Since the twenty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly, some notable events have successively taken place on the international arena. First, there was the cessation of the war in Viet-Nam and Laos. Secondly, there were the talks held and the agreements concluded between the two super-Powers-the United States and the Soviet Union. Thirdly, there was the convening of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. In. the meantime, the third world has further awakened and grown in strength, and the African, Latin American and non-aligned countries held a series of important international conferences. What is the characteristic of the present world situation? Is the international situation really moving towards a general detente? This is a question in which people are interested. The delegation of the People's Republic of China would like to state its views on this question and a number of other questions with which the current session of the General Assembly is confronted.
3.	First, what is the characteristic of the present world situation?
The Chinese Government has long held that our world is now going through a process of great turbulence, great division and great realignment. The basic contradictions in the world are all sharpening, in particular the contradictions between imperialism and colonialism on the one hand and
the oppressed nations and peoples on the other and the contradictions among the imperialist countries, especially those between the two super-Powers. Although no new world war has broken out since the Second World War, local wars resulting from imperialist aggressions have never ceased. The great victory of the heroic Viet-Namese people's war of resistance against United States aggression and for national salvation has once again proved that imperialism and all reactionaries are paper tigers. A small nation can defeat a big one and a weak nation can defeat a strong one, so long as they dare to struggle, are good at struggle and persevere in struggle. It is not the people who fear imperialism; it is imperialism which fears the people. Revolution is the main trend in the world today. Now that the war in Viet-Nam has ended, can it be assumed that the world will henceforth be tranquil? Obviously not. When the Korean war was ended in 1953, some people thought that no more gunshots would be heard in the world. Not long afterwards, however, the Suez war broke out and then the Viet-Nam war started. And even today, the war in Indo-China has not stopped completely, for there is still fighting in Cambodia. Tension in the Middle East has not relaxed in the least. The colonialists and racists are carrying out armed suppression against the African people and the African people are developing armed resistance against them. The aggression against, subversion and control of and interference in countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America by the super-Powers are continuing without end. A recent case in point is the military coup d'etat in Chile. President Salvador Allende died a martyr at his post. We express profound condolences on his heroic death. At the same time, we hold one should not forget how harmful the absurd theory of so-called "peaceful transition" is to the anti-imperialism revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American people, a theory which has been advocated by another super-Power. The dismemberment of a sovereign country by armed force and the legalization and perpetuation of that division have also become a tendency on the part of the big Powers in their attempt to dominate the world. In the economic field, the gap is widening between the rich and developed countries and the poor and developing countries, and even among the developed countries there exist many contradictions, and hence detente among them is far from being the case. The recent Fourth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-aligned Countries, held at Algiers, strongly condemned racism, Zionism, colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism and strongly demanded a change in the present state of affairs in the world, demonstrating a further awakening of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples. In a word, we consider that the characteristic of the present situation is one of great disorder throughout the world and not tranquillity. And the main trend amidst this great disorder is that countries want independence, nations want liberation, and the people want revolution.

5.	Second, why is there no tranquillity in the world today?
6.	We have always held that all countries in the world, big or small, should be equal; that all countries, irrespective of their social systems, should establish normal State relations on the five principles of mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, noninterference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence; and that international disputes should be settled peacefully on the basis of these principles without resorting to the use or threat of force. This should apply to relations between big Powers, to relations between a big Power and a small country, and all the more so to relations between a strong and a weak, or between a rich and a poor country. It was on these principles that China started to improve its relations with the United States and established diplomatic relations with Japan. In their joint communique issued in Shanghai on 27 February 1972, China and the United States further declared that they should not seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and were opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony. The same principle was reaffirmed in the Sino-Japanese statement of 30 September 1972 on the establishment of mutual diplomatic relations. In our view, the above-mentioned principles are the minimum criteria for the equality of all countries in international relations and indicate the correct way to achieve a relaxation of international tension.
7.	As sovereign States, the United States and the Soviet Union are fully entitled to take the measures they deem appropriate to improve and develop their bilateral relations. However, we cannot but point out that the Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War signed by them on 22 June 1973 goes far beyond the scope of bilateral relations. One may ask, Who has given them the right to enter into what they call "urgent consultations" in case of a dispute between either of the parties and other countries and even between any other two countries? The phrase about disputes which "appear to involve the risk of nuclear conflict" is open to any interpretation, and their so-called "urgent consultations" are bound to be followed by actions dictated by their own interests. Does not this mean that they may interfere at will in the relations among all countries on the strength of the huge numbers of nuclear weapons in their possession? China absolutely will not go begging for nuclear protection from any country, nor is she afraid of nuclear threat from any country. But we feel in duty bound to state our views on this matter since it concerns all the people of the world.
8.	The signing of such an agreement by the Soviet Union and the United States is by no means accidental, but is derived from the so-called principle which they agreed upon in 1972 that the Soviet Union and the United States have "security interests. . . based on the principle of equality". What is meant by "security interests.. . based on the principle of equality"? To put it bluntly, it means rivalry for world hegemony — wherever one goes, the other will do the same. What they are doing now is simply to wrap up this content in the form of an agreement.
9.	In fact, this Agreement is a mere scrap of paper. It contains no explicit undertaking on the non-use of nuclear weapons; still less does it envisage the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. The United States Government was more frank when it stated that the Agreement is only a general statement of policy which does not involve any particular positive actions that either side has to take, and pointed out that agreements are not always maintained and there is nothing self-enforcing about this document.
10.	However, the Soviet leaders have made a great fanfare, lauding that Agreement to the skies, alleging that it ushered in "a new era" in international relations and opened up "historical vistas for strengthening universal security as a whole," and that it was "indeed of historic importance for all mankind". They have their motives for so eulogizing the Agreement. One may recall Khrushchev's famous remarks: "Even a tiny spark can cause a world conflagration" and "We" — that is, the Soviet Union and the United States-"are the strongest countries in the world, and if we unite for peace there can be no war. Then if any madman wanted war, we would but have to shake our fingers to warn him off." In this way, if the Soviet Union could be bound together with the United States, would not the whole world have to cringe to them? However, in our view, things may not necessarily turn out that way.
11.	It is not so easy for the Soviet Union to bind itself to the United States. Shortly after the signing of the Agreement, the Soviet Union pressed forward with its underground nuclear tests and hastened the development of missiles with multiple warheads. The United States will not take this lying down. Why? Because the desperate struggle for nuclear superiority and world hegemony still goes on. The contention between the Soviet Union and the United States now extends all over the world. A vivid proof can be found in the recent subversion of a government in Asia and another in South America. Their scramble is becoming increasingly fierce. That is the reason why there is no tranquillity in the world today. So, what peaceful coexistence is there to speak of? There is. only a travesty of peaceful coexistence; the substance is coexistence in rivalry. But whether such coexistence can last is, of course, another question.
12.	The Soviet leaders noisily proclaim that as a "socialist" State the Soviet Union is the "natural and surest ally" of the developing countries. In the past, some people in China also believed this, because they saw the Soviet Union as the homeland of the great Lenin and the Chinese revolution, a continuation of the October Revolution. Therefore, how could the Soviet Union, as a socialist State, fail to give the developing countries whole-hearted internationalist assistance? But since Khrushchev rose to power, we came to realize, thanks to the long and direct experience we had gained as a result of the Soviet Union's demand for the establishment of a joint fleet in the China Sea, its withdrawal of experts, its tearing up of contracts, border intrusions, subversions, and so on, that this was not the case, and that what the Soviet Union practised was not internationalism but great-Power chauvinism, national egoism and territorial expansionism. Therefore we will not blame those friends who have so far failed to see this for lack of experience. How can a socialist turn into an imperialist? There is in fact nothing strange about it if one goes a little into the history of the international Communist movement. Was not Karl Kautsky once a somewhat well-known Marxist? But he later betrayed Marxism and capitulated to imperialism. It was Lenin who passed the final historical verdict on Kautsky in his well-known pamphlet Trie Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky.  People can change; so can a State. It has changed, and what can one do about it?
13.	Lenin pointed out on one occasion: "We judge a person not by what he says or thinks of himself but by his actions." That applies to a State as well. What has the Soviet Government done to other countries in these years? This is clear to the broad masses of the people of Czechoslovakia, Egypt and Pakistan, to the peoples of Cambodia who are fighting dauntlessly, and to other peoples who have been subjected to its aggression, subversion, control, interference or bullying. The actions of the Soviet Government have amply shown that it is "socialist in words, imperialist in deeds", as Lenin said.
14.	The Soviet-United States Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War cannot hoodwink many people or intimidate the peoples of the world, but can only arouse indignation, misgivings and disillusionment. The tide is mounting against the hegemonism and power politics practised by the super-Powers.
15.	Third, who is really against detente?
16.	Shortly after the war in Viet-Nam came to an end, the United States Government pronounced 1973 to be "the year of Europe". That was followed by the first stage of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe — a conference advocated by the Soviet Government for many years. All this indicates that Europe is the focus of contention between the two super-Powers — the United States and the Soviet Union — and that the so-called European Security Conference is nothing but one of the forms of contention. Its proceedings showed, however, that it went far beyond the scope to which the two superpowers wished to confine it. At that Conference many countries stated pointedly that deeds and not empty promises are called for in the matter of security; that European security must be based on the safeguarding of national independence and sovereignty; that one must not become mentally disarmed and off guard simply because the European Security Conference has taken place; and that in order to guarantee European security, military blocs must be disbanded, foreign military bases dismantled, and foreign troops withdrawn, so that the relations between European countries may be established on the principles of mutual respect for independence and sovereignty, complete equality and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
17.	Moreover, some countries pointed out that the security of the Mediterranean and the security of Europe

were inseparable and that there could be no security for Europe when the Mediterranean is under the armed threat of, and contention by, the two super-Powers. All this is tantamount to a direct blow at those who seek by means of this Conference to consolidate the occupation of many European countries which resulted from the Second World War or the events thereafter, and to proceed further to disintegrate Western Europe and dominate the whole of Europe. The European Security Conference is still going on; but, judging from the proceedings of its first stage, it will further expose the ambitions of that super-Power which seeks to divide and disintegrate Western Europe.
18.	While stepping up its arms expansion and war preparations and its world-wide contention with the United States for spheres of influence, the Soviet Union is clamouring for "spreading the zone of relaxation to the whole world". Accordingly, it has lately picked up once again the long-ignored trash known as the Asian Collective Security System. This is most amusing. It reminds us of the American by the name of John Foster Dulles, who, after the war in Indo-China was brought to an end by the first Geneva Conference in 1954,  hastily rigged up the so-called South-East Asia Treaty Organization, which was directed against China and whose members were mostly non-Southeast Asian countries. The Soviet Union is a European country and the chief of the alliance deriving from the Warsaw Treaty. Why should it be so eagerly concerned about the "collective security" of Asian countries? Has the ghost of John Foster Dulles gone to the Kremlin? Actually, would it not be less devious and more direct simply to extend the Warsaw Treaty to Asia?
19.	Lately, the Soviet leaders have tried to pin an additional label on China, namely "opponent of detente". As the Chinese saying goes, this is putting Mr. Chang's hat on Mr. Li's head. Since you say you are so anxious to relax world tension, why do you not show your good faith by doing a thing or two — for instance, by withdrawing your armed forces from Czechoslovakia or the Mongolian People's Republic and by returning the four northern islands to Japan?
20.	We hold that imperialism means war. There is a danger of war so long as imperialism exists. Today, when the various types of basic contradictions in the world are sharpening, the danger of a new world war still exists, and the people of all countries must be prepared, and must not let themselves be misled by a temporary and superficial facade of detente. Only thus can we better strive for a bright future for the world. In the final analysis, the destiny of mankind is decided by the people in their hundreds of millions who persevere in struggle and unity, and not by the one or two super-Powers.
21.	Fourth, there is the Cambodian question.
22.	The Chinese Government resolutely denounces the United States Government for continuing to support in various ways the puppet regime in Phnom Penh and wantonly to interfere in the affairs of Cambodia. The regime of the traitorous Lon Nol clique, which is now installed in Phnom Penh, was imposed on the Khmer people by the United States imperialists and their allies and has been illegal from its very inception. The Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia under the leadership of the head of State, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, is the sole legal government of Cambodia. The People's Armed Forces of National Liberation of Cambodia under its leadership have liberated over 90 per cent of Cambodia's territory, with over 80 per cent of the population. The Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia has been recognized by nearly 50 countries. The participants at the recent Fourth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non- Aligned Countries, which met in September at Algiers, have declared that the Royal Government of National Union under the leadership of Prince Norodom Sihanouk is the only legal government of Cambodia and earnestly requested all countries which love peace and justice to give it formal recognition [see A/9330, p. 12]. This is a voice of justice. The Chinese Government holds that the continued usurpation by the traitorous Lon Nol clique of the seat in the United Nations is a contempt for all countries that uphold justice, for the Fourth Conference and for the United Nations itself. The Chinese Government firmly maintains that the present session of the General Assembly should take a decision immediately to expel the representatives of the traitorous Lon Nol clique from the United Nations and restore to the Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia under the leadership of the head of State, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, its rightful seat in the United Nations.
23.	Fifth, I turn now to the Korean question.
24.	There are now before the General Assembly two draft resolutions on the Korean question — one sponsored by the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and other countries [A/C.1/L.645], the other sponsored by Algeria, China and other countries [A/C.1IL.644 and Corr.l]. Regarding the former draft resolution, the Chinese Government considers that the position for retaining the United Nations Command and the United States forces in South Korea and for the entry of both North and South Korea into the United Nations is unreasonable and contrary to the joint communiqué of North and South Korea issued on 4 July 1972,  although it contains the positive element of dissolving the so-called "United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea".
25.	The withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea and the peaceful settlement of the Korean question are long overdue. According to the provisions of the Korean Armistice Agreement of 27 July 1953,  a high-level political conference for the settlement of the Korean question ought to have met within three months after the Armistice Agreement became effective. The conference was not held only because of the obstructions put up by the United States side at the time. Subsequently, the question was again discussed at the 1954 Korean Political Conference in Geneva. The then United States Secretary of State, Mr. John Foster Dulles, peremptorily rejected all reasonable proposals, thereby blocking once again a solution to the question of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea and the peaceful settlement of the Korean question. The United States was then absolutely unwilling to withdraw its forces from South Korea.
26.	What could be done about it? Well, if you would not withdraw, we would.
27.	In 1958 the Chinese People's Volunteers unilaterally and unconditionally withdrew from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Consequently, there are no foreign forces on one side in Korea, while large numbers of foreign forces, mainly United States forces, are stationed on the other side. This most unreasonable state of affairs cannot but constitute an obstacle to the independent and peaceful reunification of Korea.
28.	Is South Korea so lacking in national self-respect that it must rely on the support of foreign forces? Obviously, such a state of affairs cannot be tolerated by the people in South Korea. Subsequently, thanks to the initiative of President Kim II Sung of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a joint communiqué of North and South Korea on the independent and peaceful reunification of the country was issued on 4 July 1972, leading to the start of a dialogue between the North and the South. This was a big step towards the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea and the peaceful settlement of the problem of the reunification of Korea by the Koreans themselves. With the issuance of this communiqué, the Korean Armistice Agreement, signed 19 years ago, to a great extent ceased to play the role it once had. The Koreans in the North and the South have themselves agreed upon refraining from committing armed provocations, big or small, and upon taking active measures for preventing incidents of unexpected military conflicts. Is this not the best guarantee for the maintenance of the armistice?
29.	It is captious to say that the dissolution of the United Nations Command and the withdrawal of foreign forces would nullify the 1953 Armistice Agreement. It should be recalled that the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed between the Korean People's Army and the Chinese People's Volunteers on the one hand and the United Nations Command on the other. According to that kind of reasoning, would not the withdrawal of the Chinese People's Volunteers mean that the Korean Armistice Agreement had long been nullified? Since the Chinese People's Volunteers could withdraw from Korea, why cannot the foreign forces in South Korea under the signboard of the United Nations Command do the same?
30.	The continued presence of the so-called United Nations Command and of foreign forces in South Korea is at variance with the principles agreed on by the two sides in Korea on 4 July 1972 that "unification shall be achieved through independent Korean efforts without being subject to external imposition or interference". In point of fact, it is the very presence of this outside force that has emboldened the South Korean authorities to reject a number of reasonable proposals put forward by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, thus causing the dialogue between the North and the South to bog down. The Kim Dae Jung incident which occurred not long ago
has shown how abjectly the South Korean authorities depend upon foreign forces. In order that conditions may be created to accelerate the independent and peaceful reunification of Korea, the United Nations Command should agree to disband, and all foreign forces stationed in South Korea should agree to withdraw.
31.	As for the entry of both North and South Korea into the United Nations, this is plainly an attempt to legalize and perpetuate the division of Korea, which runs counter to the principle agreed upon between the North and the South that has a homogenous people, a great national unity shall be sought, above all as one nation, transcending differences in ideas, ideologies and systems". In his five propositions put forward on 23 June of this year [see A/9027, para. 19], President Kim II Sung of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has pointed out that the North and the South should not enter the United Nations separately and that if they want to enter the United Nations before the reunification of the country is achieved, they should enter it as one State, at least, under the name of the Confederal Republic of Koryo after the Confederation is enforced. This proposition is entirely reasonable and merits the sympathy and support of all countries that uphold justice.
32.	Sixth, there is the question of Bangladesh.
33.	At the time of the twenty-sixth session of the General Assembly in 1971, the Soviet Union supported India in
 dismembering Pakistan by armed force. The General Assembly and then the Security Council adopted resolutions by overwhelming majorities calling for cease-fire, troop withdrawal and the repatriation of the prisoners of war by India and Pakistan f General Assembly resolution 2793 (XXVI) and Security Council resolution 307 (1971)]. At its twenty-seventh session, in 1972, the General Assembly further adopted two interdependent resolutions calling for the repatriation of Pakistan prisoners of war and expressing the desire for the admission of Bangladesh into the United Nations [resolutions 2938 and 2937 (XXVII)].
34.	It was not until 28 August of this year that an agreement on the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilians was reached between India and Pakistan at New Delhi. This agreement has come much too late, but its ultimate conclusion is to be welcomed. The agreement reached is on paper, and there will have to be a process before it can be turned into reality. Complications may yet arise. The Chinese Government holds that the question of admitting Bangladesh to the United Nations can be considered once the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council are implemented without qualification. But this can be done only after the thorough implementation of the United Nations resolutions, and definitely not before.
35.	Seventh, there is the Middle East question.
36.	Although the two super-Powers are both trumpeting about a general world trend towards detente, a tense stalemate of "no war, no peace" still prevails in the Middle East. When the Soviet Union dismembered Pakistan in 1971, no one said there was the risk of a nuclear war. Neither has anyone made a similar warning in connexion
with the current United States intervention in Cambodia. It is only in the Middle East that, at the mention of an attempt by Arab countries to repulse Israeli aggression and recover their lost territories, the air is filled with cries about a risk of nuclear war between the two super-Powers. Why is this so? Because the situation of "no war, no peace" created and maintained by the two super-Powers serves them best in their scramble for spheres of influence, oil resources and strategic positions in the Middle East. In. appearance the two super-Powers are each supporting one of the antagonistic sides, but in essence they are like two clay figurines which have been kneaded together and then remoulded, so that there is something of each in the other. Take the case of the aggressor Israel. Could Israel be so unbridled in its truculence if it received only supplies of American weapons but none of Soviet manpower? In our opinion, the so-called risk of a nuclear war has been deliberately fabricated to scare people. It is futile to count on the super-Powers to bring about a settlement of the Middle East question. Nor will the situation be changed by any resolution adopted by the United Nations. The only way out is to act independently and rely on one's own efforts. China has never had anything to do with the Israeli Zionists. China firmly supports the Palestinian and other Arab peoples in their just struggle against Israeli zionism. We believe that so long as they uphold unity and persevere in struggle, the Palestinian and other Arab peoples, with the support of the people of the whole world, will certainly surmount all the difficulties on their road of advance, recover their sacred territories and regain their national rights.
37.	Eighth, there is the question of opposing colonialism.
38.	An excellent situation prevails in Africa. In the past year, the African people have achieved a series of new victories in their struggle to win and safeguard their national independence and to oppose racism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, imperialism and hegemonism. Through their struggle they have come to realize more and more the necessity of armed struggle and mutual support. The Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity [OAU], at its tenth ordinary session held last May in Addis Ababa, issued the resounding call to "eliminate all forms of colonialism on the African continent". The conference documents fully manifested the unity and co-operation of the African countries and their militancy against the common enemies, as well as the determination of the African people in the territories which have not yet become independent to expand their armed struggle for national liberation. With imperialist and superpower support and connivance, the racist regimes and colonialist authorities in Africa are resorting to more insidious and brutal means in their desperate struggle to buttress their tottering rule. They have long refused to implement the United Nations resolutions which reflect the just demands of the African people. What deserves special attention is that while the old-line colonialists are on the decline, neo-colonialists of different shades are trying to take their place by means of cunning and deceptive manoeuvres. The super-Powers are sowing dissension among the African countries so as to fish in troubled waters. The African people are still faced with the task of a protracted, complicated and tortuous struggle. Africa belongs to the great African people. The Chinese people stand firmly by the African people. We resolutely support the peoples of Mozambique, Angola, Azania, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Guinea-Bissau, Spanish Sahara and other regions in their just struggle for national liberation. We warmly hail and give recognition to the new-born Republic of Guinea- Bissau. We resolutely support the just struggles of all African countries against aggression, subversion and the sowing of discord by colonialism and neo-colonialism and in defence of State sovereignty and African unity. We are confident that the awakening African people will continue to win new victories in the course of their coming struggle.
39.	Ninth, there is the question of opposing maritime hegemony.
40.	The determined struggle for the recognition of maritime rights in a zone of 200 nautical miles initiated by Latin American countries has won increasing support among the numerous small and medium-sized countries. Both the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the OAU and the Fourth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held earlier this year, expressly declared that a coastal State is entitled to establish an exclusive economic zone or a zone of national jurisdiction with the maximum limit of 200 nautical miles. And land-locked States are also entitled to share sea-bed and fishery resources. On this problem of maritime rights, the numerous small and medium-sized countries are waging a gigantic and vigorous struggle against the maritime hegemony of the super-Powers. With a view to seeking hegemony on the seas and oceans, the super-Powers are trying in vain to preserve the outdated law of the sea and are doing their utmost to restrict the territorial sea and scope of jurisdiction of all countries. They insist that the three-nautical-mile or 12-nautical-mile rule for the territorial sea is sacred and inviolable, arguing that the expansion of the territorial sea and the zone of jurisdiction will narrow down the open sea. This is a bluff. What sacredness and inviolability! The three-nautical-mile rule was a man- made stipulation, and so was the 12-nautical mile rule. Both rules reflect the reality of the time when the seas and oceans were controlled by colonialism and imperialism. What is there that is so sacred and inviolable? As to the assertion that the larger the territorial seas and the zones of jurisdiction, the smaller the open sea, the question must be asked, What is the open sea? The so-called "open sea" has, in fact, always been the "private sea" of a few strong naval Powers. The numerous small and medium-sized countries have now stood up; they constitute the majority and demand a change in the so-called law of the sea, which is advantageous only to the imperialists. What fault can-one find with this? In a proposal submitted by the Soviet Union and its allies to the United Nations Industrial Development Board on 2 June 1972, they said that "the sovereignty over the natural resources is depending to a great extent upon the capability of utilizing these resources by the industry of the developing countries .. '.".
41.	At the 101st meeting of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction held in Geneva on 22 August 1973, a Soviet representative said that the developing countries could not increase their catch even if they had a 200-nautical-mile zone, because they lacked the technical know-how, fishing capacity, and so forth. These statements simply mean that the greater the might, the greater the right. This is the logic of imperialism, pure and simple. Why are the super-Powers so violently opposed to the position of the small and medium-sized countries for enlarging the territorial sea and the zone of jurisdiction? It is not difficult to see the underlying motive if only one takes a look at the contention between the United States and the Soviet Union for maritime hegemony in the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, the Pacific and the Atlantic Ocean and their rivalry in setting up bases and plundering the fishing and sea-bed resources there. When the territorial sea and the zone of jurisdiction are enlarged, their "private sea" over which they act the overlords will contract. How can the super-Powers not desperately oppose this? However, their opposition will eventually prove futile. So long as the numerous small and medium-sized countries are united by seeking common ground on major points, while reserving differences on minor ones, and persevere in tenacious and protracted efforts, their struggle against maritime hegemony is bound to triumph.
42.	The struggle against maritime hegemony is an important aspect of the struggle waged by the numerous developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America to protect national resources and develop the national economy. It is also a new focus in the current struggle against hegemonism. In other economic spheres, the developing countries are also more closely co-ordinating their actions and strengthening their unity in the struggle against exploitation, plunder, dumping and monopoly by imperialism and big-Power hegemonism. The bilateral and regional economic co-operation of the developing countries is growing, and the various organizations of raw-material- exporting countries are expanding. More and more developing countries have come to realize that, in order to consolidate political independence, it is imperative to attain economic independence, and that in order to develop the national economy, it is imperative to rely on their own efforts and strengthen their mutual support and cooperation. It was by plundering and exploiting the people of Asia, Africa and Latin America that colonialism and imperialism accumulated their fortunes. Therefore, the people of these continents are fully entitled to demand repayment of this debt. However, in the light of China's own experience, colonialism and imperialism will never repay the debt and, what is more, they will create more difficulties for those countries which are defending their national independence and developing their national economy. It is futile to harbour any unrealistic notions about .them. We must persist in opposing imperialism, colonialism and hegemonism. We must rely on ourselves, rely on the people, wage an arduous struggle and exert sustained efforts. We believe that, by so doing, the developing countries will certainly become prosperous.
43.	Tenth, there is the question of disarmament.
44.	The Chinese Government has always stood for disarmament. But what we stand for is genuine disarmament, not phoney disarmament; still less empty talk about disarmament coupled with actual arms expansion every day. At present, we face the harsh fact that the super-Powers are hawking disarmament, and the Soviet Union in particular is most energetic about it. Nearly every year it comes up with some sort of proposal on disarmament at the General Assembly. Last year, it boasted of the great significance of its agreement with the United States on the so-called limitation of strategic nuclear weapons. And this year, it is even more vehement in lauding the so-called epoch-making significance of the Soviet-United States Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War. Meanwhile, it has sanctimoniously proposed a 10 per cent reduction of the military budgets of the five permanent members of the Security Council and the utilization of part of the funds thus saved to provide assistance to developing countries [2124th meeting]. This is Krushchev's old war which has been peddled for more than a dozen years. It has not deceived many people. How are military budgets to be assessed? To study this problem alone, a committee will have to be set up and work for many years. Can military budgets really be reduced? Anyway, nobody has ever seen this happen. We think it is better to stop this kind of empty talk, and stop it quickly. If you are really the "natural and surest ally" of the developing countries you should come up to this rostrum and declare openly that your military aid to all developing countries which is used to resist foreign aggression is gratis and free of charge, that you will not be a merchant of death, and that, although you have charged previously, you will not press for the payment of debt and interest, especially in the case of the struggling Arab countries. Be forthright and simple. Declare publicly that you will cancel all the military loans, that there is no need for repayment and that you will let them be gone with the wind. Would not that be more practical?
45.	What general disarmament? Actually, in the world today, it is the two super-Powers that are engaged in an uncontrollable arms race. Their aim is nuclear superiority and the nuclear hegemony with which to dominate the world. To put it bluntly, any disarmament must first of all be the disarming of these two super-Powers. But can this be realized? On this point, the United States Government is somewhat more candid than is the Soviet Government. It admits that military expenditures cannot be reduced in the context of rivalry between the two hegemonic Powers. As to the numerous small and medium-sized countries, the real problem they face is definitely not disarmament, but the strengthening of their necessary and independent defence capabilities. Even Western Europe is inadequate in defence capabilities. How much more so are the large number of small and medium-sized countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America? What have these countries got to disarm? To talk about general disarmament in these circumstances is gibberish. If such proposals were really accepted, it would mean to ask the whole world completely to disarm itself in front of the two super-Powers and allow itself to be ordered about.
46.	The Chinese Government is in favour of convening a world conference on genuine disarmament. But there must be the necessary pre-conditions and clear aims for the conference. That is, all nuclear countries, and particularly the two nuclear super-Powers, the Soviet Union and the United States, must first of all undertake the unequivocal obligation that at no time and in no circumstances will they be the first to use nuclear weapons, particularly against non-nuclear countries and in nuclear-weapon-free zones. For example, the Soviet Union should undertake obligations in respect of the nuclear-weapon-free zones in Latin America, and they must withdraw from abroad all their armed forces, including nuclear missile forces, and dismantle all their military bases, including nuclear bases, on the territories of other countries. Only thus will it be possible for all countries big and small to discuss on an equal footing and with equanimity and to solve the questions of the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons and other questions free from any threat of force.
47.	Some people charge that China's position on the disarmament question is "either all or nothing". This is a distortion. One may ask, What difficulties are there for nuclear countries first of all to undertake the obligation, as the first step towards nuclear disarmament, that at no time and in no circumstances will they be the first to use nuclear weapons, particularly against non-nuclear countries or in nuclear-weapon-free zones? Is this not a truly effective first step towards the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons? But these disarmament- advocating "saints" would not even agree to undertake this minimum obligation. Does this not suffice to show that they are actually imperialists who persist in arms expansion and aggression, menacing the people of the world and aspiring to world hegemony?
48.	The People's Republic of China is taking part in the activities of the United Nations for the third year. We wish to say frankly that what we have experienced in the United Nations has caused us to become worried. Speeches are multiplying and resolutions are piling up in the United Nations, yet the Organization has not been able to look into matters which it ought to — for instance, the question of the prevention of nuclear war — and it is impotent in the solution of many major world issues — for instance, the Middle East question. If things continue this way, what future is there for the United Nations? However, we are not disheartened. We believe that the present conditions in the United Nations should be changed and that the Charter should be revised. How can the United Nations go on working in the same old way it did more than 20 years ago, when the world has already changed? The third world has risen up. The United Nations must be able to give expression to the desires of the numerous small and medium-sized countries, truly to give effect to the principle of the equality of all countries big or small and to cease to be controlled by the super-Powers and their small number of followers if it is to be worthy of its name. China is ready to work together with all countries which love peace and uphold justice for the achievement of this noble aim.


118.	Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to join with my colleagues in congratulating you on your high office. Ecuador will rightly feel a reflected glory.
119.	Sir, I have spoken on many occasions in this Assembly and have usually felt it right to deal with the main topical and urgent issues in the field of international affairs. I do not intend to do this today. Many of them, it is true, remain as difficult and contentious as ever, but they will feature on the agenda of the various Committees of this Assembly and the views of the British Government will be explained when they come up for discussion. All of them should be soluble by patient bilateral diplomacy, assisted as the need arises — and it arises more often day by day-by the conciliation machinery of this United Nations organization for conciliation. This must be the order of the day in the middle of this twentieth century. Now, however, I wish to concentrate only on two major long-term problems in the world, both profound and in the long run decisive in terms of what I shall call in shorthand the problems between East and West and North and South.
120.	The first duty laid upon the United Nations is to maintain international peace and security. We have had a deeply troubled century. Twenty-one years after the First World War the world was just beginning to recover from the appalling carnage when it all started all over again. It is now 28 years since the ending of the Second World War. So far we have avoided a global holocaust, although at all times the situation has been saved only by knife-edge diplomacy. But there are signs at long last that we are just starting to learn. Whether peace has been forced upon us by the realization of the ultimate horror of the nuclear weapon, or whether the miseries of two world wars have taught us the bitter lesson that war solves nothing, unless it is that in the main the innocent pay the penalty, or whether the United Nations, if it has not preserved peace, has helped men to talk themselves into a more sober mood in which they realize that there are no slick answers to the modern problems of this world. Perhaps it is in fact a mixture of all three. But the hope must be that one way or another at this moment of time-late, it is true, but better late than never-the lesson of the futility of violence is being learned.
121.	Herr Brandt just now said that we should talk, not shoot, and as a European I stand here to say that it was that failure in Europe which very nearly led to the destruction of our continent; and that, surely, should be a lesson for all.
122.	In his thoughtful introduction to his report on the work of the Organization the Secretary-General rightly reminds us that while it is easy to criticize the limitations of the United Nations in matters affecting peace and security, the Organization, and particularly the Security Council, does have to its credit real achievements in defusing disputes. Of that at least we should remind ourselves lest we lose heart. But he would be a bold man who would say that an era of universal peace is within our grasp. War, although contained, is still with us. Man has not solved his basic needs for security, for food and for shelter. At this time of the twentieth century I think we ought to remind ourselves that there is no excuse for these shortcomings apart from prejudice, fear and suspicion, for we have all the technical means that we need to provide for man's very modest needs.
123.	Since 1945 the international scene has been dominated by the problems arising from the totally different social, economic and political systems of the East and West and from the aftermath of rapid decolonization. In East- West relations there have been periods of comparative calm and moments of acute peril. Coexistence has been preached. But it has meant different things to different people and the shock waves of tension between the Communists and the rest have spread, and the impact has been felt world-wide. Those who have wished to avoid the contagion of the rivalry of the great Powers have not always been able to do so. The rigid confrontation of the major Powers and the continuing escalation of force and counter- force was not only a source of grave danger in itself to the countries in the Northern Hemisphere but, worse perhaps, also paralysed the use of common resources and stultified the economic development of nations much further afield - nations that otherwise would have been able to do something to bridge the gap between the developed and the developing countries.
124. Now, at long last, these preoccupations seem to be yielding to a wider perspective. It is not, of course, easy for Communists and the rest to live together and work together when philosophy and practice are so different, but, at long last, at least there are signs of flexibility. The United States has established a relationship with China. The Soviet Union and the United States have softened the edges of their bilateral relations. It became possible for serious negotiations to begin between the Western Allies and the East over the future of Berlin. The two German States have made real progress in their joint discussions and are now both Members of this Organization-a historic step, which my Government welcomes-and if it is followed up with tolerance and with generosity this will undoubtedly have beneficial effects in Europe. The European Community, now enlarged, is finding its own identity and looks outward to fruitful contacts with the rest of the world; and the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has met and defined an agenda for work leading towards detente. Up till now it is no more than that, but lest we are to despair, we must recognize it as a start in reconciliation and try to build further upon it. That being said, I must make it clear that detente must be real and not an illusion. Lip service to detente which evaporates at the first test is a trap. Like so much in life it is the will to work together for the highest common factor that counts and certainly as far as my Government is concerned the will is there. Our strong desire is that, however difficult it may be, the two political systems should live together not only without enmity but in broad accord. We will therefore take risks for peace, but at the same time we will not be duped by empty declarations into jeopardizing our security and our chosen way of life which goes with it. I would echo the words of Mr. Kissinger a few days ago [2124th meeting]: my country, like his, seeks true peace, not an armistice. Let us, therefore, share our ideas, share our resources and share our cultures. Let us resolve not to undermine but to understand, not to confront but to reconcile. We-that is, the East and the West-will have the chance to put these sentiments to the test in phase two of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. I trust that the Communist countries will be able to prove that they care for the basic freedoms of people everywhere; for, I say with great respect, it is people, not bits of paper, that politics, national and international, are about. We will try to respond in a constructive spirit in phase two of that
Conference, remembering always that, as Mr. Andersen has just reminded us-and I think it is too often forgotten-that politics are also about the quality of life.
125.	The other division in the world-the division between the rich and the poor countries-is just as profound and just as likely to breed tension. This is essentially an economic rather than an ideological division. Even if there was no conflict between East and West, and even if this conflict had not sometimes spread to the third world, we would still face the great human problems caused by the vast difference between the living standards of the developing and the developed countries because of the accidents of time. I understand the emotions which break out from time to time in the wake of the colonial era. But we have a situation now in this modern world which requires not slogans, however tempting, but cool, rational analysis and a realistic assessment of what can be done under a number of headings: investment, credit, commodity arrangements, debt, aid and trade. They are all relevant to the relationship between the rich and the poor countries and during this session of the General Assembly we shall be discussing the first review and appraisal of the progress of the Second United Nations Development Decade, and I hope it is these things-and I will repeat them: investment, credit, commodity arrangements, debt, aid and trade-which will be the subjects of analysis and, if possible, of agreement. We shall not agree on every aspect of these and of other subjects. Important interests of both developing and developed countries are involved and prima facie at times they seem to diverge but, again, if one looks at each one separately under those headings that I have listed, it will almost always be proved by careful analysis that the interests of the developed and the developing are complementary and not antagonistic. Our common deliberations, therefore, will be fruitful only in so far as we make a deliberate attempt to find the common interest and act on it to a point where we all can see that we can gain as well as give. We must simply not allow politics to intervene to hamper or cripple the fine economic prospects for ordinary people in developing and developed countries. I conclude from this that the key word for the future of economic development is "partnership". Let us recognize the situation for what it is and work together to put it right. In short, the less emotion there is, the quicker we shall get on. For partnership to work it is necessary that each understand the realities which limit the possibilities for action of the other.
126.	We are-and again I make no apology for reminding the Assembly of this-we are dealing with human beings, not with units on the economist's slide rule. So the developed countries must understand the right of the newly emerging countries to be master of their own fate, to control their economic, political and social destinies. What else is nationhood about? And in turn it should be clear that politicians in countries like my own which are governed by a parliamentary democracy have to satisfy their electors that the money which is deliberately being diverted from them is not only being well spent for the benefit of the recipients but to the long-term advantage for all. We in the Western countries-and here I can speak especially for the enlarged European Community-are tackling these questions with energy. The European summit conference last autumn gave to the outside world a high place in its programme. But we can be really successful only if we can move forward with the developing countries in a spirit and practice of partnership and create an atmosphere of mutual purpose and of mutual trust. So I repeat, partnership in this age and day is the key word to success.
127.	We also have undertaken to transfer economic resources and expertise to developing countries and are doing so on an expanding scale. But the word "transfer" means just what it says, at least in the short term. Money and resources, in other words, which would otherwise be available to the donor country are transferred for the benefit of another and I would invite the developing countries to recognize the problems of presentation which, for example, we in the United Kingdom have when we are speaking to our own electors. We could do a lot ourselves with the £300 million or so which we agree to transfer to others. We are willing to forgo these advantages for ourselves, but the transfer of resources must be seen to be directly related to the achievement of general prosperity all round. That is the only condition we make, but I think it is reasonable.
128.	My country continues to attach high importance to aid. Our official aid flow has steadily increased. In the two years between 1970 and 1972 it rose by nearly half &s much again and it is our intention that it should continue to grow. I was interested, in this context of aid and investment, in what Mr. Gromyko had to say yesterday [2126th meeting], and in particular in his proposal for a 10 per cent reduction in the military expenditure of the leading Powers [A/9191]. My recollections in this Assembly go back some way, and I thought I had recollected having heard this before. I was right. In 1958 the Soviet spokesman stated:
"The Soviet Government's proposal is to reduce the military budgets of the Soviet Union, the United States, the United Kingdom and France by 10 to 15 per cent and use part of the savings so effected for assistance to the under-developed countries."
That was debated. It did not at that time find favour, for reasons which I think were then valid — how do you measure, for example, military budgets?  — and which may still be valid now but I am not concerned in prejudging what the decision on this proposal may be not in 1958, but in 1973. But I would not like it to be thought that in other countries things have stood still on this front of aid and investment. For example, in terms of international aid our contribution in the United Kingdom is many times greater than that of the Soviet Union and, incidentally, it so happens that our total aid is already about 10 per cent of our expenditure of defence. In other words, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, this is a field in which we should welcome more competition from the Soviet Union and from other countries.
129.	There is, of course, the question of how much of the total flow of resources could be met by official aid and how much by private investment. Whatever the proportions achieved, it will remain true that the private investment will play a significant role in development and I would remind this Assembly of the Pearson report, which says as follows and I quote:
"There can be no doubt about the contribution which private capital can render to economic development. Indeed, dollar for dollar, it may be more effective than official aid . .. ."
It is of course important that private investment should be properly integrated into the development plans and priorities of the host country. Investors should involve the nationals of the recipient State to the maximum, strive for maximum participation of local capital and reinvest a fair proportion of the profits in the enterprises of the country's enterprise which is concerned. But there is a reverse side to any coin and, as the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade put it, developing countries should bear in mind the importance of the attraction of foreign capital of conditions conducive to sustained investment. The plain fact is that private investment will not flow to the countries which do not provide the conditions in which it can bear fruit. It is therefore necessary once again to underline and emphasize that it is necessary to create an atmosphere of partnership if enough resources are to be transferred from those who have them to those who have not to make any real impact at all on the gap between the developed and the developing countries; and this applies both to official aid and to private investment.
130.	A pre-condition, therefore, of success is that we must get away from the concept of conflict, whether ideological or racial. We have a common and a material interest in this and it is our joint responsibility as leaders of opinion to see to it that our peoples understand the destructive implications of actions and words which are designed to fuel the fires of intolerance and, by contrast, realize the benefits which flow from partnership which is open and trustful.
131.	I cannot accept that the greater East-West detente must somehow be at the expense of the developing world. The reverse should be the case. If detente means anything, it must entail a liberation of resources from both East and West  —  a liberation of resources for more constructive ends. In a sense, the problems of the relationship between East and West and between the developing and the developed countries are linked, and success in dealing with the one will ease the anxieties of the other. When problems exist they can either be approached in an atmosphere of tension and conflict, as if a solution can be reached only by the victory of one side and the defeat of the other, or they can be faced in the belief that reconciliation and partnership is possible and should be pursued with relentless purpose and vigour. This Organization-I believe we ought to remind ourselves - was founded on the latter premise. That was the basis and the inspiration of the Charter. Until now it has

been confounded by political distrust and, for the reasons of which I have spoken, we have left undone much that ought to have been done together. It is in the basic belief that man has the capacity to reject his baser instincts and accept the disciplines inherent in reconciliation that we in this Assembly should formulate our policies and lead our peoples.


44.	 Mr. President, may I be allowed, at the outset, to express the deepest pleasure of the Italian delegation at seeing you preside over this twenty-eighth session of the General Assembly.
45.	I am also glad to associate myself with the appreciation extended to your predecessor and with the tribute paid to our Secretary-General, the faithful interpreter of the principles of the Charter and the living symbol of the continuity of this Organization, for the intelligent and successful work that he has accomplished.
46.	Confronted by the sad news from the Middle East, I cannot refrain from giving my immediate attention to that tormented geographical area. The sudden renewal of large- scale hostilities in the Middle East at the very moment when the spirit of detente seemed to be spreading throughout the world, and when Europe is engaged in the task of consolidating peace, provides us with a brusque reminder that in an area very close to my own country there remains a deep- rooted and profound crisis which for a long time will threaten our peace-keeping efforts. I venture to recall that the Italian Government, fully aware of the precariousness of any armed truce, had issued repeated warnings, both in this Organization and in our bilateral contacts, about the risk of a further outbreak of hostilities.
47.	The Italian Government and Italian public opinion are deeply concerned at the dramatic and tragic events of
the last few days. Italy urges that every effort be made to
stop the bloodshed immediately. The military operations are producing suffering and death. Sadly, they have also caused victims among the civilian population, victims for whom I must express my deepest grief.
48.	At the same time we urge that the root-causes of the conflict not be overlooked. It is towards these root-causes that we must turn our attention, at these gravest of moments, with the sincerely expressed wish that our Organization will, as it faces this serious crisis, prove itself capable of discharging its basic task of serving as a centre for harmonizing the actions of States in order to maintain international peace and security. The United Nations must therefore renew its efforts with increased vigour not only to re-establish the truce immediately — this aim, in our opinion, has absolute priority — but also to eradicate the roots of the conflict.
49.	I would venture to add that this duty does not collectively weigh on our Organization alone. Each of its Members separately, and in particular those who bear a major responsibility for peace, are in duty bound to do their utmost to bring about a political solution. We must not ignore the danger that the Middle East conflict may lead to repercussions beyond our control.
50.	Italy is convinced that Security Council resolution 242 (1967) still constitutes the basis for a just and honourable peace in the Middle East. The experience of these last six years has nevertheless shown that resolution 242 (1967), while offering the parties concerned the basic foundations for a peace agreement, will remain a dead letter unless the countries involved in the dispute make an open show of goodwill, in co-operation with the United Nations, in order to achieve a unanimously acceptable interpretation of the resolution and its subsequent implementation. The United Nations, and above all those Member States that have close relations with one or all of the interested parties, are in duty bound to invite them and urge them to tackle their problems constructively and to promote an agreement. Italy, for its part, will spare no effort to convince the parties to overcome doubts and misunderstandings and to encourage them to engage in a dialogue as a means of achieving peace. On behalf of the Italian Government, I wish to appeal to all the parties concerned to show restraint and a sense of responsibility so that reason and justice may finally prevail in the Middle East.

51.	It has been said in many quarters that 1973 has been the year of detente. And this was certainly true until a few days ago and warranted a certain satisfaction over the tangible and significant developments achieved in 1973. These achievements have been mentioned by many previous speakers: the progress made towards normalization in Viet-Nam; the favourable conclusion of negotiations between India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which have improved the situation in the Asian subcontinent; the conclusion in Europe of the stage of soundings in preparation for a multilateral negotiation between the West, the East and the neutral countries, and the beginning of the Conference on Security and Co-operation- in Europe which is now taking place in Geneva; the ratification of the treaty between the two Germanys which has resulted in the entry into the United Nations of the two German States; the forthcoming negotiations in Vienna to achieve a balanced reduction of forces in central Europe and the resumption of negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of strategic weapons.
52.	A determining factor in these positive developments undoubtedly has been the search for a new kind of relationship among the major centres of world political influence. These centres, after having initiated and experienced balanced relationships which at the beginning of the 1970s constituted a decisive political change, are tending more and more to adopt the method of permanent negotiations in order to check potential conflicts and to bring about the peaceful consolidation of world stability.
53.	The new presence of Europe as an entity actively engaged in the search for new relationships between States and peoples and in the building of a peaceful order on the continent and in the world constitutes a striking development in the international situation which, as a European, I certainly cannot ignore.
54.	The concerted drive towards European unity no longer reflects merely a desire by the peoples of Western Europe to expand and strengthen the process of integration so far engaged in the European Economic Community; it also reflects a striving for the responsibility which devolves upon the Community as a result of the new international reality.
55.	The aim of achieving by 1980 the political unity of the countries of the European Community reflects this desire and this responsibility. And the countries of the Community are moving towards the achievement of this aim by helping both to end the confrontation between East and West and to bridge the gap between industrialized and developing countries.
56.	Hence the process of the economic and political unification of the countries and peoples of a large part of Europe, to the extent that it fills a historical gap and provides a new impetus towards co-operation and peace, coincides — as it has indeed so far coincided — with the progress of detente and with the initiation of new relations between the countries of the third world and the industrialized countries. Suffice it to point out that the enlargement of the European Economic Community and the further progress towards political integration have accompanied the preparation and holding of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Suffice it also to think of the treaties of association concluded between the Community and certain African States, the growing network of friendly relations which the Community is building up in the Mediterranean area and in Latin America and the initiatives taken in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development for the development of trade within the framework of a system of generalized preferences. All this means that the European Community not only intends to achieve a model of regional economic and political integration but also is seeking to become a dynamic force and a specific reference point in the new system of relations and balances which is emerging as a more adequate response to the challenges and problems of the world community.
57.	The new relationships based on negotiations initiated between the major centres of world influence have certainly helped to settle some potential conflicts. Nevertheless, the need to reaffirm the presence and the essential role of the United Nations in the process of overcoming crises and normalizing relations between States remains more than ever valid. That is because only the United Nations, through its universal and democratic vocation, can represent the aspirations and interests of all States and all peoples; and only the United Nations, created and developed on the basis of a set of principles of international coexistence, can seek a peace which not only conforms to Power relationships but also is founded on equality between States and an understanding of the aspirations of peoples.
58.	It is therefore the task of the United Nations to supplement the efforts of the major centres of political influence by action which reflects the need for participation of all States and the democratic awareness of the world. That is action whereby the United Nations, seeking to build peace upon justice and to base that peace on the major principles of the .Charter, must plan for peace and reaffirm it in all fields where it is threatened by delays in the achievement of progress which may bring to all men and all peoples dignified and democratic conditions of life.
59.	There still remain some problems and disputes which have not as yet been settled. They can be tackled only by the application of the major principles of the United Nations, such as the self-determination of peoples, respect for human rights, the sovereign equality of States, and the renunciation of the use or threat of force. I refer to the crisis in the Middle East — which I have already dealt with — the remnants of colonialism in Africa, apartheid, racial discrimination, the serious violations of fundamental freedoms of individuals and of peoples which occur also on other continents, and the problems of the normalization of political relations in Asia.
60.	Among other problems whose settlement involves the full implementation of the principles of the United Nations I shall mention here those of colonialism and apartheid. And let me say at once that the recent news of violence in southern Africa has had a strong impact on Italian public opinion. The Italian people demand a renewed undertaking on the part of the United Nations to initiate in the areas still under colonial rule constructive negotiations between the administering Powers and the liberation movements in order to bring about a process of peaceful and speedy decolonization. These are problems on which we have repeatedly expressed our views; and we have voiced our full disapproval of the adverse effects which our failure to solve them has had on the peoples concerned and on our progress towards the attainment of subsequent goals of free political coexistence between men.
61.	The statement of these principles reminds us that there are still many countries where the right of peoples to choose freely their own political and social institutions and where the rights of the individual to life and liberty are suppressed because of recurring tendencies to impose or maintain political formulas and regimes by underhand coercion and violence of arms.
62.	The Italian Government has followed with regret and concern the events which have taken place and are still taking place in Chile, where a coup d'etat led to the overthrow of the constitutional Government, the suppression of democratic institutions and the tragic death of President Allende.
63.	Violence in political life, wherever and in whatever form it occurs, leads to the disregard and suppression of human rights. Italy maintains that respect for human rights, set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and proclaimed in the United Nations Charter as the basic objective of co-operation between States, constitutes everywhere the basis for ensuring political coexistence and for guaranteeing, both within States and in international life, the renunciation of the use of force and the free development of the values and aspirations of peoples.
64.	On the continent of Asia also there still exist problems whose solution requires the rigorous application of United Nations principles.
65.	The Paris agreements on Viet-Nam, the Vientiane Agreement on Laos and the end of the bombing in Cambodia constitute the premises for the gradual restoration of normal relations in Indo-China. Now that the war in VietNam and Laos is over, we must try to defend the peace there; but above all we must place it on more solid and more genuine foundations, namely, full respect for the will of the peoples concerned to establish a freely chosen political and social order and a climate of reconciliation and fruitful progress.
66.	On the Korean peninsula also the efforts made by the two Koreas to normalize their relations are encountering difficulties which may become if the delicate balances existing within the region and the desires of the Korean people are respected and if there is no outside interference.
67.	The most serious problem now facing the States Members of the United Nations, whether on the regional or the world level, is not so much to reaffirm the major principles already solemnly proclaimed in the Charter as to bring about their practical implementation. That is a task which in Italy's view may be accomplished mainly through a joint effort of political will by the States which are called upon to establish more peaceful and more balanced relationships throughout the world.
68.	That co-operation may be achieved at the regional level, as may be proved by the significant test constituted by the convening of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, but that Conference must not limit its scope to another redrafting, in more or less solemn terms, of a code of behaviour which already exists in the universal conscience. On the contrary, it must pursue the aim of equating European reality with the major principles of our Organization and it must remove the divisive factors which have so far prevented their full implementation on the continent. It must create the conditions for the gradual removal of barriers between States and peoples and for the initiation of new relations between them which are more open and dynamic.
69.	With regard to the concern with which international public opinion has been following the measures recently
taken against citizens guilty of having expressed a form of political dissent, I wish to stress that the real success of the Conference will be measured by its ability effectively to enhance the quality of life and the dignity of man. In that sense, the promotion in Europe of broader contacts between individuals and the freer exchanges of information, ideas and scientific and artistic products will increase the political awareness of citizens and together will raise the level of social progress, as measured by the extent to which rights and freedom are enjoyed. The possibilities given to Europeans of understanding and meeting one another beyond national frontiers will signify the progress from a Europe marked by divisions to a Europe of peace, intent on seeking more advanced forms of social coexistence.
70.	What I have said so far about Europe is valid, mutatis mutandis, for the other continents also. At the world level, however, the way towards the implementation of the major principles in international relations lies more than ever in the strengthening of the role of the United Nations.
71.	The Italian Government has already had the opportunity of expressing its views on the matter. We maintain that full respect for the Charter and the political will of States to apply it correctly represent the necessary premise for restoring effectiveness to United Nations action. We are, however, also convinced that some of its structures must be modified in order to ensure more responsible participation of small and medium-sized States in the decisions and tasks of the Organization.
72.	The expansion of the membership of the Economic and Social Council and the strengthening of its operations represents a positive event. We hope that the Security Council, too, may in the not-too-distant future reflect more accurately in its membership the changes that have come about in the world community during the last quarter of a century with the attainment of independence by so many States and with the evolution of influential relationships on the world scene. We also hope that by the establishment of new machinery the Security Council will be able to improve its fact-finding and peace-keeping functions.
73.	A strengthening of the procedures for the settlement of international disputes, especially through a review of the role of the International Court of Justice; a further clarification of the powers of the Economic and Social Council to co-ordinate the specialized agencies and the programmes designed to implement the International Development Strategy for the Second United Nations Development Decade [resolution 2626 (XXV)]\ the search for more coordinated procedures for ascertaining violations of human rights and for struggling against racial discrimination; the replacement of the Trusteeship Council, which has almost concluded its task, by a council for Non-Self-Governing Territories and for decolonization: these are some of the questions which we suggest Member States should ponder in order to bring about a genuine modernization of the structures and capacity for action of the United Nations.
74.	Undoubtedly, the United Nations has traversed a long path towards the attainment of universality, which represents important stage in the reaffirmation of its role. The entry into the world Organization of the two States of the
German nation and of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas brings closer the moment in which the United Nations can achieve real universality. To complete this process we shall have to accelerate the accession to independence by the countries still subject to a colonial regime and normalize relations between the divided States such as Korea and Viet-Nam.
75.	Italy, which has always advocated the principle of universality of the United Nations, will continue to work for the attainment of this aim as soon as possible.
76.	Precisely because of the ever-growing participation of States, the United Nations has been able in recent years to extend the scope of its action. Today, the United Nations is launching a campaign on all fronts for the liberation of mankind from the major evils which afflict it: the armaments spiral, under-development, hunger and the destruction of the environment. In this context I should like to recall the initiative of the President of Mexico for the adoption of a charter on the economic rights and duties of States, an initiative which we favourably accepted for the reasons which prompted it and in the study of which we are participating with interest.

77.	What must be done is to implement the comprehensive and indivisible concept of security that befits the United Nations and is founded on the awareness that, in order to ensure peace the root-causes of tension must be eradicated.
78.	In this context I will refer only to the United Nations effort to promote a global development strategy capable of bringing about a more equitable distribution of resources and technology in favour of the less-advanced States, to the major negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the International Monetary Fund, to the noble initiatives — notably the suggested world food conference — undertaken to confront the dramatic challenges of hunger and over-population throughout the world and, last but not least, to the general awareness of the fact that a world environment policy can no longer be postponed.
79.	It is against that comprehensive background, in the framework of a global strategy of peace which may confront world problems in their entirety and interrelationship, that we must consider also the disarmament problems.
80.	The Soviet-American negotiations on the limitation of strategic weapons and the start of a negotiation on the balanced reduction of forces in central Europe constitute so many positive elements which must be integrated with the efforts of the United Nations itself if we are to move towards the objective of general and complete disarmament. Italy continues on each and every occasion to be actively engaged in the search for progress in disarmament. We are pursuing this search in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament at Geneva which technically still constitutes, in spite of recent difficulties, the body best equipped to negotiate specific and workable measures. Italy also intends to remain active in the efforts deployed to bring about a World Disarmament Conference which, if it is effectively prepared with the participation of all the nuclear Powers, could become the most useful instrument for bringing about general and complete disarmament.
81.	The United Nations was created in order to base international relations on peace and law and to guarantee to all peoples the right to decide their own destiny and to be free from all foreign interference and all forms of coercion. Since States and peoples are made up of human beings, today more than ever the enrichment of the quality of life — the quality of life of all men, wherever they live — is essential for ensuring that relations between States will also develop in a framework of security and harmony. The rights of States and peoples may be achieved more fully in a climate of peace and security when the rights of the individual can expand and develop within all regions and within all social systems.
82.	It is in that spirit that Italy reaffirms its complete support for the United Nations and the principles set forth in the Charter and its resolve to co-operate in the formulation of a comprehensive policy for peace, which may also promote all the values in which man's desire constantly to overcome himself is embodied.