My delegation expresses its warmest congratulations to you, Sir, a worthy representative of the German Democratic Republic - a bastion of peace and socialism in Europe - on your assumption of the presidency of this important forty-second session of the General Assembly.
We have all heard with great satisfaction about the positive results of the talks held in Washington between the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, Comrade Eduard Shevardnadze, and the Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. George Shultz. The progress made towards an agreement on the banning of medium- and short-range missiles by the United States and the USSR deserves our fervent best wishes. It is the result of the efforts made for many years by the USSR - and especially of the initiatives of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Comrade Mikhail Gorbachev - and the efforts of the peace-loving forces to halt the arms race and eliminate the dangers of nuclear confrontation.
A long time has passed since the signing of the last disarmament agreement, and we look forward to the early completion of the agreement to which I have just referred, so that it may initiate a process to end the arms race, a process for peace and life.
The meeting held in the Federal Republic of Germany between the President of the Council of State and Ministers of the German Democratic Republic, Comrade Erich Honecker, and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Helmut Kohl, constitutes a meaningful expression of a new moment of hope in our international relations and of a desire to initiate a new trend towards dialogue, understanding and co-operation. This is a time for advancing negotiations to solve the conflicts and disputes of recent years, which have created hotbeds of tension jeopardizing the future of mankind.
Sadly, in a few days our America will mark the twentieth anniversary of the death of an illustrious son of our continent, whom the people of Cuba have the fortune of counting as one of their best offspring and from whose legacy of ideas and action we have benefited. I should like to recall the following paragraph of the outstanding statement delivered by Commander Ernesto Che Guevara to the General Assembly at its session 23 years ago: "We realize that today the Assembly is not in a position to demand explanations for ... acts) yet it must be clearly established that the Government of the United States is not the guardian of liberty, but rather that it is perpetuating the exploitation and oppression of many of the world's peoples and of many of its own citizens". (Official Records of the General Assembly, Nineteenth Seas ion> 1299 the plenary meeting, para. 135) That assertion was an expression of its time. The reality is that the trends of the policies of successive United States Administrations - zigzagging but not changing in their essence - have not differed in any way from that definition, which has become even more valid in recent years.
Between 1981 and 1985, the present United States Administration managed, at a specific historical juncture, to implement a brutal and aggressive policy aimed at imposing contested imperialist values through the use and threat of force and the obstruction of the negotiation process, thereby preventing progress on disarmament agreements and the solution of regional problems, and with the overt purpose of imposing its military superiority and hegemony over the socialist community.
Reagan, in a unique and exemplary manner worthy of better endeavours, implemented and followed the essence, spirit and letter of the Santa Fe programme. This May 1980 Santa Fe programme undoubtedly represented the philosophy of pillage, the expansion of so-called spheres of influence and the prevalence of force in international relations. The direct reflection of this policy was soon evidenced in the arms race. Between 1980 and 1986 the military budget of the United States doubled. In essence, the Santa Fe document stated that "war and not peace is the rule in international affairs", that "detente is death", and that the United States did not have to struggle to preserve the status quo but, rather, had to struggle to improve its relative position in all spheres of influence.
Reagan, with an apparent halo of success - having obtained barely 26.7 per cent of the votes in the United States - intoxicated by power and the prospect of playing a leading role in history, launched a truly anachronistic and senseless crusade, which was tolerated or supported by his main allies. Important agreements that had been reached as a result of perseverance, consistency and realism in approaching the international situation were denounced or rejected - for example, the significant SALT II agreements. Tensions in international relations increased, thereby adding fuel to the fire of various international conflicts. Reagan proclaimed and exalted his alliance with dictatorial regimes and with the supporters of the most ignoble causes in southern Africa and the Middle East, in Central America and the Caribbean, in the southern part of the American continent. In so doing, he stopped all criticism and condemnation of human-rights violations by his allies, for the purpose of protecting an alliance devoid of principles or decency.
Anyone who took up arms against the independence of peoples had the support of the United States. Whenever a banner was hoisted in favour of independence and social justice, the United States tried to force it down. Accordingly, it increased its acts of aggression against Nicaragua, its threats against Cuba and its support of the Zionists in the Middle East, as well as its close solidarity with the racists in Pretoria and with the Savimbi and Rename bandits in Angola and Mozambique. It closed ranks with British imperialists in the military occupation of the Malvinas Islands - which jeopardized the credibility of the Rio Treaty - and invaded the tiny island of Grenada, in its best gunboat style. In that period, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the siege of Beirut took place prominent international leaders such as Indira Gandhi and Olof Palme were assassinated; the USSR suffered in a very short time the loss of its top State and Party leaders, Comrade Leonid Brezhnev and his successors, Comrades Andropov and Chernienko. The summit conferences of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the Organization of African Unity could not be held as scheduled.	"
The Reagan Administration, Imbued with a spirit of victory, its eyes and ears closed to world realities, tried to demonstrate that "in war there is no substitute for victory", in conformity with Mr. Reagan's view that the mistake of the Viet Nam war was not to have waged it but to have lost it.
Such triumphalism met with serious obstacles at the end of 1986, when Reagan suffered major defeats inside and outside the United States which shook his already dubious credibility and his unquestionable power. Early in October he suffered his greatest setback in foreign policy - soon to be more than surpassed - when, respectively, the House of Representatives and the Senate, the latter still with a Republican majority, overruled the presidential veto of economic sanctions against South Africa. That veto was inspired by the fallacy of "constructive engagement", or "silent diplomacy", proclaimed by Reagan. In the November legislative elections, the Democrats regained the majority in the Senate and strengthened their control over the House of Representatives, despite Reagan's personal efforts, his 40,000 kilometres of travel and his visits to 18 States. That significant defeat coincided with huge budget and trade deficits and the forecasts of a forthcoming economic recession, in November the so-called Irangate and Contragate manure bomb  exploded, with brutal virulence. The final act of this tragicomedy has yet to be played out.
At the same time, there were major political processes and developments aimed at the relaxation of international tensions and at the opening of a new era of understanding among States - although many of the processes had originated years before, and some had found a sympathetic hearing in the General Assembly.
Let us recall some of those milestones.
Addressing the thirty-fourth session of the General Assembly in his capacity as Chairman and on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, Commander Fidel Castro presented the all-important demands of the underdeveloped world. He said at that time: "... unequal exchange is ruining and impoverishing our peoples and must cease. Inflation, which is being exported to us, is impoverishing our peoples and must cease. Protectionism impoverishes our peoples and must cease. The existing imbalance in the exploitation of sea resources is abusive and must be abolished. The financial resources received by the developing countries are insufficient and must be increased. Arms expenditures are irrational; they must cease and the funds thus released must be used to finance development. The international monetary system prevailing today is bankrupt and must be replaced. The debts of the least developed countries and of those in a disadvantageous position are burdens which are impossible to bear and to which no solution can be found and they must be cancelled. Indebtedness oppresses the rest of the developing countries economically and must be relieved. The wide economic gap between the developed countries and the countries seeking development, instead of diminishing, is being widened and must be closed ... . (A/34/PV. 31, pp. 42 and 43-45)
Eight years have passed since then. The only thing that has changed is that the unequal exchange is even more unequal) the ruin of our peoples as a result of inflation and protectionism is worsening; the imbalance in the exploitation of the resources of the sea is abusive; the allocation of financial resources to the developing countries is diminishing and is tragically insufficient) the international monetary system remains bankrupt) the debt of the relatively least developed countries has long since gone beyond rationality and simply cannot be paid. In short, the economic gap between developed and developing countries is wider and has grown unbridgeable.
When the Contadora Group was established in January 1983 it was like a wind of hope amidst the imperial storm. Its aim was to contribute to a peaceful, political, negotiated solution to the Central American conflict it was later joined by the Support Group and was recently enhanced by the important Esquipulas II agreements.
The seventh summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries took place in New Delhi in March 1983. That summit conveyed a clear message, and took a firm anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist stand against Zionism, racism and apartheid, in favour of peace and of the peaceful negotiated solution of international disputes, against the arms race and the rule of force, and in support of a new international economic order.
Also in March, but March 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was elected General-Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, He gave the socialist society of that great country new ideas and a realistic and dynamic stand in the present world, with new approaches and methods for the creative application of the Soviet principles of peace, disarmament and coexistence under present conditions.
Very soon the influence of solid proposals oriented towards disarmament and the establishment of a climate of détente, of international safeguards and security - in other words, a climate of peaceful coexistence - was felt. Among them are the Vladivostok proposals and the August 1985 unilateral moratorium, broadened at the Reykjavik meeting of October 1986 , where Comrade Mikhail Gorbachev proposed, among other important ideas, the working out of a draft agreement aimed at reducing strategic weapons by not less than 50 per cent and eliminating them completely during this century.
However, Reagan's stubbornness in attempting to perpetuate the strategic defence initiative, which includes research and testing in outer space and opens a new era in the arms race, frustrated the possibility of reaching agreement at that epoch-making meeting. But we should not be pessimistic. The Reykjavik meeting proved that, at this crucial time for mankind, dialogue is both possible and necessary and that open, realistic dialogue not aimed at the military superiority of one side over the other may lead to agreement.
In June 1986 the International Court of Justice decided in favour of ending military activities against Nicaragua.
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) summit conferences resumed. The chairmanship passed from Abdou Diouf of Senegal in 1985, to Denis Sassou-Nguesso of Congo, Chairman for 1986, and recently to Kenneth Kaunda, President of Zambia and current Chairman of that outstanding organization.
The eighth summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Zimbabwe in September 1986, confirmed the firmness of its principles in the struggle against imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, against racism, including Zionism, and apartheid. The summit, which took place in a country bordering the racist Pretoria regime, constituted an exceptional expression of the international will to eliminate apartheid and attain the independence of Namibia. It also gave new impetus to the struggle for international peace and security, for the establishment of a new international economic order, for disarmament and for the development of third-world countries.
Since the Harare summit Conference, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries has continued its intense activity, focusing on the issues of greatest Importance and tension, namely the peace message addressed to the General-Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Comrade Gorbachev, by the Heads of State or Government and its delivery to the Government of the United States; the New Delhi meeting of Heads of State or Government of the Africa Fund Committee and its appeal for strengthened support for the struggle of the front-line States and liberation movements in southern Africa) the decision of the extraordinary meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau on the situation in Latin America and the Caribbean, and, most recently, the visit to Nicaragua of the Foreign Minister of Zimbabwe during the meeting of the Contadora and Support Group Foreign Ministers, to reiterate our solidarity in support of a peaceful solution of the Central American conflict and our rejection of the United States aggression and Interference in the region; the solidarity, expressed at the meeting of the Committee of Nine on Palestine, with the struggle of the Palestinian people to exercise their rights and establish an independent State in their homeland, and in favour of the early convening of an international conference on peace in the Middle East; and the Brioni meeting of non-aligned Mediterranean States and its appeal for the strengthening of co-operation and peace in the region.
In June 1987, at the Extraordinary Ministerial Conference of Non-Aligned Countries on South-South Co-operation, the Pyongyang Declaration and Plan of Action for economic co-operation was signed; simultaneously, at Harare, the Conference of Ministers of Information advocated the establishment of a new information order. On 7 August, the five Central American Presidents signed the epoch-making Esquipulas II agreements with an express will to search for peace in the region.

Between 1981 and 1986 - as evidence of the rejection by nations of the United States policy of force - the voting pattern of all regional groups in the United Nations showed less coincidence with United States votes. The number of Member States whose votes coincided with those of the United States in more than 60 per cent of the time declined by more than half. That is, only half the countries which voted with the United States more than 60 per cent of the time in 1980 did so in 1986 - and their number was small. Moreover, at the forty-first session only 10 countries voted with the United States more than 60 per cent of the time.
The deterioration in the living conditions of the peoples of the third world, the increasing erosion of their economies and the worsening inequalities in the terms of trade in the Western industrialized world continue their galloping course. The international economic situation, particularly that of third-world countries, has become untenable. The low prices of major commodities} the protectionist measures applied by highly industrialized countries  the escalating increase in external debt and interest rates and the curtailment of external financing and the conditionality of lending by the International Monetary Round and the World Bank, including supervision of the domestic policies of recipient countries - all paint a gloomy picture of the prospects of underdeveloped countries.
Moreover, the spiralling arms race has further aggravated this dramatic economic picture and the prospects for development.
In late August and early September, the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development was held. It affirmed the need to seek a solution to such an urgent situation. At the same time the idea that there will be no peace without development is, in Cartesian language, an obvious and inescapable truth. Cuba welcomes the positive results of that Conference, which, though marked by the absence of the United States, which bears principal responsibility for the arms race, nevertheless engaged in a complex, delicate and constructive negotiating process in which recognition of the inevitable link between disarmament and development and of the urgent need to devote resources released by disarmament immediately to development prevailed.
In recent years, our peoples have waged a prodigious struggle against the unbearable burden of external debt. Commander Fidel Castro, in particular, has courageously and decisively denounced that situation internationally. He has demonstrated objectively and unquestionably that the external debt is unpayable and that writing it off would not suffice to eliminate the misfortunes of our peoples unless such action was linked to the establishment of a new international economic order and to the necessary relationship between debt and disarmament.
Many meetings attended by thousands of delegates from the most representative sectors of Latin America and the Caribbean were held in Havana in recent years with the purpose of considering and discussing, with vigour and courage, the external debt problem·, economists, jurists, workers, students, journalists, women, the military, priests, peasants, statesmen and personalities in the fields of the arts and sciences with profound knowledge of the Latin American reality and actors of the drama our region is enduring participated in those meetings, which were convened in the light of historic inequalities brought about by centuries of imperialist, capitalist and neo-colonialist exploitation.
As this brief summary shows, even if a number of particularly relevant events ace necessarily missing, these are times of hope t the seemingly successful drive of the Reagan Administration has come to a halt and fallen back} the fruitful activities of important international organizations have strengthened and a climate of negotiations is felt in Europe, Central America, southern Africa, Afghanistan and South-East Asia. We should do our utmost to keep up this momentum.
The United Nations should contribute with all its influence to achieving peace and political solutions to conflicts and disputes among nations. The efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General, Javier Perez de Cuellar, for contributing to putting an end to the fratricidal war between Iraq and Iran are a good example of this.
The world is facing the dilemma of peace and war. We have no right to ignore the outcry of our peoples; we have to prepare ourselves to live in peace. We have to create mechanisms which inspire and ensure confidence among peoples, security among States and peaceful and productive coexistence among nations. We have to lay the foundations for future relations so that the generations of the twenty-first century do not live in shame of their parents' legacy.
Twenty-five years ago next October, the world was on the verge of a nuclear war. A quarter of a century later, notwithstanding the severe economic blockade imposed upon us by imperialism, notwithstanding all types of aggressions, including attempts against the lives of our leaders, notwithstanding the enormous resources used against Cuba, our revolution has been and will continue to be an unassailable bastion of Latin American dignity, firmness and fortitude.
When the major contributor to the United Nations withholds its contribution and does not fulfil its obligations under the pretext of differences between the executive and legislative powers, it is really attempting to impose its interests on the United Nations, thus impairing the interest of the great majority of the Members of the Organization. In these circumstances, General Assembly resolution 41/213 cannot be implemented. We must demand that the United States cease this niggardly policy.
There is no doubt that such a policy of force and blackmail has not succeeded, thanks to the unity and cohesion of dignified and independent countries, which allows us to say that multilateralism - the United Nations - continues to show, with commendable impetus, our positions, our rights and our demands in the pursuit of a world without war, of equality and equitable peace for all.
We welcome today the negotiating will expressed by the five Central American Presidents, as reflected in the Esquipulas II Agreements, even in the face of resistance by certain circles in the present United States Administration, which attempt to maintain aggression, blockade and destabilisation against the legitimate Government of Nicaragua.
Cuba considers that the independent attitude of the countries signatories of the Guatemala Agreement is a new event in the history of the region. The huge efforts exerted over the years by the Contadora and Support Groups in pursuit of a Latin American solution to the serious Central American crisis contributed considerably to that.
We must pool our efforts and take concrete actions in order to achieve the implementation of those important agreements and be determined to adopt necessary measures for the economic reconstruction of Central American countries. We must continue to support the efforts of the Contadora and Support Groups in favour of peace in Central America.
Nicaragua has the right to live in peace and is entitled to exercise its sovereign right to choose the options it deems most appropriate to satisfy its national needs. We must support those who struggle in favour of liberty and dignity in El Salvador and in every corner of a continent where the ideas of Bolivar, Marti and Juarez are increasingly reaffirmed.
The record of these years reaffirms that the unity, firmness and awareness of the problems and of our strength to tackle them successfully is an undeniable fact. Today we may assert that the policy of confrontation is undergoing serious setbacks and we witness certain negotiating trends that, although they are slow, are making progress. This proves that our peoples are able to make their desires for peace prevail.
We welcome negotiation efforts, such as the process aimed at achieving the dismantling of medium-range missiles in Europe, and the national reconciliation plan chartered by the Government of Afghanistan and its contacts with the United Nations Secretary-General in the search of a just and equitable solution, which will guarantee peace and security in the area.
The Indochina's peoples in South-East Asia are working hard to find formulas leading to a peaceful negotiated process beneficial to the entire region through a flexible and constructive dialogue. We support the policy of national reconciliation formulated by the People's Republic of Kampuchea in the pursuit of peace for all its people; without distinction of class, ideology, ethnicity or religion.
On southern Africa, as expressed on 1 August in Havana, Cuba and Angola are in a position to make their common position flexible on the basis of the principles of the November 1984 Platform and its annex, with a view to promoting the constructive aim of a just and honourable agreement which may bring about the independence of Namibia, the security of Angola and peace for all States in southern Africa.
Cuba will maintain its stand of internationalist support and solidarity with the Government of the People's Republic of Angola in accordance with the Agreements signed with the Government of that sister nation. Cuba shall contribute to the maintenance of stability and prevention of any aggression against the People's Republic of Angola and, in an active and effective way, shall work for real peace in the region. Essential for that purpose are the independence of Namibia, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), its sole and legitimate representative, and the definitive elimination of the ignominious apartheid regime.
We must redouble our efforts and render our solidarity to the people of South Africa for the total elimination of apartheid) to the people of Puerto Rico for the achievement of their freedom and independence) for the convening of the peace conference on the Middle East with the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)) and for the solution of the long and bloody conflict regarding the recognition of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including the establishment of its own state. There will be no solution to the Middle East conflict unless the Palestinian problem is solved, under the leadership of its sole and legitimate representative, the PLO. We should continue to support the just cause of the Lebanese people for its national unity and peace, the security of its people and respect for its territorial integrity and non-aligned status. We support demands for the withdrawal of the Moroccan troops and administration from Western Saharan territory as the essential condition to hold the referendum on the self-determination of the Sahraoui people} for Argentine sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands  for the aspiration of the Comoro Islands to recover sovereignty over Mayotte and for the return of Madagascar's rights over the Malagasy Islands of Glorieuses, Juan de Nova, Europa and Bassas da India. We should provide firm and active support to the people of Cyprus, a non-aligned country struggling to defend its independence, national unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We support initiatives to convene an international conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, which many lead to progress towards a solution to the situation that now endangers its territorial integrity and national existence.
The Indian Ocean demands a greater will from the States responsible for its militarization in order that they reverse their nefarious policy. Meanwhile, we must continue to exert efforts for the early realization of the desire to transform the Indian Ocean into a zone of peace. Contrary to our long-standing endeavours to demilitarise the Indian Ocean, we witness with shock the spread of military forces in the Persian Gulf, which jeopardize its security and pose a serious threat to security and peace in the area and world-wide. Let us increase our demands for the elimination of all military presence from that sensitive area.
We must recall the situation prevailing in the trusteeship of the Pacific Islands, where the Government of the United States in an arbitrary, unilateral and illegal manner has sought to consolidate and perpetuate its colonial presence.
We denounce attempts to prevent the independence and sovereignty of so-called Micronesia. We reiterate our categorical support for the legitimate Bolivian demand to recover direct and useful access to the Pacific Ocean, with full sovereignty over that access. We denounce the absence of will on the part of the Chilean regime to continue the negotiations initiated between the two Governments to find a just solution.
We demand strict compliance with the 1977 Torrijos-Carter treaty on the Panama Canal, and reject manoeuvres by the Government of the United States to violate it and perpetuate its domination and military presence in the isthmus.
We reiterate our firm solidarity with the sisterly Democratic People's Republic of Korea, arduously struggling for the realization of its people's desire for peaceful reunification and the withdrawal of United States occupation troops from the south of the peninsula.
We support the position of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea that Korea must not enter the United Nations in the present state of partition, and that entry must wait until it succeeds in reuniting the country. We also support the co-sponsorship of the forthcoming Olympic Games by both States, as an instrument of unity and peace between nations.
We advocate a speedy solution of the regrettable conflict between Iran and Iraq, which should never have begun, and which continues to cause irreparable losses to both peoples. We support the redoubling of efforts by the United Nations to find a peaceful solution, just and honourable for both sides, thus ending this fratricidal war, which has been going on now for more than seven years. We are firmly convinced that it is more than ever imperative to co-ordinate our action, our unity and our struggle to impose what we desire: détente, dialogue, peace, and development.
From the very dawn of the Revolution my Government and people, have suffered the harassment, blockade and aggression of a powerful neighbour. We have learned to live with imperialist aggression and pressure. Although that was not our wish, it is the reality we have had to face. We stand for peace and negotiation in international relations, especially in our continent and with our neighbours. We have never practised an aggressive or hostile policy. Our sole "sin" may have been the exercise of the right of our people - enshrined in the United Nations Charter and in any international forum - freely to choose its own system and its own principles of genuine national independence.
Benito Juarez, an illustrious Latin American leader, said, "Respect for the tight of others is peace." We regret that the Government of our powerful northern neighbour does not apply this thinking in its international relations.
We have resisted, and shall continue to resist. We have seen different administrations come and go, while our Revolution has developed and become stronger, hoping that the good sense, wisdom and genuine tradition of the American people will prevail, and that the need for coexistence will be recognized.
We have learned the importance of unity and cohesion in order to resist and overcome. Today, more than ever before, in view of international initiatives seeking paths to negotiation and a new state of relations, we reaffirm our permanent and irrevocable attachment to peace and coexistence.


Sir, I have the honour of extending to you the congratulations and best wishes of the Government and people of Vanuatu on your assumption of the presidency of the General Assembly at this forty-second session. Your unanimous election is both a personal tribute and a token of esteem for the country you represent. I take pleasure also in thanking your predecessor, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, for the manner in which he guided us during the forty-first session of the General Assembly. In addition we join in thanking the Secretary-General for his tireless efforts. His work and that of his staff and the entire Secretariat are sources of pride to us all. In this regard we commend the addition to his team of Ambassador Joseph V. Reed as Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly Affairs. He has a rather large pair of shoes to fill, but all who know him have no doubt that he is equal to the task.
Taking the floor immediately after Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, President of Zambia and current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, is a great honour and at the same time a great responsibility. It is not easy to follow to the rostrum of this body one so eloquent and so universally admired as is President Kaunda. He looms large in history as a spokesman for those who cherish mankind's highest ideals. Today he has spoken not only for the people of Zambia and the continent of Africa but also for all who believe in the United Nations.
It is always a great honour and rare privilege to speak before the United Nations General Assembly. Today the honour is greater and the privilege later because of the presence of President Kaunda and his penetrating words. We, like others, applaud his wisdom, his dedication and his sensitivity. We also concur with his vision of a world in which humanity is permitted to blossom to its fullest potential.
The ability to communicate through the medium of the spoken or written word, so movingly demonstrated by President Kaunda today, is one of mankind's greatest achievements. Occasionally that ability is taken for granted and neither appreciated nor properly utilized.
Those few who - because of their economic or military strength - hold in their hands the power of life or death over so many other human beings, often do not feel the need to listen to those of us who do not command vast fortunes powerful armies or large armadas. When they do listen they tend to listen mechanically, with their ears rather than with their hearts. They then frequently fail to heed the poignant messages addressed to them.
Thus, year after year, speaker after speaker walks to this rostrum, stands before the nations of the world and states the case for independence for Namibia, an end to apartheid in South Africa and common decency and justice foe the Palestinians. Speaker after speaker pleads for justice and peace for the people of Central America and South-East Asia. Speaker after speaker calls for an end to the arms race and the recurring nuclear nightmares of small children everywhere. Were these words to be listened to, and heeded, they would be almost magical in what they could achieve.
Words are like magic. They can transport one to another time, another place, or another dimension. They can express the full range of human experiences and emotions, from charity to greed, from forgiveness to indignation, from humility to arrogance, from hope to despair, from love to hatred. Words can be instruments of enlightenment or revelations of ignorance. Words can stir, inspire and move listeners to action or lull them into indifference, boredom and inactivity.
Words are capable of opening minas or closing them. They are capable of expanding horizons or restricting them. They can bring us together or drive us further apart. Words are potentially more powerful than any military weapon known to mankind. They have been known to make tyrants tremble and dictatorships decay.
That is why some fear the written or spoken word as much as they fear anything. That is why eighteenth and nineteenth century slave holders in the western hemisphere made it "illegal" for the human beings they held in bondage to learn to read and write and forbade them to communicate in their own languages. That is why well past the mid-point of the twentieth century, in even the most developed of countries, some parents have had to struggle to see their children get any semblance of a decent education. That is why the apartheid regime of South Africa has spared no effort to stifle the voices or that country's bravest sons and daughters.
That is why in so many lands, large and small, developed and Developing, north and south, east and west, so many generations of courageous human beings have pleaded, petitioned, marched and agitated for the right to be educated and the right to be heard. That is why today we search for words which will, as a renowned Mozambican poet wrote, “'... enter every house like the wind and fail like red hot embers on our people's souls
With all that words can do, none can do more than words of candour and sincerity. The late Amilcar Cabrai once encouraged his colleagues, in the African Party for the Independence of Guinea (Bissau) and Cape Verde, to hide nothing from the masses of the people and to tell no lies, claim no easy victories. That admonition is as appropriate to us here, at the United Nations today, as it was 22 years ago to those struggling to bring freedom to two small West African countries.
Truth is a mighty weapon. It is in fact the greatest weapon possessed by those who would feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick, educate the illiterate, end senseless violence and generally help create a more equitable world.
In none of those areas will the international community be able to claim an easy victory; not one of these things will be easy to achieve. Then, again, that which is worth working for, that which is worth struggling for, seldom is easy. We would be guilty of the worst form of naivety were we to suggest otherwise. ,
Words alone, no matter how beautiful, are not sufficient to resolve the hard issues on the agenda of the United Nations. If they were, Namibia would be a mil Member of the United Nations, Palestine would be a Member of the United Nations and South Africa would be represented by a legitimate Government and would be seated in this Hall today.
If words alone were sufficient/ the questions of Cyprus, Kampuchea and Afghanistan would no longer appear on our agenda. If words alone were sufficient, the peoples of Western Sahara, East Timor and New Caledonia would already have been permitted to assume their rightful places within the community of nations.
Words, however, no matter how articulate, how truthful, how forceful, now insightful or how well-intended, are never enough. They probably will never be enough. Frederick Douglas, a leader of the anti-slavery movement during the nineteenth century and a great orator, expressed that best when he said:
"Power concedes nothing without а demand. It never did and it never will.
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both."
Every year the General Assembly passes a stream of resolutions. The words of those resolutions, taken together, comprise some of the most noble thoughts and theories known to mankind. What is far less noble is the lack of resolve by some Members of the United Nations when we leave this hall and it is time to implement our collective decisions.
It is not enough merely to denounce apartheid. It will not disappear without a struggle. How long and how violent a struggle is up to those who imposed apartheid on South Africa's people and then on Namibia. We, the rest of the world, must in a real sense support those who struggle against apartheid and adopt for ourselves values which differ from the values of those who practise this onerous creed, as well as the values of those who profit from it. The values we embrace should be the values of those who respect the genuine universality of every human being. Those values must be embraced at all times, in all places, and not merely when and where the world happens to be looking or listening.
Silence, or inaction, in the face of a known evil in one corner of the globe can be taken as acceptance of other evils in other corners of the globe. We, the international community, must be consistent and unremitting foes - no matter the price - of anyone who would assign a second- or third-class status to any person because of his or her race, religion, sex, language or economic status.
The essential need to secure and hold the higher ground during any engagement of hostile forces is a well-known axiom of military science. In mankind's moral engagement to determine the future destiny of our planet, we should apply the same axiom and secure and maintain the higher ground.
No person held in slavery should aspire to be a slave-holder. No person who has known the bitter taste of discrimination should himself, or herself, discriminate against another. No person who has been victimized should look for others to become his, or her, victim.
It pains us deeply to see some former colonies fail to understand the legitimate strivings of others for their own independence. Interruptions in the process of decolonization are even more tragic when the intruding State is itself a former colony which might have helped a neighbour's first tentative steps on the path to reclaiming its own identity. Vanuatu's position on this question is based on what it perceives as what is right and what is wrong, rather than on what others might perceive as either convenient, expedient, safe or a fait accompli.
Thus, it is Vanuatu's hope that the people of Western Sahara, the people of East Timor and others similarly situated will be allowed to realize their dreams also. Their rights are as sacred as those of anyone else represented here today. If there is no room at the inn for them, then very few of us should feel secure about our own places.
We are similarly saddened by the tragic spectacle of intercommunal strife which plagues every corner of the earth. There is no need to recite the names, the dates or the places. Everyone is already painfully familiar with them. Much of this intercommunal strife has its roots in a shared colonial history. Some pre-dates colonialism and is the result of antagonisms that go back many centuries. Understanding the roots of a problem should help us to combat it. Unfortunately, demagogues are always willing to exploit and manipulate existing social contradictions for their own selfish ends and carry others down a destructive path. We, the international community, must maintain the higher moral ground. We should address these social contradictions and try to resolve them. How we go about it is the important question. We should let our actions signal to others the type of world we would like to see.
The dignity and majesty of the victims of the apartheid regime of South Africa are, we believe, an example for the rest of the world. The African National Council (ANC) and the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) have consistently maintained the higher ground by steadfastly refusing to adopt the values of the Pretoria regime. We have great faith in their vision of the future. They struggle for their people and against a system, rather than against fellow human beings. To secure the future of this planet, it rests with all of us to learn from them and stop waging war against each other and against each other's children. It rests with us not to adopt the discredited values of immoral regimes. It rests with us not to act as proxies for others who are only too willing to divide us by seductively whispering in an ear how bad one ethnic group or another is.
The tragic war between Iran and Iraq is an example of a conflict which involves a complex web of historical contradictions. Like most other countries, Vanuatu was appalled by the outbreak of this war and is appalled by its continuation, Vanuatu has never taken sides on the antagonisms that exist between these two States and will not do so now} we consider both friends. However, one must ask this; does there come a point beyond which one wages war against a neighbour and begins to wage war against one's own professed values, and one's own people, and the rest of civilization?
We do not have-answers to the questions passed by this tragedy. Like so many others, we merely address an appeal to the decency and common sense of both parties to the conflict. We ask them please to try to reason together and arrive at some mutually agreeable formula. Let there be neither victors nor vanquished; let there simply be peace.
The war between Iran and Iraq, the loss of life it entails and its economic consequences bring to mind the relevancy of the recently concluded International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development. Although the result of the Conference was not completely satisfactory, the consensus that was arrived at was an important step on the path we must all walk together. None of us can walk that or any other road alone. The economic situation faced by developing countries has been discussed at length, we will not at this time expand further on what has already been so adequately said by others similarly situated. However , we cannot help but observe that when developing countries wish to build a railroad, a port facility, an airport, a communications network, schools, health clinics or other parts of a national infrastructure all sorts of financial obstacles are encountered. But, when a developing country wishes to buy weapons, credit can always be arranged. This is true no matter how poor or how small the country, regardless of its other needs, and no matter how ill prepared its military might be to absorb certain equipment. Some seem to confuse the business of selling weapons with the art of diplomacy. For them, the way to win friends and influence people is to market the means of mass destruction. In most instances, the friends that are gained are many times fewer than those that are lost.
The recent agreement in principle between the United States and the Soviet Union to dismantle intermediate-range nuclear forces is a positive, although tentative, step. There are, of course, a great many more complex issues to be addressed. Therefore, the proposed upcoming meeting between the leaders of those two countries is another welcome sign. President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev will carry with them the prayers and hopes of the entire world when they meet. The prospect of a productive dialogue between them is a harbinger of a better international climate.
The world cannot help but be encouraged by the example of these two great nations learning to live with each other. Certainly Iran and Iraq should be able to find as much common ground as have the United States and the Soviet Union. After years of harsh and bitter fighting, it appears that common ground may now exist in another part of the world. The recently concluded agreement between five Central American Presidents is a positive step worthy of international support. Peace, and the opportunity to pursue justice without fear, may finally be at hand for the people of that troubled region.
In this connection, Vanuatu also joins in supporting appeals for the normalization of relations between Belize and Guatemala. Recognition of the national identity, dignity and territorial integrity of all six nations of Central America is an essential element in the promotion of peaceful coexistence and economic development for the people of that region.
Few areas of the world cry out as much for adherence to the basic values of human decency as does the Middle East, When all is said and done, the fact remains that in that part of the world the fundamental contradiction, the fundamental problem, the fundamental wrong, is the systematic effort to deny the humanity of the Palestinian people. Their homes, their hopes and their futures were sacrificed to establish the State of Israel.
Now, neighbouring Lebanon faces a doubtful future. Its children's dreams have also been sacrificed. Is there no limit to what the world expects the people of that region to endure? This is a matter that has vexed and plagued the international community for longer than anyone cares to remember. Over the years, there have been a great many heroes and civilians on both sides. Certainly, neither side is pure but, here again, each must reach out to the other. It makes as much sense today to ignore the Palestine Liberation Organization as it did earlier to attempt to deny the existence of the people it represents. This is a problem that the international community helped to create. Thus, it is a matter that we must help to resolve. We can begin by convening the much discussed international conference on the Middle East.
William Shakespeare once aptly stated that the past is the prologue. We believe that solutions to many of the items on the agenda of the United Nations require that we look to the future rather than be prisoners of the past. Today the United Nations affords mankind an opportunity to avoid many of yesterday's mistakes.
However, like Shakespeare, we believe that truly to comprehend the nature of some of the current problems and the motivation of some of the principal actors on the world stage, we must also have knowledge of the past. In this regard we note regrettably that some, notably the apartheid regime of South Africa, live so far in the past that they are incapable of comprehending the lessons of history.
South Africa's slave-State conditions are not historically unique. In recent years those conditions have been modified in form but not in substance. Thus, South Africa remains fundamentally as uncompromisingly racist as other parts of the world were in the nineteenth century.
The changes that have occurred resulted in part from the impact of the rapidly changing world of the twentieth century. However, the most important catalyst has been, and continues to be, the efforts of the people of South Africa who have simply refused to be docile.
Apartheid ranks with slavery, the inhuman excesses of the colonial era, the holocaust of the Second World War era and other acts of genocide, among the most significant crimes ever committed against humanity. Apartheid is not always discussed in the same context as slavery. However, for many reasons we believe it should be. The commercial traffic in human beings known as the trans-Atlantic slave trade, like its lesser known counterpart in the South Pacific, earned universal condemnation for its evil nature and the horror it created. That sinful behaviour cost millions of lives and destroyed entire societies. It wrenched families apart and eventually became the genesis of colonialism. The depth and magnitude of the human suffering caused by the slave trade is incalculable. Similarly, the financial wealth accumulated by an assortment of kidnappers, hijackers, thugs and terrorists - yes, terrorists - as a result of the traffic in human beings can never be calculated. Some may have forgotten. Others, no doubt, would prefer to forget this important page of history.
We make this reference today not out of bitterness. There is no rancour in our hearts and no recrimination is intended. We merely wish every nation represented here today to remember and comprehend the past so that we will understand the true context of South Africa, the nature of Humanity's foe in Pretoria and what the international community must do to overcome that for. South Africa has not yet learned the lessons of history. Therefore the rest of the world must strive harder to bring the message of those lessons home to South Africa. We must become better interpreters and instructors of history than we have been to date.
Despite circumstances and conditions which would test the patience of a saint. Nelson Mandela has maintained the moral higher ground we spoke of earlier. He and his colleagues have taught their gaolers a most important lesson. Indeed, in a sense, he and many of his people are freer than those who placed him in prison and who fearfully stand guard over an entire aroused nation. It is our hope that by the end of this session of the general Assembly all of us will be standing with Mr. Mandela and no one will either apologize for, or protect, his gaolers. Those who traffic in narcotic drugs have much in common with those who now govern South Africa. Both value material wealth over human life and moral decency. Both sell the false dream of a mindless form of existence. Both offer nothing more than modern-day slavery in different forms. Both deserve nothing but the sternest concerted international action to eradicate them from the human experience.
The International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking held in Vienna this past June under the able presidency of the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Mr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, was an important milestone. Vanuatu is pleased to note the Increasing International realization that not a single region, not a single nation, not a single community, not a single individual is untouched, or immune, from the scourge of drug abuse or the curse of drug traffickers and what they bring with them. However, no nation, not even the richest and most powerful among us, can feel that it is doing enough to address this major challenge to civilization. The evidence of this fact surrounds us, unfortunately, and threatens to drown us all.
Terrorism also threatens to drown civilization. This is as true of the type of terrorism practised by those who appear at a door in the middle of the night wearing official uniforms, armed with the blessings of a State apparatus and who have perfected techniques of torture, as it is of those individuals who take it upon themselves to kidnap and cruelly traffic in human beings much as slave traders and pirates did in an earlier era. It is also as true of the type of terrorism that holds all of humanity captive to the very real danger posed by nuclear arsenals, as it is of those who commit random acts of violence using more conventional Instruments of death. Terrorism is wrong. It is wrong morally. It is wrong tactically. It is wrong politically. There are not exceptions and no qualifying conditions. One cannot use criminal tactics without becoming a criminal.
The values of an organization or a movement are, like the values of an individual, determined by how that organization or movement lives and how it values life - all life. That is true whether the life being valued is that of one who is black, white, brown or yellow; whether it is the life of one who is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, atheist or agnostic; whether it is the life of one who is gifted or disabled; or whether it is the life of one who is wealthy or one who lives in poverty.
We now turn to a subject we wish we did not have to turn to. In the forty-second year of the existence of the United Nations, 27 years after the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, this body should not still have before it the question of Namibia or the question of New Caledonia.
Despite the obvious obstacles to its independence, there is no longer any question as to whether Namibia's people have the right to their own identity and their own country. Even if South Africa were tomorrow somehow to transfer large numbers of whites into Namibia - many of them military personnel and civil servants - and enough people from neighbouring countries to make the Namibians a minority in their own country, no one would be deceived and question Namibia's right to become an independent nation. South Africa, by its intransigence, has managed to delay the inevitable, but it cannot at this stage rewrite history.
In New Caledonia, the administering Power is attempting to defraud the colonized people and deceive the international community through a policy of demographic engineering. Through its deliberate actions in encouraging migration to New Caledonia, it has now succeeded in turning that Territory's people into a minority - although still the largest community numerically - in their own land. The question before us now is, should such actions by a colonial Power be allowed to frustrate the legitimate aspirations of a colonized people and a decision of the United Nations? Common sense and morality, as well as the Charter and many pronouncements of the United Nations, clearly indicate that the answer is
The Government of Vanuatu wishes to make it clear once again that it has no quarrel with the Government or people of Prance. It wishes Prance, and the people of that great nation, nothing but continued prosperity and success. These wishes are sincere and earnest. They are not, however, given at the expense of the people of New Caledonia or those of any other territory whose lands and resources may be coveted by a segment of the French population.
Vanuatu is New Caledonia's closest neighbour. It is also a country that has a shared colonial history with that of New Caledonia and an affinity for its people that can perhaps only be understood by other peoples who also have so much in common, Last year we, and other countries of the South Pacific were gratified by the support we received on the question of New Caledonia at the Eighth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries held at Harare, Zimbabwe. We are further pleased that today, New Caledonia's colonized people continue to enjoy the support of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries in their campaign to regain that which they never surrendered.
We were also gratified by the decision taken by the General Assembly last December to place New Caledonia on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Delegations may recall the atmosphere in the General Assembly in the days leading up to that decision and on the particular day the vote was taken. Delegations may also recall the things that were said and the way in which they were said.
Some were told that New Caledonia was a part of Prance and that this matter had no business being discussed at the United Nations. Some were told that what became resolution 41/41 A was unnecessary because the Committee of 24 was going to consider the question anyway. Some were told that the countries of the South Pacific harboured irrational ill feelings towards France and did not know what they were doing. That last statement was the most incredulous of the many incredulous things that were said.
Looking back one must wonder, if Prance was so convinced that New Caledonia was a part of France, why it conducted what it termed a referendum on the Territory's future only a few weeks ago. We will not even pose the question how and when New Caledonia became a "part" of France. We will save that question for another day.
One must also wonder why if resolution 41/41 A was so unnecessary, France still has not transmitted the information required of it under Article 73e of the Charter. On the basis of the arguments it put forward last year# one might have surmised that France intended to co-operate with the Committee of 24. Instead, the only information that has been forthcoming is the rather inaccurate statement made by the Foreign Minister of France in his address to the Assembly on 23 September 1987. With all due respect to the Foreign Minister, we do not consider a plebiscite organized without due regard for the accepted principles and practices of the United Nations to be a valid act of self-determination. This is particularly true when the colonized people boycott the entire process.
The result was predictable, and was predicted. Those who are French chose to remain French. We would have expected nothing else. For the most part, those who are not French did not vote.
Is France now proposing that similar votes be organized in other areas under occupation? Could such a plebiscite turn the Golan Heights, for example, into part of Israel? By extension of this logic, might we permit South Africa to further its claim to an important part of Namibia through a little demographic engineering? In a somewhat similar vein, are we now prepared to accept France's claim to Mayotte? In the future, will we accept any large country's claim to a smaller, less populous land, simply because its people are overwhelmed numerically and, most important, militarily?	.
This is the way the world operated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and in the early part of this century before there was a United Nations Is this what we wish to return to? What France is now telling the world flies in the face of logic and United Nations precedent. It is also a radical departure from the currently accepted norm of international behaviour, and a very dangerous departure from the accepted practice of decolonization. Furthermore, we do not agree with the Foreign Minister's statement that conditions in New Caledonia during the plebiscite, "... were calm and beyond dispute" (A/42/PV.8, ρ 36). Through the eyes of television cameras, the world saw how "calm" things were in New Caledonia in the weeks leading up to the vote. We are as pleased as anyone that there was not more violence. However, we attribute this to the patience of the Kanak people and the intimidating presence of French military forces, which controlled the colonized population very effectively. The French military did its job very well.
Now we, the international community, have our own mission to perform. We must continue to follow the principles and practices we established. We must continue to be faithful to our Charter and to our own histories.
The Committee of 24 has recommended a draft resolution which does exactly that. It is balanced and moderate in tone. We hope members will lend their support to this draft and thereby remain faithful to the United Nations' own stated values. We merely ask that the United Nations be allowed to play its customary role. What could be more reasonable?
Prance is an important member of this body. It occupies a permanent seat on the Security Council and in other ways exercises considerable influence within and without the Organization, It should, therefore, be among the first to respect the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the world body. Being fair to those who have been colonized in New Caledonia can only enhance, rather than diminish, the prestige and glory of France.
We will continue to make this appeal until it is heard by France with its heart, as well as with its ears. If it is ignored, we will continue until it is heeded. Nothing will dissuade Vanuatu from this cause, other than the Kanak people themselves saying that this is no longer their cause. Vanuatu has no ulterior motive in pressing this case. We have nothing to hide, and nothing to gain, save security in the knowledge that the United Nations is still the Organization that the words of its Charter recite.


Permit me, Sir, to congratulate you on your assumption of the presidency of the General Assembly.
I wish to take this opportunity to express our support for the relentless efforts of the emissary of peace and goodwill, the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar.
In a world grown cynical of the super-Powers increased arms competition and fearful of the technologies it has unleashed, the people of Israel appreciate the readiness of the United States and the Soviet Union to begin a process of nuclear disarmament. This is not just a technical accord. It is a political dictum: no longer can we find military answers to political problems. What is necessary are political answers to the military menace. The world remains divided. While on the global level the parties seem to edge slowly towards accommodation, on the regional level passion still endure.
Today, threatening mines in international waterways are symbols not of the modernity of warfare but of its persistence. In our region, mines of extremism lurk just beneath the surface; they may explode when least expected.
Thus, we support the attempt to introduce a durable cease-fire in the Persian Gulf. In the vicinity of the world's most significant source of oil, two flames send dark clouds that obscure the horizon: the flame of fundamentalism launched to overpower moderation, and the flame of belligerency, residue of the Arab-Israeli dispute, seemingly calm, yet hardly extinguished. Each flame may reinforce the other.
Never before was the menace of extremism so perilous; never before were the moderate forces of the Middle East, on both aides, closer to an understanding than today.
Both Arabs and Israelis can be at peace with themselves only if they reach peace with each other.
Fundamentalism threatens moderation. Belligerency requires resources that can help contain extremism.
Arabs are troubled by the thrust of fundamentalism as they struggle with an impossibly expensive arms race and the need to address the just expectations of a rapidly growing population. Israelis are troubled by a demography wrought by war and the need to sustain a defence posture of "the few against the many". That is the heavy toll of the region's flames. They can be further fuelled; they can also be put out. Our actions today can either unleash forces of yet untold destruction, or they can launch us on a course of a new promise. Israel is celebrating its fortieth anniversary; four decades studded by hostility and war. From the memories of the Holocaust we have had to build a new life, as tragic biographies merged into a history of hope. We have returned to the birthplace of our faith, to the cradle of our biblical values. The language of the Prophets now echoes with the joy of children in the mountains and valleys where it began. Deserts were turned into gardens, human talent into industries. No emergency has delayed the growth of the democratic spirit; no war has prevented the construction of a just society and a modern economy.
The historical analogy is inspiring: For 40 years our people wandered in the desert before Moses brought them to the promised land. Today again, after 40 years in the wilderness of belligerency, we stand at the gates of a new promise to our children and to the children of our neighbours: to live in understanding despite the differences; to determine their own fate without interference by armed forces triggered by hate.
Can we offer them a Middle East where the intellectual challenge is man's conquest of nature, free of man's conquest of man? In brief, can we bring peace?
We remember the last words of Moses before he parted from his people at the gates of the promised land. We admitted his inability to provide them with adequate clothing and fresh bread, and he offered them the right of choice;
"I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore, choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live". (Deuteronomy, 30:19)
I speak with a sense of urgency, as the coming few months may be crucial.
During this brief period we may begin negotiations on one of the most important issues of our day, or miss the ark of hope. This brief period may produce the long-sought-after breakthrough or be absorbed by political paralysis.
Confidence that was built carefully, almost tacitly, among several parties in the area may evaporate. A coalition for peace held together by fragile links may fall apart with uncertain likelihood of revival.
Present crises - in the Persian Gulf or Lebanon - may take unexpected turns; disillusionment with the absence of progress may produce new coalitions of hostility. Thus, in the absence of a vibrant peace process, the political skies may become capricious again, bringing drought to a thirsty region.
Against these prospects of uncertainty stands the unprecedented if vulnerable reality whereby relevant parties to the conflict see a way to begin negotiations. Indeed, two years ago both Arabs and Israelis announced from this podium support for the current initiative for peace. Moreover, since then further progress has been made.
We have rekindled our peace with Egypt and intensified the dialogue with its leaders and its people. We have found President Mubarak to be a builder of a better life for his people and of bridges for comprehensive peace in the region.
At the cedar groves of the mountains of Ifrane, we met courageous leadership; King Hassan of Morocco calling for peace, aloud, and clearly.
Across the Jordan River, rich in history and poor in water, we hear the echo of the voice of King Hussein, an experienced leader who wishes, like us, to bring our peoples out of the darkness of old hostility into the new greenhouses of peace, security and development.
In the West Bank and Gaza, we notice an unannounced change. Many Palestinians seem to have concluded that violence leads nowhere, that dialogue should not be postponed. There is a real readiness to negotiate in a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to solve a problem that all of us need, and would like, to solve; the Palestinian problem.
We have all matured politically with the repeated failure of attempts to produce peace plans for our region. We have realized that none can be acceptable as a pre-condition of negotiation, for it is the object of negotiation to produce solutions that are otherwise unattainable. Hence, over the past three years efforts have focused on the most promising plan; to begin negotiations without pre-planning their outcome.
Five months ago those efforts crystallized and found expression in a document worked out with the support of American emissaries, whose tireless and creative efforts should be credited with much of what has been accomplished. That document reflected a meeting of minds, Arab and Jewish, on the basis of eight principles.
First, the goal is peace and direct negotiations are the way to reach it. Second, an international conference is the door to direct negotiations. Once convened it should lead immediately to face-to-face bilateral negotiations. Third, the conference would not impose a settlement or veto agreements reached bilaterally. Fourth, those who would attend the conference must accept Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and renounce terrorism and violence. Fifth, negotiations would be aimed at solving the Palestinian problem in all its aspects. This would be done in negotiations between the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation and the Israeli delegation. Sixth, negotiations would be conducted independently in three bilateral-geographic committees: a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation and an Israeli delegation in one·, a Syrian and an Israeli delegation in another·, and a Lebanese and an Israeli delegation in the third. All delegations, as well as an Egyptian one, would be invited to participate in a fourth, multilateral, committee. Seventh, whereas the bilateral committees would be engaged in solving the conflicts of the past, the multilateral committee would deal with the charting of opportunities for the region's future. Eighth, the five permanent members of the Security Council would serve as the matchmakers, entrusted with bringing the parties together and legitimising the process whereby the parties would negotiate freely and directly, without uninvited - and occasionally divided - external involvement. This would not be a ceremonial role but an essential one in facilitating negotiations.
Israel is United in its search for peace, in our desire to negotiate directly with our neighbours. We differ over how best to move the process forward. The idea of an international conference raises opposition in some Israeli quarters, while others see it as a real opening. The Israeli Cabinet is divided on the issue and has yet to make a decision. Much depends on the nature of the conference. Unless the permanent members of the Security Council respect the current consensus, rather than insisting on their old preferences, the international conference may remain just a slogan.
We call upon the Soviet Union to credit us with the same good faith in our efforts towards peace as we credit it within its readiness to make glasnost a way of life. The Soviet Union is not our enemy. It must be aware of our historical and family attachment to our brethren living in its land. We appeal to the new leadership in Moscow to allow the Jewish people to express their identity freely and to reunite with their destiny in the land of their ancestors.
We call upon the People's Republic of China, a great country that we respect, not to be timid or one-sided in its support for negotiations.
To both Moscow and Beijing we say candidly that diplomatic relations are not the prize for peace but a channel for communication. Those wishing to participate in bringing peace cannot confine their relations to one side in the rivalry alone.
I should like to address myself to the Palestinian people. The time for recrimination and blame is past. They have brought only violence and terror. Now is the time to turn from violence to dialogue and to travel jointly towards a different destiny. There, your children, like ours, will live in self-respect, exercise self-expression and enjoy freedom and peace. We, who have experienced domination by others, do not wish to dominate others. We, who sought justice and security, do not wish to deny them to others.
For the past 40 years our ancient region has become - not by choice - a testing ground for the technology of war. Thousands of human lives, Arab and Jewish, have been tragically lost and billions of dollars have been spent to no avail.
We are unable to change the past but we can design a future in which our region will be able to develop into a testing ground for mobilizing science and technology, to offer a new source of growth; a future in which peace attracts economic investment; a future in which resources saved by restraining the arms race are invested in basic and higher education.
It is this vision of an alternative future that has given birth to the suggestion that in the wake of the opening of political negotiations an economic conference, without political strings attached, should take place. Such a conference, composed of those having a stake in regional stability and the capacity to contribute to it, could offer a most Imaginative plan for regional development.
To those who preach indecision, to those who take shelter in the illusion of a tranquil status quo, we say: this is our moment of choice; decisions of today will determine the fate of our people for decades to come. Our choice is between hatred and dialogue, suspicion and hope. Our choice is between investment in an arms race and investment in the well-being of our people, of our children. Our choice is between extremism and moderation, between fundamentalism and reason. It is our choice to prevent the next war.
It is up to us to make the months to come a time for reason.
I welcome the forthcoming visit of Secretary Shultz to our region as an opportunity to negotiate on the remaining obstacles. I am convinced that there are no conflicts for which there is no hope for solution, only people who have best hope in their search for solutions. I am convinced that the real conflict in the Middle East today is not between Jew and Moslem·, Arab and Israeli; Palestinian and Zionist. The conflict is between "past-oriented" leadership and "future-oriented" leadership; between those resigned to the fatalism of belligerency and those determined to alter this fate. For the future of our children, for a better tomorrow, we must all stand up to the preachers of war.
To the advocates of destruction, United we have to say there are no holy wars, only holy human lives.
On the very first day of our independence I learned from my mentor, David Ben-Gurion, who said this time and again, that peace is the highest degree of security·, and that the moral call is the highest degree of wisdom. I shall remember it forever.