom and democracy in South Africa.
In pursuit of that noble aim, my Government stands firm in its policy of wishing to see apartheid dismantled so that fairness and justice may become the norms of life for all peoples in South Africa. Free and fair elections must be the sole determinant for bringing about majority government in that country.
The fourteenth special session of the General Assembly that was held from 17
to 20 September 1986 marked another in the long line of concerted efforts to
liberate Namibia and its people from south Africa's neocolonialism and
imperialism. My Government sincerely hopes that, given the clearly expressed
concern of the Assembly and the equally clear voices for freedom that trumpeted
from around the globe, this liberating assemblage of nations, both large and small,
is now nearing the end of the tunnel and will begin to see the dawning light of independence for Namibia.
It is appropriate that that special session was held this year, for 1986 marks the twentieth anniversary of the termination of South Africa's Mandate over Namibia by the United Nations General Assembly on 27 October 1966. But  will it take another two decades before the people of Namibia can exercise their inalienable  right to self-determination and independence, free from aggression, subversion and suppression by the apartheid regime in South Africa?
The answer must surely be "No" - not because of the length of time, not because we are getting old and tired, not because South Africa's apartheid is on the verge of collapse. He say "No" simply because it is that people's inalienable right and must therefore be honored and respected. This is what the United Nations Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples of 1960 in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) is all about; to enable all peoples of all colonial countries to exercise their inalienable rights to self-determination and independence.
Although it was not possible for me to make a statement during the special session on Namibia, I can say now that we subscribe to the main thrust of the resolution that was adopted. Taking further advantage of this occasion, I should like to make explicitly clear my Government's position on Namibia. We fully support immediate independence, with territorial integrity intact, for Namibia. Work towards the achievement of that objective is the direct responsibility of the United Nations. In the struggle of Namibia to attain self-determination and national independence, the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) is the sole and authentic representative of Namibia's people. We do not recognize the so-called interim government in Namibia, which was imposed by South Africa. We strongly condemn South Africa's illegal and colonial occupation of Namibia, and we regard the Pretoria racist Government's acts of aggression, subversion and destabilization as serious threats to international peace and security. We continue to hold that Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the only acceptable basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian question, and we urge its immediate implementation without modification, qualification or precondition.
The peace process in the Middle East, if pursued successfully, will be a cornerstone for international peace and security. Today, I express here the hope of my Government that the renewed efforts to continue dialog between the parties involved will eventually lead to an end of the conflict in this region. We also have the same desire to see an end to the Iran-Iraq conflict.
Our position on the situation in Afghanistan and Kampuchea remains unchanged, We have already condemned the occupation of Afghanistan by foreign forces. We still strongly condemn the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for this action and urge its Government to give effect to its platitudes about not interfering in the internal affairs of other States. Let freedom and democracy return to Afghanistan,
With respect to Kampuchea, Solomon Islands reaffirms its condemnation of Viet Nam for its illegal occupation of that country. In this respect, my Government welcomes the eight-point proposal put forward by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. This proposal holds out the best hope for a negotiated settlement. In our view, it is a genuine attempt which is capable of accommodating the divergences and differences that exist in this situation.
The reunification of the two Koreas is a subject of interest not only to the Korean people but also to the Pacific region and the international community. But the pursuit of reunification should take place without outside interference. The decision to reunite must be left to the Korean people themselves. The starting point, however, is for this international body to recognize that there are two clearly distinguishable States: North Korea and South Korea, both of which are Observer States of this Organization and have individual membership in the various bodies and agencies of the United Nations family, it is my Government's firm view that, as two separate States at this juncture, they should both be admitted as Members of the United Nations until such time as reunification has been finally achieved, at which time their membership would naturally be merged into one. Their admission to this Organization would enhance the prospect of establishing durable peace on the peninsula and would lead to successful reunification.
I now wish to turn briefly to the global economic scene and some important issues relating to development. For small developing States whose fragile economies are so vulnerable to outside influences the experience of the past 12 months has not been encouraging. Depressed commodity prices and increased protectionism in some industrialized countries are a burden. Even while we are struggling to earn revenues for basic services such as health and education, the developed industrialized countries are talking in terms of spending billions of dollars on the manufacture of war weapons, I feel there is a serious imbalance, for while some of us are concerned about the plight of our peoples lacking some of the basic necessities of life - food , shelter and clothing - the industrialized world is bent on piling up more and more armaments.
My delegation wishes to associate itself with the universal condemnation of international terrorism. Recent incidents in Beirut and Paris clearly demonstrate the urgent need for the international community to combat this heinous and barbaric practice by those who can only be regarded as criminals and murderers. Another equally evil and satanic practice is drug abuse and illegal drug trafficking. My Government condemns those responsible, and pledges to do whatever it can within its limited means to help eradicate this disease in all its forms.
So much has already been said in the past few weeks, and I am sure much more will follow, on the United Nations system itself. In particular, grave concern has been expressed regarding the funding and the management of the Organization.
My Government shares many of these concerns and supports the general view that cost-effective measures should be sought and finally adopted to bring about efficiency and cost savings. In our view, the report of the Group of High-Level Intergovernmental Experts on the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations is a good basis from which to start. Certain rumors have been heard to the effect that the role of the United Nations itself is in great jeopardy. While there may be grounds for such pessimism, Solomon Islands does not subscribe to that view. As a small nation Solomon Islands regards the United Nations as the only international body that can continue to hold all nations together. It holds out the only hope for the survival of humanity in an age whicit has been threatened more and more by man's own inventions of modern weaponry and technology. I feel the United Nations holds the human touch that should always remind us that, in the final analysis, this Organization was established to permit the pursuit of human happiness for all peoples.


When the General Assembly adjourned last year, at the end of its fortieth anniversary session, there was hope that the renewed commitment to the ideals of the United Nations expressed by so many of its Members s would contribute to a rapid restoration of confidence in our Organization, create the momentum for a process of reform, and become a real turning point in the cr is is of the United Nations
One year later, and despite a number of noteworthy new departures, not many of the hopes of the fortieth session of the General Assembly have been fulfilled, and all too many symptoms of crisis remain, not the least of which is what we perceive to be a continuing erosion of the world-wide system of international organizations, and of the process of multilateral diplomacy.
We are called upon therefore once again to turn our energies and imagination towards the renewal and revitalization of the world's only global instrument for the maintenance of peace and security, and for its effective and concerted use in addressing a world of continuing political and economic crisis.
If the United Nations continues to be in a state of crisis, it is also because many of the principles and objectives on which it was built have fallen into neglect, and not the least among them is the principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes and the patient search for compromise between nations.
We still find an alarming tendency to overstate national power, and national interests have led to an increasing pursuit of unilateral policies by nations large and email. Military rather than political means continue to be used in dealing with world and regional conflicts. Many of the barriers erected against the use of force in international relations after 1945 seem to have collapsed. The
political crisis of the United Nations is therefore also the crisis of an organization created for the peaceful settlement of disputes but faced by
militarization of world politics.
A new and indeed most brutal form of violence has emerged lately, the
violence of international terrorism. More than other forms of violence it attacks
the very fiber of international relations. It is a new scourge of mankind. It
cannot be justified under any circumstances or for any reason. International
co-operation to combat international terrorism must be further intensified.
In the demilitarization of world politics, the reduction of the increased
levels of the use of force and military power in world politics, and in the fight
against international terrorism, the role of the United Nations appears
indispensable.
Thus disarmament and arms control must retain the highest priority on the world's agenda. New and radical approaches to disarmament and arms control must be adopted. Many types of weapons, old and new, should be totally abolished. Such a ban, as that applied to biological weapons, for instance, should also eradicate chemical weapons. Deep cuts should be made in the existing arsenals of nuclear weapons. Development of new types of such weapons should be discouraged. Therefore Austria considers the An ti -Ball is tic Missile Treaty, for instance, as a pivotal element in the existing system of arms control treaties. Finally, a
comprehensive test ban is required.
Outer space should remain an environment preserved exclusively for peaceful
purposes. More areas, such as Antarctica, should remain free of weapons of all
kinds. We therefore subscribe to the philosophy of creating nuclear-free zones.*
*Mr. FERM (Sweden), Vice-President, took the Chair.
The summit meeting between the leaders of the Soviet union and the united States to address questions of this magnitude, announced just this morning, has universal support. Its importance for an easing of tensions and for the preparation of new and substantial disarmament and arms control agreements can hardly be overstated. We trust that the combined wisdom of President Reagan and Secretary-General Gorbachev will not disappoint the community of nations.
On 4 November Foreign Ministers of 35 nations, including the United States and the Soviet Union, will convene in Vienna to open the third follow-up meeting of the Conference cm Security and Co-operation in Europe.
This Conference, over the past years, has established a useful regional framework for constructive dialog and agreement, comprising all areas of East-west relations-, economic, cultural, political, humanitarian and military.
Its excellent past record is due not least to the fact that the conference offers equal opportunities for nations, large and small, to participate. Neutral and non-aligned nations of Europe have found an increasingly useful role in this context. The positive and substantive results of the Stockholm Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe, which ended only a few days ago, augur well in this regard. The Vienna meeting should in our minds, therefore, be a starting point for a new era of co-operation and mutual understanding in, but also beyond, Europe.
Three international conferences held this year, one of them in Austria's capital, have provided one single lesson: the South African Government can only avoid further escalation of violence and bloodshed through a dramatic and definitive reversal of its policies. We do not feci, unfortunately, that South Africa has come to read the writing on the wall.
Therefore, the determination of an overwhelming majority of States Meters of this Organization, not least of which are the Western industrialized democracies, to adopt further sanctions as a last peaceful means of pressure for change, is growing every day.
Austria remains firmly committed to the cause of the freedom and dignity of the peoples of southern Africa. We shall not hesitate therefore to participate in further international efforts to dismantle the heinous system of apartheid and to win freedom and independence for Namibia. In abolishing apartheid, and in winning independence for Namibia, the United Nations has an indispensable role spelled out not least in Security Council resolution 435 adopted as long ago as 1978. Here, as in many other regards, the United Nations has made important contributions to the
search for peace in the world.
More than once the United Nations has contributed to the painful search for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. Resolution 242 (1967) constitutes to this day the most widely recognized framework for a peaceful settlement. United Nations peace-keeping operations continue to play an essential role in the Middle East. But the peace-keeping and the peace-making potential of the United Nations in this region has never been fully exploited, and it seems particularly neglected
today. It is from the United Nations that some of the most elementary principles for a just and durable solution have emerged - such as the right of all States to exist within secure and internationally recognized boundaries; the unacceptability of the acquisition of territory by force; and the need to recognize the national rights of the Palestinian people and to give its representatives, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), their place at the conference table.
In this context the idea of holding an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations has been gaining ground. Austria - as it did as long ago as 1973, when it was a member of the Security Council and when the Geneva Conference on the Middle East was established by the Security Council and
convened - supports efforts to promote agreement between the parties on this important step to peace in the Middle East.
The war between Iran and Iraq, now in its seventh year, has caused immense loss of human life. Its continuation is threatening not only the political stability but also the economic development of a whole region of the world. Determined measures to end this cruel war are long overdue. We think that as a first step a general and strict arms embargo should be considered by the Security Council. Pending a decision by the Council, all countries should observe such an embargo on a voluntary basis.
In our view, the present situation in Central America calls for utmost restraint from all sides. Respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States must be universal. The principles of peaceful settlement of disputes and non-intervention cannot be applied selectively. Relations between States must be conducted on the basis of international law. At the same time, it is our firm belief that all Governments of the region must fully respect and safeguard the human rights and fundamental freedoms of those who are under their jurisdiction.
We share the expectation of the Con ta dor a countries and their Support Group that efforts made by Governments to arrive at political dialog and national reconciliation will do much to create pluralistic democratic societies in Central America and will substantially increase the likelihood of a successful outcome of peace initiatives. A Contadora regional peace treaty, signed and implemented in full by all the countries concerned, offers the best hope for peace and for lasting respect for the security and sovereign rights of all the nations of Central America.
On the other hand, over the past years democracy has been on the march in much of the great continent of South America. Thus, the proclamation of new states of emergency and the taking of political prisoners constitute regrettable anomalies
that should be rapidly relinquished.
Peace in South-East Asia remains an elusive goal. The unresolved problem of Kampuchea, its occupation by foreign troops, appears to be the major obstacle dividing the peoples of the region. In Austria's view, only a political process based on the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the International Conference on Kampuchea can lead to a just settlement.
Almost seven years have passed since the military intervention in Afghanistan. We remain deeply concerned about the continuing occupation of this traditionally non-aligned country and the violation of its sovereignty. The suffering of millions of refugees must not be forgotten. Any solution must enable these refugees to return to their homes in safety and honor. We therefore support the efforts of the Secretary-General's Special Representative in his search for a
political settlement.
The situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the world presents a
contradictory picture today. Arbitrary executions, torture, the denial of fundamental rights, racism and intolerance still prevail in many countries. What
is lacking today is not international instruments but their faithful implementation. Let us, all together, co-operate to reduce the gap between norms and reality. Efforts of the United Nations and of regional organizations, such as the Council of Europe, should be supported.
Striking imbalances still prevail in the world economy: The growth rate in many developing countries - with few exceptions - lags significantly behind their population growth. Commodity prices are at their lowest level historically since 1945. Most commodity agreements seem to be close to collapsing. The debt problem weighs heavily on many developing countries, especially in Africa and Latin America.
This situation contains dangerous prospects for global economic growth. In view of the considerable decline in net capital flows to developing countries, we are faced with the serious, and, I would add, shameful, anomaly that at present a net flew of financial resources on the order of many billions of United States dollars annually - the exact figure is a subject of controversy among experts, but this is the order of magnitude - is taking place from the South to the North, instead of from the North to the South. Living standards in many parts of the world actually continue to decline.
Thus, it is more than obvious that many development concepts of the past have failed. A fundamental rethinking of the many interrelated issues of development, trade and finance is required. And many issues that appear technical or purely economic on the surface are actually deeply political - the debt problem amongst them. Reliance on short-term solutions largely neglecting social and economic
effects in the economies and the social structures of developing countries is therefore a dangerous proposition.
Instruments for international co-operation must be strengthened if we wish to meet the challenges of a rapidly evolving world economy. In this context the
successful outcome of the meeting at Punta del Este - especially the recognition of special, more favorable treatment of developing countries - appears encouraging.
After years of stalemate in the North-South dialog the special session on Africa seemed to signal a change of atmosphere. My country will contribute actively towards the implementation of the United Nations ProgramF of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development, 1986-1990. But the Nor to-South relationship remains the central social issue of our time. New political approaches, based on the principles of equality and international solidarity, are
required.
We must preserve our planet for future generations. Threats to its ecological balance, to the global environment must be met. More resources than before must be pooled, nationally and internationally, to meet this challenge. Let us therefore apply our imagination towards creative approaches, which could include, inter alia, the establishment of a global environmental emergency fund, possibly in the form of
a new "window" of the World Bank.
Narcotic drugs are a dangerous problem of global proportions. The convening of a world conference to combat drug abuse aid the illegal traffic in drugs is therefore a very timely initiative. Austria will do its very best to contribute to the success of this major event, to be held in Vienna in the summer of 1987.
Whether this year's session of the General Assembly will be judged as a success or a failure will largely depend on how we tackle toe Organization's crisis - on how we tackle its crisis - on hew we deal with its administrative and budgetary reform. In this context, the report of the Group of 18 represents a valuable contribution to our debate. Austria believes that the continuation of this process of reflection and reform is essential.
A part of this problem - which is of crucial importance for the Organization -seems to be the question of a new mechanism in the area of Program planning and budget. But let us not forget, in all this process of reform, that we vitally need the United Nations as a strong and constructive force in an increasingly interdependent world. An appeal should therefore be addressed to all Member States to meet loyally all obligations flowing from the Charter, in order to strengthen the United Nations.
Allow me to say a few words about Austria's relations with Italy. Austria entertains good and friendly relations with this important neighboring country. In this context, the question of the South Tyrol is of special importance. Resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in 1960 and 1961 led, in 1969, to an agreement between Austria and Italy on a new framework for the autonomy of the South Tyrol.
"today - this very day - we observe the fortieth anniversary of the conclusion of the Paris Agreement between Austria and Italy, signed by two great statesmen, Alcide de Gasperi and Karl Gruber. This agreement aims at protecting the German speaking population in the South Tyrol. This anniversary should remind us that, notwithstanding the major progress achieved so far, essential autonomy provisions agreed upon in 1969 remain yet to be implemented. This applies in particular to a center-piece of autonomy, the use of the German language in court and in police and civil proceedings, causing continuing and justified concern among South Tyroleans and the Austrian Government.
In this regard arrangements have been envisaged some two weeks ago by South Tyrolean representatives and the Government of Italy. They offer hope that final agreement by the Italian Government will follow soon. Our expectations have been further heightened by the recent declaration of Foreign Minister Giulio Andreotti that the Italian Government intends to enact all other remaining provisions for
this autonomy as soon as possible.
Before concluding, let me pay a special tribute to the Secretary-General. Austria is deeply grateful to Mr. Perez de Cuellar for his untiring efforts in carrying out an often difficult mandate. My country will continue to support him.
We gratefully remember the able conduct of last year's session of the General Assembly by its President, Ambassador Jaime de Pinios of Spain.
May I say, finally, that a most outstanding representative of Asia now presides over the Assembly. I sincerely congratulate him upon his election and wish him every success. His well-established diplomatic skills certainly assure us that this will be a memorable session of the Assembly in the annals of the United Nations.


Allow me to begin, Mr. President, by expressing on behalf of the people and Government of Mexico our profound gratitude to the international community for its prompt and generous assistance following the tragic earthquakes in our country last September. The people of Mexico will never forget such a clear demonstration of world-wide solidarity.
I should also like to express our sincere pleasure at your well-deserved election to lead the efforts of the General Assembly, and to make known Mexico's satisfaction at the skillful and effective role played by your predecessor, Ambassador Jaime de Pinies, who guided the work of the General Assembly during its fortieth session.
I must also acknowledge the tenacious efforts of the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, who throughout his mandate has shown clear-sightedness and political imagination in confronting the grave challenges of the international situation. His various initiatives are proof of his unshakable commitment to .peace and co-operation between States.
My presence before the General Assembly is meant to reassert Mexico's permanent commitment to the United Nations and its ideals. It is a commitment to the rule of law in international relations, the peaceful resolution of disputes and the search for democratic formulas permitting peaceful coexistence and co-operation between peoples, on a just and equitable basis.
A little more than four decades ago the hopes of mankind, then emerging from the bloodiest devastation it had ever endured, converged in the creation of a new international organization. Millions of people saw in the United Nations a unique opportunity to build an order among States that would promote progress and universal well-being within a framework of peace and security.
The international society of our day would not be the same without the presence of the United Nations. The fortieth anniversary of its founding provided a suitable occasion to take stock of the system.
The Organization has undoubtedly helped to deactivate and reduce international crises that might have degenerated into a catastrophe with irreversible consequences. Its promotion of the decolonization progress, which has changed the political map of our time, stands out as one of its fundamental achievements. The growth of a vast system of co-operation and pluralist discussion has led to a common awareness of the great issues that determine the life of nations.
Thanks to the formidable development of the multilateral system, we now know that, in spite of geographical, historical, cultural and political differences, we face common challenges that demand the combining of efforts and a new form of solidarity.
However, we are still far from attaining the goals of 1945. We now live in a world that is probably more dangerous and unstable, in which the political, military and technical predominance of a few has accentuated the inequality of nations.
The lifespan of our Organization has coincided with one of the most dynamic and changing periods in the history of man. Scientific discoveries and the
technological revolution have transformed societies. Communications link us instantaneously, making us both witnesses of and participants in the most distant events. Today all men are truly modern, unfortunately, this great technical capacity for communication has not always served to further understanding. All too often we know only the appearance of events and not their true significance. Mistrust, prejudice and uncertainty have not yet been banished from our midst.
The juridical equality of States was enshrined in the San Francisco Charter, but mechanisms were also established to give the victorious Powers particular responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. In more ways than one the Charter brought together the ideals and pragmatism of a group of nations determined to prevent for ever a universal conflagration. However, some of them did not relinquish their prerogatives and influence.
The international community was obliged to yield before the force of circumstances, but that responsibility, as reflected in the rights and obligations of the permanent members of the Security Council, must always be oriented and limited by the international legal order. The attributes of the permanent members are subject to law; they are not privileges without norms or limits. Rivalry -which was accompanied by a division of the world into zones of influence - soon led to confrontation and, as was to be expected, confrontation overstepped the bounds of law and succumbed to the frequent temptation to make indiscriminate use of force.
The community of nations, which involves an implied equality of rights and obligations, was distorted by a concentration of power around two main poles. That bipolarity was able to impose its demands: alignment and subordination became a normal part of international life. To be sure, certain periods of extreme tension have been followed by others where a glimmer of understanding was seen. The confrontation to which I am referring - whose true nature and menace is seen in the terrible nuclear arsenals which have been accumulated - has been one of the central problems in international relations during the last four decades.
Fortunately, the conflagration which could destroy us all has been so far avoided. Yet we are all subject to a threat the materialization of which would be irreversible. This confrontation has defined many aspects of contemporary life and has left its tragic stamp on the fate of many peoples and regions of the developing world.
The evolution of our Organization is a reflection of trends in world politics. The successes and failures, the virtues and deficiencies, of the United Nations are an expression of the degree of commitment of Member States to international law and multi-lateralism.
Often, the Organization has been paralyzed by a lack of political will on the part of some States, the very ones which, from the beginning, were entrusted with a primary responsibility for the settlement of disputes. Those States have preferred to create their own security systems, which, aside from undermining the main task of the united Nations in the maintenance of peace, have buttressed the existence of zones of hegemony.
The indiscriminate use of the right of veto has all too frequently kept the Security Council from fully achieving its aims, and has prevented that important body from speaking out on events and conflicts that threaten international peace and security.
At the same time we cannot deny that the multilateral system has faced clear difficulties over the past several years, some structural and some political. The extraordinary growth of the Organization in recent years has complicated its operation; its effectiveness has therefore been decreased. There is no doubt that strengthening the Organization requires changes to streamline its activities and, above all, to facilitate implementation. That would enable us to restore its legitimacy, and even, for some, its credibility.
To the Organization's administrative difficulties have now been added the financial problems which are largely the result of the failure of several Member States to pay their assessed contributions. The international community trusts that the ad hoc Group of 18 experts will be of assistance in overcoming these problems. In any event, the international community knows full well that our contributions to the United Nations are a legal obligation that no one can repudiate unilaterally.
The increasing disregard for the norms of international law and the continued unjustified use of force are particularly serious symptoms of the current situation of the community of States. Our Organization cannot and must not be seen as an annoying obstacle to hegemonic aspirations but rather as the only civilized possibility for coexistence in our time. The essential conditions for transforming the international order for the benefit of all are: the improvement of institutions; effectiveness in reaching goals; complete respect for principles; and the genuine political will to strengthen the United Nations system for the benefit of all.
The restoration of confidence is incompatible with exclusivist views of the international scene and with definitions of that scene as an arena for political struggle for the defense of individual interests. The voice of the majority cannot be ignored in this forum. Disregard for its will ignores our characteristic diversity and eliminates precious possibilities for genuine, pluralistic coexistence.
It is our fate all to live on the same planet, and it is our joint responsibility to make that planet habitable for all peoples, avoiding fruitless friction and erosion, which bear upon the weakest. Harmonious coexistence and civilization can prevail only if based upon respect for the rights of others and upon joining efforts to solve problems of universal interest.
The grave economic and financial crisis of our time is an expression of unsolved structural problems in the international order. This crisis poses a serious threat to stability in relations among States and affects the social and political peace of all peoples.
Unfortunately, the standstill in global negotiations, which are of vital importance to our development, has exacerbated recession and impoverishment. We have repeatedly pointed to a profound unfairness in trade between industrialized and developing nations, and have demanded that the costs of growth be shared more equitably between rich and poor countries.
Obviously, the effort to achieve growth is a major responsibility of our societies. We recognize that much remains to be done, much remains to be improved to that end. But our internal efforts will be unavailing if the world economic climate is unfavorable to us. The problems of Africa, Asia and Latin America also involve the developed economies which have often imposed upon us conditions which are disadvantageous for productive development, technology transfers, and the marketing of our exports, not to mention the financial drain suffered by our economies. Our countries have contributed to the well-being and even on occasion to the extravagance of the more advanced countries. It is time for the more powerful to see the historical fact that their own future and security depend also on their being flexible with regard to the demands of the weaker, and by making genuine contributions to their development and thus to the common good.
An appeal for joint responsibility in solving the different aspects of the crisis does not mean attributing blame but rather calling on all nations to assume their commitments so as to face together what no nation can solve by itself.
The search for options must take into account the close relationship between debt, trade and currency. We know that a good part of our financial difficulties derives from the enormous burden of servicing foreign debt. We need both the restructuring of the existing debt and fresh resources, but we are also convinced that the reduction of real interest rates to past levels is urgently needed and would offer equitable alternatives that would benefit the entire international financial system. We must not forget that current levels have generated substantial profits for the international banks.
Solution of the crisis implies an improvement in the terms of exchange. It further requires, without a doubt, the elimination of protectionism and better prices for our commodities. From this perspective I should like to emphasize the importance of the new round of trade negotiations within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the need for oil producers and consumers to resume talks with a view to establishing the market. In such cases communication among the parties involved is an irreplaceable means of furthering the common good.
Greater international co-operation and adequate financial flows are also necessary in order for our countries to develop without becoming indebted and in order to break the vicious cycle of need that condemns us to poverty.
Mexico has been particularly scrupulous in dealing prudently with its financial difficulties. Thus far we have respected our international commitments thanks to a tremendous effort on the part of our people, whose standard of living has, as a result, been negatively affected. Though we have recently achieved important agreements with regard to managing the foreign debt that will allow for
moderate growth over the next two years, we are aware that such agreements are temporary and perhaps insufficient. That will hold true as long as we do not find long-term political and economic solutions of universal scope.
The problems of energy, trade, productivity, finance and indebtedness that we all face require global and mutually acceptable solutions; otherwise the world economy will remain subjected to the tragic cycle of recession and recovery, which has not been unrelated to the political instability and the conflicts affecting various parts of the world.
In calling attention to this situation, Mexico expresses its full solidarity with the developing peoples that are struggling for a more just and balanced international economic order. We will spare no effort on their behalf in the search for just and realistic solutions through negotiations. We betray neither our sovereignty nor our historical positions in seeking, with flexibility and responsibility, agreements that further our legitimate interests.
Bipolar confrontation and the intensification of regional conflicts, added to the arms race, have been jeopardizing world peace and security since the beginning of this decade. We are encouraged by the possibility of detente between the great Powers that is being renewed after a period of estrangement and uncertainty.
We hope that negotiation and dialog will reduce tensions. That is why we express our wish that a renewal of contacts between those Powers, at the highest level if necessary, will lead to permanent agreements, providing us all with genuine security. We hope that this possibility will soon become fact.
We must not forget, however, that there are many other issues besides this question, so critical in our time, which do not fit into the framework of the East-West relationship. North and South must redefine the structure of their relations. Beyond any prevailing tendencies, today's world presents a diversity
that does not; permit of rigid or simple viewpoints. East and West, North and South offer a plurality of ways of life that constitutes the true wealth of today's community of nations.
Every nation impresses upon its foreign policy traits derived from its own historical experience and can express in this forum, frame of pressure and in complete independence, its views on the international situation and the reasons for whatever initiatives it promotes. This is the highest virtue of the democratic spirit of our Organization. All voices must be heard and considered, for political astuteness is not necessarily on the side of economic or military power.
In its active participation in international forums, Mexico always seeks to be constructive. We do not come here to oppose anybody, or to vote for or against anybody, but to maintain and strengthen principles expressly accepted by the international community. Our political tradition and the cordial relations we try to maintain with all the countries of the world are rooted in our unbending conviction that the power of law is greater than the power of force. Thus we have participated in actions that contribute to the reduction of international tension and to the solution of regional problems. We have raised our voice in negotiations between the industrialized and the developing worlds. We have also made clear our commitment to the processes of decolonization, and we demand respect for human rights wherever they are violated.
At the same time, historical experience forces us, faithfully and constantly, to defend the principles of non-intervention and the self-determination of peoples and to stand with conviction for the peaceful settlement of disputes and international co-operation. For the same reasons we are unwaveringly opposed to the undue use of force and to the threat of its use. Mexico maintains that full Mexico has associated itself with various proposals for nuclear disarmament, both on the regional and on the universal level. Yesterday, along with other Latin American coin tries, we helped to bring about the Treaty of Tlatelolco. Today, we participate actively in the multilateral organization. devoted to disarmament. Our role in the Group of the Five Continents, together with the Heads of State and Government of Argentina, Greece, India, Sweden and Tanzania, fully substantiates Mexico's peace-loving position and its adamant will that we all be freed from the nightmare of a possible nuclear conflagration that would yield neither victors nor vanquished and would reduce several millennia of civilization to radioactive dust within a matter of seconds, making life itself disappear.
In the Declarations that we have signed, first at New Delhi in 1985 and just last month in the Mexican city of Ixtapa, we have stated that it is incumbent upon all men and all peoples, and not just those Governments which possess the technical capacity to wreak total destruction, to make efforts to halt the arms race. We have issued a fervent appeal for world-wide detente and the conclusion of agreements aimed at halting the irrational arms race. We have also called, in both Declarations, for better use of the human and material resources which are now being squandered upon the instruments of death, and for their application to the development of peoples and the satisfaction of their most urgent and vital needs.
In the New Delhi Declaration we called upon the super-Powers to suspend nuclear tests, as a first step toward a treaty banning them entirely. We also took a firm stance against the militarization of outer space. In Mexico, we presented specific proposals to verify the suspension of nuclear tests; we insisted upon the dangers inherent in an arms race in outer space; and we reiterated our conviction that dialog among the Powers must lead to the adoption of concrete disarmament accords.
Our statements, whose legitimacy flows from the fact that they express the wishes of all mankind, are but the first in a series of efforts that the international Community will have to undertake, in the hope of eradicating nuclear weapons.
The great challenge confronting human intelligence as the twentieth century draws to a close is to achieve the convergence of peace, disarmament and development so that, joined at last, they may forge for human society a way of life and a destiny never to be renounced.
The prevention of nuclear war is linked to the solution of conflicts affecting the balance of power. In various geographical areas the exercise of force and intolerance hinder chances for conciliation.
Similarly, the obduracy of certain States, which insist that we view in terms of the East-West conflict the struggles for self-determination being waged by the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America, retard and restrain-the inevitable triumph of those peoples.
In Central America, the or is is is deepening, and the chances for promoting a peaceful solution are often squandered and underestimated. Mexico has spared no effort in the search for just agreements that would respect the legitimate interests of all the Central American States. Thus, together with the Governments of Colombia, Panama and Venezuela and with the active support of Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Uruguay, we have encouraged strategies that would lay the foundations for peaceful coexistence and co-operation in the region. We have given detailed reports to the United Nations on the progress of our diplomatic efforts.
Allow roe to reiterate once again that Contadora and its Support Group cannot be a substitute for the political responsibility of the Central American Governments. Peace is their decision above all, just as it is the decision of those other States that help determine the course of events because of their presence and influence in the area.
We cannot supersede the will of the parties directly involved; but neither can we remain indifferent to situations that not only jeopardize regional stability and our common future but also violate the dignity of the peoples of Latin America and harm our legitimate national interests.
One State's disagreement with the political process of another State does not justify, in any circumstance, the perpetration of acts that are outside the bounds of international law. Latin America has undertaken an intense diplomatic effort which cannot be ignored. Several times, as in Caraballeda early this year, the Governments of Latin America have proposed concrete measures aimed at creating an atmosphere favorable to conciliation. These measures are well balanced in regard to the effort required of each party - whether directly or indirectly involved in the process - in order to re-establish the juridical order and facilitate the conclusion of agreements. We are convinced that our viewpoints, enshrined in the Contadora Treaty for Peace, Security and Co-operation in Central America, remain valid in the light of current circumstances.
Latin America has opened the doors to dialog and compromise in Central America, as part of the process of negotiation and integration it has decided to promote. Mexico states once again that it is fully willing to contribute to the pacification of the area.
We stand for negotiated solutions to conflicts not only in the region which is closest to us but also in other areas, whether in the South Atlantic, southern Africa, the Middle East, the Mediterranean or South-East Asia. We are convinced that, with an imaginative and constructive approach, opportunities for understanding can be found in each of these places
Within the context of the permanent struggle for decolonization, the case of Namibia deserves special mention. Its illegal occupation by South Africa must not be tolerated by the international community. That Territory's independence is beyond any geopolitical considerations, an it is incumbent upon all Member states of the United Nations to ensure that it is achieved. The immoral behavior of the opprobrious South African regime, with its policy of racial segregation, similarly demands a response from our Organization. We note with interest that the trend towards the imposition on the Pretoria Government of sanctions envisaged in the Charter has received new and important forms of support in the commence of this year.
The developing countries have always recognized that the United Nations is an essential part of any effort to promote the democratization of international relations. Apart from constituting the forum best suited to guaranteeing peace and security, it has also been a privileged place in which to discuss the most difficult problems of our time.
It is here that the Member States have had an opportunity to examine social and economic affairs that merit a clear and effective response from the international community. Suffice it to recall that in 1987, thanks to an initiative taken by the Secretary-General, there is to be an International Conference on Drug Abuse and Drug Trafficking, at which we shall be able to examine objectively that complex criminal process, which involves centers of production as well as consumption.
The Organization's ability to respond to the demands and needs of our time has been fully demonstrated. However, we cannot refrain from, insisting that the strengthening of the United Nations system depends primarily on the political will of States to respect the purposes and principles of the Charter. We must improve the Organization and, more important than ever, we must endow it with a new legitimacy based on the lawful behavior of all States. Force and military might cannot be above the law. In our day, civilized life and the security of States depend upon our respect for international norms. If those norms do not prevail, we can hardly aspire to peaceful, stable, just coexistence. The strengthening of our Organization and its effectiveness also depend upon the prevalence of those norms.
Because of their interdependence and their difficulty, world problems cannot be solved solely through bilateral channels, or even by a sum of partial and fragmentary agreements. Because of their complexity, they require multilateral solutions that bring together common aspirations and achieve unity in decisions and actions.
Just as dialog and detente among the great Powers can no longer be postponed, just as it is necessary to restructure the international economic order so that North and South have equitable shares in its benefits and hardships alike, so must the revitalization of multilateral forums become a priority item on the agenda for the remainder of this century.
It is incumbent on the United Nations to play an essential role in building more just and democratic international relations. It is also the role of our Organization to guarantee peaceful and rational coexistence, co-operation and solidarity among peoples. Let us improve it, if necessary and wherever necessary, but for as long as it endures let us recognize that it is perhaps our only and our highest guarantee of security, peace and civilization.