Allow me first of all to add the congratulations of the delegation of
Burundi to those already addressed to Mr. Hollai on his unanimous
election to the presidency of the thirty-seventh session of the
General Assembly. The Assembly's decision to make him its President
is a reflection of the respect and esteem which his country, Hungary,
and he himself enjoy within the international community. His
experience, competence and efficiency, as evidenced by his diplomatic
career, have enabled him from the outset to give the work of this
session a momentum that promises results in line with the hopes of
the nations represented here. It is our firm conviction that he will
manage to give our work the energy demanded by the seriousness and
complexity of the questions being studied. We are all the more
convinced of this as he will be assisted by a General Committee whose
competence and devotion we fully appreciate. I must also congratulate
Mr. Hollai's predecessor, Mr. Kittani, for the outstanding work he
did during the last session of the General Assembly. May I also pay a
tribute to the Secretary-General for the effective manner in which he
has carried out his lofty duties since his election. He has spared no
effort to restore international peace and security wherever they have
been threatened in the world.
The international community is going through a period of crisis of
disturbing proportions. The peoples of the world, particularly those
who are economically the weakest, are rightly turning once more their
anguished gaze towards the Organization, which is the special
preferred and most appropriate forum for a promising dialogue among
Member States. It is here that a new order-more just, more equitable
and more human-is taking shape.
Our present discussions will once again make it possible to study the
international political and economic situation, and to evaluate the
depth of the current crisis in international relations. But these
-debates will not yield fruit as long as the decisions taken by the
General Assembly are ignored and trampled on by some States Members
of the United Nations, and as long as others want to paralyse the
action of the Organization by subordinating that action to their own
selfish interests.
The political problems affecting South Africa, the Middle East and
other regions of the world cannot be solved if there is lack of
respect for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security
Council and deliberate contempt for the obligations incumbent upon
Member States under the Charter of the United Nations.
Indeed, in South Africa the vile Pretoria regime has established
apartheid as an institution, a system of colonial and racist
oppression and exploitation that the Assembly has justly described as
a crime against humanity. Pretoria's power and prosperity is being
built on the denial of the most elementary rights of the black
population, on contempt for them, and on their relegation to a social
limbo.
For many years the United Nations has continually demanded respect
for the right of the black people of South Africa to freedom and
dignity. Today, it is less a question of exposing the ignominious
crime of apartheid than of stressing the urgency of finding a just
and definitive solution to that problem.
The international community must hope that, in order to react against
the policy of apartheid practiced by the Pretoria regime in South
Africa, the Security Council will use the powers given to it by the
Charter to put an end to that odious crime. With the exception of an
arms embargo decided upon in Security Council resolution 421 (1977),
which continues to be violated in a concealed fashion, the Security
Council has remained paralysed by the use of the right of veto by
some of its permanent members each time the situation in South Africa
demands recourse to Chapter VII of the Charter.
The Security Council's inaction in the matter strengthens Pretoria in
its policy of oppression against the black population and in its
aggressiveness against neighbouring countries. It is clear that the
apartheid regime could not daily defy the injunctions of the
international community calling for an end to its policy of apartheid
without the political, military, economic and financial support of
its allies.
Faced with the gravity of the situation in South Africa, the struggle
of the national liberation movements finds itself doubly legitimized
by the nobility of their cause and the extent of their sacrifices. We
today reaffirm our Government's constant support for them.
A/37/PV.33
A situation which is just as anachronistic prevails in Namibia: the
racist and colonialist regime in Pretoria has become enriched in an
illegal occupation by depriving the Namibian people of their right to
determine their own destiny. Each passing year unfortunately adds to
the long list of missed appointments and postponed deadlines for the
independence of Namibia.
When the International Court of Justice decided that South Africa's
occupation of Namibia was illegal, and when in its turn the
international community recognized the struggle of the people of that
Territory, the dimensions of the Namibian question became clear. It
was purely and simply a problem of decolonization. It was therefore
incumbent upon the United Nations, as in similar cases, to do what it
could to enable the inhabitants of the Territory to exercise their
inalienable right to self-determination and independence. The United
Nations has exercised that right consistently and constantly. It will
not agree to the Namibian question so being distorted as to become a
conflict on grounds and for reasons completely alien to the interests
of the Namibian people.
Allow me, therefore, to repeat my Government's consistent position on
the Namibian question. We continue to believe that it is indeed a
question of decolonization, falling completely and solely under the
responsibility of the United Nations. The decolonization planned for
Namibia, as endorsed in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), must
be carried out fully. To that end, we urgently appeal to the five
Western States, members of the contact group, to do everything in
their power to persuade Pretoria to stop its specious dilatory
tactics aimed at delaying implementation of the United Nations plan
for the decolonization of Namibia.
We also reject all parallelism intended to link South Africa's
withdrawal from Namibia to that of the Cuban forces from Angola. Our
view on this is based on our conviction that such linkage not only
confuses two fundamentally different questions but also entails
involvement in Angola's internal affairs. Indeed, we think it is for
Angola alone to adopt, in complete sovereignty, the measures it deems
most appropriate to ensure its own security as long as it considers
that security to be threatened.
We further believe that Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the
Natural Resources of Namibia,' enacted by the United Nations Council
for Namibia, must be strictly observed. We therefore ask those who
are either directly or covertly involved in the exploitation of
Namibian resources, regardless of their nature or origin, to cease
their scandalous pillaging. We repeat our firm and constant support
for the South West Africa People's Organization, the sole legitimate
representative of the Namibian people.
Moreover, we hereby reiterate Burundi's solidarity and support for
the front-line States, in particular our brothers, the peoples of
Angola and Mozambique, who are the targets and the victims of acts of
aggression and sabotage by the	regime.,
The question of the Western Sahara remains a burning issue, to the
extent that no step seems to have been taken since the adoption by
the Assembly of its resolution 36/46. None the less we keep our faith
in the capacity of the Organization of African Unity to resolve, in
collaboration with the United Nations, the problem of Western Sahara,
while respecting the right of the Sahraoui people to
self-determination and independence.
The unparalleled frequency with which the United Nations considered
the question of Palestine this year is a clear demonstration of the
serious concern with which the United Nations views Israel's
unacceptable policy of illegal occupation of Arab territories and its
continued aggression against its neighbours. The Israeli invasion of
Lebanon, causing death and destruction, the recent massacres of
Palestinian refugees in the Shatila and Sabra camps in west Beirut
have, alas, only confirmed the concerns expressed for almost three
decades now. Those sinister events were added to the sufferings of a
people already dispersed, a people whom Israel refuses not only the
right to a homeland but even the right to an identity. The General
Assembly has often asked Israel to withdraw completely and
unconditionally from all Palestinian and other Arab territories
occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Israel has responded by
annexing the Golan Heights, by imposing its own civilian
administration on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and establishing
settlements, and, finally, by the invasion of Lebanon and the savage
bombardment of Beirut.
It is not through violence, or the violation of United Nations
resolutions that Israel will ensure its own security. On the contrary
its security will be safeguarded and strengthened only when it
recognizes the Palestinian people's right to existence,
self-determination and a homeland in its own territory, in keeping
with the relevant decisions of the United Nations.
Today we renew the support of the Government of Burundi for the
Palestinian people and the Palestine Liberation Organization its sole
and unique legitimate representative.
Our conception of international relations follows a constant
principle which rejects colonialism, racism, domination, aggression
and the acquisition of territories by force. We have always held that
it is up to each people, to each country, regardless of its size and
economic potential, to define its own policies in complete
sovereignty, free from any foreign interference and according to the
priorities which those peoples and countries have chosen for
themselves.
The solution of the current disputes in Central America, South-East
Asia, Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Cyprus and elsewhere, must be guided,
in our view, by the principles I have indicated. They demand a
political solution. Recourse to force in international relations
deprives the peoples involved of their right to choose the political
system which best responds to their aspirations.
Another deplorable situation is also of concern to the delegation of
Burundi. I refer to the conflict between Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Iran. In spite of the mediation efforts made by
representatives of the non-aligned countries-to whom we pay a
tribute-the war between those two countries continues. Burundi
urgently appeals to the two belligerents to heed the voice of reason
and bring the destruction to an end in order to promote true peace.
The Government of Burundi has already expressed its views on the
Korean question. That question, too, demands apolitical solution. The
withdrawal of foreign troops from South Korea is a prerequisite which
would establish a climate of confidence conducive to negotiations
between the two parties. We, for our part, will continue to support
any effort aimed at achieving the peaceful reunification of the two
Koreas.
Four months ago we met in this very Hall to talk about disarmament.
That debate, which began four years earlier, was necessary to the
extent that it was becoming more and more apparent that the arms race
was threatening to establish nuclear terror and to sow insecurity in
the minds of nations. Is it not paradoxical, to say the least, that,
at a time when a large part of mankind is bogged down in the most
absolute poverty and people are dying by the thousands of sickness
and hunger, the human and material resources that ought to have
served to feed those people, to care for them and to educate them
should be absorbed in the suicidal undertaking of the unbridled arms
race?
One of the tasks of the General Assembly at the twelfth special
session and the second special session devoted to disarmament was to
start considering seriously again the devotion of our collective
efforts to limiting the arms race. At that session the Assembly was
to have considered ways and means of beginning to implement the
Programme of Action contained in the Final Document of the Tenth
Special Session of the General Assembly. So it is not at all
necessary to reformulate the principles and priorities that were
agreed upon in 1978, much less to question them. It is time for the
nuclear Powers to engage in a frank and constructive dialogue on the
reduction of the nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals. This
is a question of the security and, indeed, the survival of the
planet. We also think it would be sterile for the super-Powers to
limit themselves to a debate in which each one would absolve itself
from guilt in the eyes of the world public by attributing all the
blame to the other.
The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea finished
its work on 30 Apr' of this year by adopting the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea. The participants in that Conference
succeeded after nine years of hard work and sustained efforts in
reconciling positions and interests which at the outset were claimed
to be irreconcilable. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law
of the Sea will go down in the annals of history not only because of
the complexity of the matters which it had to codify, the divergence
of the interests involved or the time it lasted, but also and above
all because it will prove to future generations that with a minimum
of political will and good faith nations can, while respecting the
essential interests of all concerned, solve the problems they face So
the benefit of the international community as a whole, regardless of
the scope and acuteness of those problems.
The results of that Conference will prove, furthermore, that the
United Nations remains the best framework for the North-South
dialogue. Similarly, we believe in the viability and possible outcome
of the global negotiations. It is our hope that those that for one
reason or another were unable last April to agree to the adoption of
the Convention on the Law of the Sea will realize the advantages
offered to them by that Convention and rejoin the rest of the
international community so that together we can make the concept of
the resources of the sea-bed and ocean floor as the common heritage
of mankind a reality of the future. In parallel with the
international political situation which I have just described, a
world economy is developing in a way that is of no less concern, in
particular with regard to the developing countries. Unemployment,
recession, inflation, the colossal debt of the developing countries,
the disruption of the economies of the least developed countries, the
reduction of official development assistance, the return to
protectionism, the problems with United Nations funds which
channelled the fruits of international solidarity to the least
developed countries, the precipitous fall in raw material prices,
which constitute the essential source of revenue for the developing
countries-this is the not very comforting picture of the world
economy. That picture is especially painful because it seems to
combine with the present economic malaise actions which are even more
disruptive and ineffective and which, if continued, would merely
strengthen the current state of affairs. Whereas the present economic
disorder affects international relations and requires a global
approach, some persons seem to be proposing as remedies for the
situation the return to selfish national interests and the
strengthening of international financial and monetary mechanisms, the
inability of which to meet the global needs of the international
community has become clear. The role of the United Nations in the
formulation of this global approach to the solution of the economic
problems of our time is a primary one, although some seem to wish,
for various reasons, to block its efforts in this matter. None the
less, the Member States, by unanimously adopting General Assembly
resolution 34/138, committed themselves to global negotiations in
order to establish a new international economic order. The global
negotiations have not been begun precisely because there is a
suspicion that they would in the long run challenge the lack of
equality in international economic relations. But the opposition to
those negotiations cannot continue indefinitely because the present
state of the world economy makes the launching and conclusion of the
global negotiations an overriding necessity. It is equally clear that
the settlement of the present economic crisis demands more determined
solidarity on the part of the international community. Recent events
have shown that the bankruptcy of the developing countries, whatever
the level of their development, could, if we do not act in time, lead
to the bankruptcy of the international economic and financial system.
The time is past when some thought they could build their wealth on
the growing impoverishment of others. The economic interdependence of
nations is now a reality.
The economic crisis affects the whole world. Nevertheless, there is a
category of countries for which the present crisis is most bitter. I
refer to the least developed countries. Whereas in the developed
countries the crisis affects the customary well-being of the
population, in the least developed countries it involves the loss of
the essential minimum. In the former countries the crisis makes life
less comfortable; in the latter it makes life simply impossible. We
are particularly disturbed by the trend towards the reduction of
official development assistance and the problems concerning the funds
of United Nations bodies, such as UNDP, in which the least developed
countries have placed such great hopes for a better future. Voluntary
contributions to UNDP funds have made it a vital and effective
instrument for development in the developing countries and the
suspension of such contributions would block the development of the
economies of the least developed countries. The wealthy countries
must not allow themselves to become indifferent to the desperate
situation of the least developed countries. It was envisaged that in
the Third United Nations Development Decade special efforts would be
made to enable the least developed countries finally to escape from
their past and present stagnation and future prospects.
The United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, held
in Paris in 1981, laid the foundations for the co-ordination of
international assistance to the least privileged countries. And so
today we launch an appeal to the entire international community to
ensure that the spirit of solidarity and generosity that inspired the
Substantial New Programme of Action for the 1980s for the Least
Developed Countries adopted at the end of the Paris Conference is
finally given practical effect.
The economic difficulties faced today by the developing countries
have prompted them to explore new methods of co-operation which can
best take account of their own limitations and also enable them the
speed up their own economic growth and improve position in the system
of international economic relations. It is to this concern that the
Programmes of Action of Amsha, Mexico, Buenos Aires and Caracas
respond with a view to establishing a system of collective autonomy.
The Lagos Plan of Action for the Implementation of the Monrovia
Strategy for the Economic Development of Africa which was adopted at
the second extraordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State
and Government of the CAU also responded to that necessity.
It is through strengthening the regional and sub- regional economic
groupings that we will achieve the collective autonomy envisaged in
the different programmes of action mentioned. It is to this end that,
in collaboration with our partners, we intend to strengthen the
various types of co-operation whit the sub- regional and regional
groupings, of which Burundi is a part.
The analysis of the international political and economic situation
which I have just presented to the Assembly is based on the
principles which guideour foreign policy, namely, international
co-operation with reciprocal respect among partners, non-interference
in the internal affairs of other States, good neighbourliness,
positive non-alignment and support for national liberation movements.
Sometimes justified criticisms of the United Nations have been made.
But these present shortcomings should not make us lose our faith and
be discouraged. International peace and security, whose guarantor the
Organization is, demand that we concentrate our efforts on
strengthening the United Nations through a progressive adaptation to
the realities and requirements of our time. As the Secretary-General
aptly pointed out in his report on the work of the Organization: "The
will to use the machinery of the Charter needs to be consciously
strengthened, and all Governments must try to look beyond short-term
national interests to the great possibilities of a more stable system
of collective international security, as well as to the very great
perils of failing to develop such a system." My delegation's view is
that this analysis is relevant. The dearest wish of the people and
the Government of Burundi is to see the progressive establishment in
international relations of a new world order where there is peace and
justice, collective economic security, and co-operation with due
respect for the right of nations to determine their own future and to
choose freely their path of development in keeping with the
aspirations of their peoples. May the United Nations be the cradle
where this hope is nurtured.


Permit me, Sir, on behalf of the French
delega¬tion to congratulate you, Sir, on your
election to the presidency of the Assembly. Your
experience of international life acquired in the
high offices you have held together with your
thorough knowledge of the United Nations are
assuredly a guarantee that the work of the
Assembly will be conducted with all the necessary
authority and efficiency.
80.	I should also like to pay a tribute to
the Secre¬tary-General. I had the pleasure of
welcoming him recently in France and I have
excellent memories of that first meeting. I found
in it confirmation of the qualities which he has
constantly demonstrated in the exercise of his
functions. The French delegation would like to
express its gratitude to him for the dedication
he has shown in carrying out his duties in the
past 10 months. Our gratitude naturally extends
to all the members of the Secretariat, with whose
work we are familiar and whose competence we
appreciate.
81.	The presence of the Prime Minister of
France in the Assembly is, I know, unusual. I am
the first French head of Government to come to
this rostrum since the founding of the Fifth
French Republic in 1958. By this gesture we
wanted first of all to demon¬strate the
importance which the President of the French
Republic attaches to the Organization.
82.	For more than a century the body of ideas
of which we are the heirs has been concerned with
promoting internationalism as one of the forms of
solidarity. For us, this solidarity must be both
an ethic and a principle of action. Just as in
France we are offering companies and workers
"contracts of solidarity" to fight unemployment,
so the international community could turn to
"contracts of solidarity" among countries to
fight underdevelopment.
83.	The head of the Government of France is
present today at this rostrum precisely to
emphasize the imperative need for solidarity,
which we believe is the best way to achieve
peace. France wishes in this way to demonstrate
its confidence in the United Nations and in the
capacity of the Organization to revert to its
original mission, namely, the maintenance of
peace. The Assembly is in effect the only one in
which all States meet on an equal footing. I
should like at once to stress this conviction, at
a time when France, in response to an emergency
situation, is contributing actively to a
multinational force requested by the Security
Council but not constituted according to our
customary procedures, which, unfortunately, are
too slow.
84.	I should like to describe to the Assembly
the state of the world as I see it today and to
analyze the causes of our present difficulties.
Then, in the second part of my address, I will
outline the responses that France proposes.
85.	What, then, is the present state of the
world? Wherever we look we see nothing but
disorder and confusion. Since the creation of the
Organization blood has been spilled in some 120
conflicts on this planet, and in the past two
years we have seen the dangers grow and multiply.
No continent has been spared. Localized
conflicts, declared or potential, are increasing
and represent a permanent threat to regional
balances. Old conflicts are being perpetuated.
States are invaded; others are tom apart.
86.	This year the absurd war in the South
Atlantic was added to the list. This showed once
again in striking fashion that the use of force
is never a per¬manent solution to a quarrel.
87.	In the Middle East also, the world has
had to recognize once again the futility of
military operations. Only death and suffering
profit by it while the basic issue remains
unaffected. A people is still condemned to a life
of wandering. And once the wheels of the military
machine were set in motion this led to the
hideous massacres of civilians which the
international community has been unanimous in
condemning.
88.	In Eastern Europe, in a Poland occupied
by its own army t we see a courageous people
prevented from choosing the paths of liberty.
89.	In Central America conflicts are becoming
more widespread and redoubling in intensity. How
could it be otherwise when peoples are denied the
elementary right to shape their own futures?
90.	The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
recognizes the right to rise up against
oppression.I was myself nurtured in this noble
tradition and would be the last to forget it.
91.	Such events are all factors making for imbalance and insecurity.
92.	At the same time, the economic crisis is
assuming planetary proportions. The length of
time it has lasted has become a new factor for
disarray which tends to increase its ravages. One
after another, countries, even stable and
developed countries, have found themselves in
financial straits.
93.	For 18 months now the recession has hit
the industrialized countries hard. Production is
stagnant or is falling back; unemployment is
rapidly increasing, at times achieving levels
comparable to those during the Great Depression
of 1929.1 make that point with particular
seriousness because in this context France,
together with Japan, is the country which has
been able to maintain a positive rate of growth.
94.	Certain precarious balances which had
been main¬tained hitherto are beginning to
crumble; one after another industries are going
bankrupt; budgetary and trade deficits are
increasing. The development of the third world
has now been halted. Per capita income in many
countries is perceptibly diminishing. The least
advanced countries are suffering particularly
from a reduction in public aid programmes for
development. The problems of hunger today are
even more dis¬tressing than they were a decade
ago. How many coun¬tries are at the mercy of a
climatic or financial accident which might
threaten their very existence?
95.	All these disorders have the effect of
increasing even further the inequalities between
the industrialized States and the majority of the
others. I would add that in many countries the
crisis is widening the gap between different
social categories, between those which have some
reserves in order to face up to the hardships of
the times and those which do not possess those
reserves.
96.	We are thus witnessing a world decline
which is promoting self-centeredness and mounting
violence, of which terrorism is one of the most
despicable manifestations. Every possible pretext
has been used to justify this violence: security,
ideologies and sometimes simply vengeance. The
rights of States and of peoples have too often
been flouted for this reason. France sees in that
some disturbing signs of mankind slipping
backwards towards a situation where might
prevails over right.
97.	That then is the state of the world. For
France, current difficulties derive essentially
from three factors: the interplay of the two
great Powers; the rise of national
self-centeredness; and over- armament.
98.	Let us talk now of the first factor, the
interplay! of the two great Powers. For years now
the world has lived with the illusion that
peace-loving coexistence between two great Powers
served to reduce sources of tension. This
illusion has now been dispelled.
99.	The progress of education, particularly
over the last 20 years, developments in science
and technology which they promoted, have
stimulated the aspirations of men to freedom and
justice and the aspirations of peoples to
national identity and of nations to
inde¬pendence. The Organization is the living
expression of that, because I would point out
that the number of its Members has tripled in 20
years. It is that diversity, that vast planetary
change, that teeming burgeoning of life, to which
the two great Powers have not been able to
respond. They have striven to perpetuate a
wide¬spread policy of blocs which is no longer in
keeping with the state of the world today.
100.	This persistent temptation to defend or
expand their spheres of influence, to deal with
world problems through the distorting prism of
their own interests, and to transform into
East-West confrontation internal tension in
States or disputes between neighbouring
countries, has been a constant factor for
destabilization. Innumerable pressures of all
sorts, from military maneuvers to financialpenalties,
have been brought into play against peoples who
want to have their independence respected. Third
world countries are the very first to suffer from
this rivalry, but the industrialized nations are
nevertheless not free from its consequences, even
if it takes a different form in the East and West.
101.	In the West, one of the great Powers has
been using, for the benefit of its national
interests, the dislocation of the international
monetary system. It has been laying down its
budgetary and monetary policy without concerning
itself about the conse¬quences which may result
for other countries.
102.	In the East, the other great Power has
been continuing to employ, directly or
indirectly, military force to thwart the wish of
the peoples of the world to be masters of their
own destiny.
103.	This blindness on the part of the two
great Powers is without any doubt one of the
major causes of the disorders troubling the world
today. I say that as I think of the great
American and Soviet peoples with which the French
for centuries have maintained ties of friendship.
I say that because France is a member of an
alliance to which it intends to remain loyal.
104.	Faithful to its commitments, France
never¬theless desires the gradual disappearance
of military blocs. It wants entirely free
countries to express their initiatives freely.
105.	There exist, it is true, other forms of
domination, sometimes crude censorship which
strives to crush the powers of creation. There
are also modem tech¬nologies—which, together with
economic power, make it possible to control the
human mind. Let us beware of that. Reactions can
it fact be extremely violent when one offends the
culture of peoples at their deepest roots, and
when one does violence to their conscience.
106.	The second factor explaining the
difficulties through which the world is going is
the rise of national self-centeredness. Since
international economic rela¬tions can and will be
adapted to the law of "might is right", it is
inevitable that we should be witnessing a return
of policies which are more or less
protec¬tionist. I urge those who deplore this in
defense of the rules of the market-place to be
good enough to consider that they have in fact
contributed to the destruction of these
regulating mechanisms by imposing the law of the
jungle.
!09. This rise in national self-centeredness has
become an additional curb on international trade
and has thus contributed to prolonging and
fueling the crisis. Furthermore, and this is even
more serious, it under¬mines regional groupings
which have been functioning for two or three
decades now. The process of integra¬tion of the
European Community has thus been halted, and the
same is true of the Americas and Asia.
! 10. Behind the facade of international
meetings, and a co-operation which has never in
history been so widely developed as today, the
Community which we make up seems in fact to be
breaking up, to be fragmented, and gradually to
be falling back on each of its national entities.
111.	It would be particularly serious if, on
the pre¬text of an economic crisis, the
industrialized countries were to oppose the
emergence of new industrial centers in the third
world countries. They must adapt to this new
reality, even at the cost of sometimes painful
conversions.
112.	However, this industrialization of the
third world cannot be limited to forms of dumping
based on uncontrolled exploitation of cheap
labour. It cannot be considered simply in terms
of the profit accruing to multinational
corporations which take advantage of the disorder
in the world to impose their own laws. The
inevitable mutation must be controlled.
113.	The future of the world will be based
largely on the independence of our economies. Yet
the increasing number of divergences grows in
proportion to the increasing articulation of
policies arising solely from national interest.
Thus multilateral institutions, the privileged
instruments of international co¬operation, no
longer seem sufficient to enable us to overcome
today's crises.
114.	The third factor which explains the disarray
in the world today is over-armament. All States
have a right to security and an independent
system of defense. This is in fact the policy
that France applies for itself. Still, we are
convinced that the build-up of arms is a serious
source of danger to peace and security in the
world. The General Assembly itself, meeting in
special session a few weeks ago to consider
possibilities of disarmament, made the
distressing observation that more than ever
before in history the arms race is proceeding at
a frantic pace.
115.	This situation stems from the two factors
that I have just analyzed: the action of the
super-Powers and self-centeredness on the part of
nations. The ten¬sion to which these factors give
rise is only worsening in a world where the rule
is determined by power relationships. Our States
have a duty to respond to the questions and
sometimes the anxieties which result from this
among peoples and which are reflected, for
example in Europe, by the development of a
current of pacificism. Our States have a duty to
show that a path to genuine arms reduction can be
opened. This is the urgent obligation incumbent
on our Govern¬ments today, particularly on those
which alone possess the bulk of the world's
military arsenal.
116.	Now, in face of the great Powers' nuclear
over- armament, the build-up of conventional
forces in Europe and the arms race raging in the
third world, negotiations are not advancing.
Before we can turn to serious talk of the general
and verifiable disarmament that is our goal, we
must first challenge the over- armament.
117.	France is disturbed to find a growing
imbalance between the requirements of peace and
development, on the one hand, and the policies
actually being pursued in the world, on the other.
118.	If I have felt it necessary to make this
assessment and to give our analyses of the
situation on behalf of France, it is not in order
to give in to any sort of pessimism or to throw
up my arms at the enormousness of the task before
us. We can overcome the crisis, but we must have
the will to do so and not allow ourselves to be
taken in by delusions. The world must get back on
the road to growth and peace.
119.	First of all, the search for peace.
France speaks and acts on a basis that is clear
and unchanging: one method, negotiation; one
goal, political solutions in respect for the
rights of peoples.
120.	This was already the sense of the Franco-
Mexican Declaration" with regard to El Salvador.
It called for mutual recognition on the part of
the adversaries.
121.	This political approach on France's part
applies to all crises in which one or the other
of the two great Powers is directly involved.
122.	In the case of Afghanistan, France
reaffirms its support for any political solution
leading to the with-drawal of the foreign forces;
it calls for respect for the right to
self-determination on the part of the Afghan
people and the guarantee of the non-alignment or
even the neutrality of that country.
123.	In Poland we fervently desire an end to
the state of siege and the liberation of the
internees—neces¬sary conditions for the
resumption of a genuine dialogue between the
segments of Polish society.
124.	In Central America the principles France
expresses are as follows: political settlement of
inter¬nal or external conflicts; regional
guarantees of security and non-interference;
absolute respect for the sovereignty of States,
which means the right of peoples freely to
determine the forms of their eco¬nomic and social
developments
125.	This approach is also the basis for our
pro¬posals in two regional conflicts that are of
course of long standing, but the fact that they
still persist is particularly alarming.
126.	I refer first of all to the question of
Namibia. The contact group has proposed a plan of
action that has enabled considerable progress to
be made con¬cerning constitutional principles and
the transition period. Currently, negotiations
are stalled precisely because certain conditions
are inconsistent with the general principles we.
Uphold and because they fall solely withinthe
ambit of Angolan sovereignty. France for its part
will continue to support the three-, stage plan
while at the same time condemning any strategy
that would destabilize the region and refusing to
establish any link with external considerations.
127.	My second example concerns the Middle
East. I believe that the tragic events of recent
days have clearly demonstrated that the positions
France has supported since the beginning of
hostilities are sound.
How much time would have been gained and now many
lives spared if our voice had been heeded.
128.	I would, to refresh the memory of the
members of the Assembly, just recall the
principles so often set forth in this very Hall
by France's representatives, and in particular by
our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Cheysson,
namely, security for Israel and for all the Arab
States in the region, on the one hand, and the
right to self-determination for the Palestinian
people, on the other. Moreover, any settlement
quite obviously presupposes the mutual
recognition of the States and political forces in
the region.
129.	France has done every g possible to halt
the hostilities and to prevent the tragedy. As
far back as 28 July, in agreement with Egypt, we
submitted to the Security Council a draft
resolution. We hoped for and proposed the
intervention of United Nations forces. In the
past few days, we have once again assumed our
responsibilities.
130.	We note that many States, among them some
of the most important, have agreed with our
analysis of the situation. We also note that the
Twelfth Arab Summit Conference at Fez expressed a
view we believe to be positive.
131.	In the case of Lebanon, the invasion of
which was condemned by France, we will continue
to work to see Lebanon's sovereignty, unity and
territorial integrity restored and respected.
132.	I should also like to say a word about
disarma¬ment. Our position is based on two simple
ideas which, I believe, have the merit of
realism: a balance of forces and verifiable
monitoring of the reduction of arms stockpiles.
This is the basis upon which we approve the
current negotiations and on which we favour
completion of regional security agreements and
arms limitation agreements.
133.	But the return to a peaceful climate is
possible only if, at the same time, we give
ourselves the means to overcome the economic
crisis. What is this crisis, in fact? It is not
an unforeseeable natural catastrophe that has
suddenly descended on us. It is only that our
system of economic relations and production has
gone wrong. It is a period of change between two
stages of the world, between two technological
phases. That change, if not controlled, may take
place in the worst possible conditions, even
generating armed conflicts. If it is controlled,
however, that is to say if it is intellectually
controlled, it may very well provide the
opportunity for decisive progress for the
community of nations.
134.	We should first of all reject false
solutions which, on the pretext of rigour or
realism, call for adjustments at the lowest level
of production, that is, adjustments that prolong
the crisis. This would truly mean giving up.
135.	The new conditions in the world economy
call for a considerable effort of adjustment
within each economy. France in no way challenges
the need for this and has committed itself with
determination to this course. These actions must
be pursued within a context that is particularly
difficult for all. I would note that the
countries of the third world have obtained
significant results in this respect. But we must
avoid a generalization of restrictive policies
that would com¬promise the benefits to be
obtained from each country internally. And we
must see that such policies do not draw them all
into a deflationary spiral.
136.	Economically there exists among us today
a profound solidarity. Whether we like it or not,
no one is spared the effects of the daily
economic decisions of the international
community, and our own deci¬sions, in turn, cross
frontiers. New economic policies largely based on
a monetarist credo and on a lessening of
government influence, promise both long-lasting
control of inflation and the rapid resumption of
sound growth. Everyone today is aware of the
limitations of these policies which have led to
massive budgetary deficits, the maintenance of
excessive real interest rates and persisting
stagnation. The absence of inter¬vention in
financial markets explains the persistence of
erratic variations in rates of exchange.
137.	France, with several of its partners, has
emphat¬ically criticized these policies for their
serious conse-quences for the world economy,
particularly the economies of the developing
countries.
138.	The fragile foundations upon which we
have built our economies are beginning to give
way. In order to halt the process, it is
indispensable that action on the domestic front
be coupled with active explora¬tion on the
international front of ways of promoting a
general return to growth and prosperity. Each of
us should contribute to the attainment of these
goals according to his means. This is the tenor
of the reso¬lution adopted at the Versailles
Economic Summit by the seven most highly
industrialized countries, which were meeting on
the invitation of President Mitterrand.
139.	If we are to succeed in this, we must
reaffirm our solidarity and use all the resources
available to us. The progress of technology and
the satisfaction of the needs of the most
disadvantaged among the world population,
constitute an enormous potential, the
mobilization of which could give new momentum to
the world economy. Recession is not inevitable;
it can be overcome by collective, clear-sighted,
integrated action.
140.	This is the proper perspective in which
to see North-South relations. The growth of
North-South interdependence has so far been
uncontrolled. It has helped to extend and
aggravate the crisis. The time has come to
establish true collective management of this
interdependence of equal partners. The time has
come to make it the instrument of the return to
growth and development for all. The time has come
to work for true international economic
solidarity. This is basically what is at stake
today in the North-South dialogue. This is the
meaning of the appeal made by the Presi¬dent of
the French Republic at Cancun in October 1981.
141.	How can we fail in the circumstances not
to be disappointed and concerned that these
discussions are now deadlocked? The proposed
global negotia¬tions, so keenly sought by France
are at a standstill. Yet the viewpoints differ
little. I see an illustration of this in the
immediate results it was possible to achieve in
Toronto with regard to the specialized agencies.
France attaches great importance <to this and
welcomes the resulting agreement on financing the
International Development Association [IDA] in
1984 and on the creation of a special fund.
142.	I am sure that with a little good will
the global negotiations could get under way very
quickly. This would represent a decisive
achievement for the thirty- seventh session of
the General Assembly. It is clear to us all that
the present circumstances make it neces¬sary that
steps be taken forthwith. You, Mr. Secretary-
General, spoke of these in your statement at the
1st meeting of the Economic and Social Council in
1982.	We must ensure sustained expansion of the
world economy in a climate of stable exchange
rates and stable prices for raw materials and
manufactured products.
143.	We must also try to reduce hunger in the
world and make it possible for countries which
have not yet done so to reach a threshold of food
self-sufficiency.
144.	I lay particular stress on official
development aid. This is undoubtedly the only
hope for the poorest countries. Despite our
serious budgetary constraints France is
continuing its own efforts. From 1980 to 1982 the
amount devoted to official development aid has
risen from 0.36 to 0.48 per cent of the gross
national product and it will reach 0.52 per cent
in
1983.	We are speaking only of aid to
independent countries. Our goal is still to reach
0.7 per cent in 1988. The least developed
countries will receive 0.15 per cent of our gross
national product with effect from 1985, in
accordance with the commitment we entered into in
September last year at the United Nations
Conference on the Least Developed Coun¬tries,
held in Paris.
145.	France hopes that most countries will
undertake similar action and join France in its
efforts to guaran¬tee IDA resources in the period
from 1985 to 1987.
146.	In addition to financial and technical
measures, in addition to the reinvigoration of
the activities of the organized international
community, France intends to work towards the
construction of a world based on right, not
might. From this standpoint we advocate the right
to difference, for we know that culture is not
monolithic. There are no hierarchical links
between the Confucian, Christian and Hindu
philosophies. The universe is rich, above all,
because of its diversity. Let us therefore
respect the struggles of those who want to
achieve dignity and freedom, because peoples
exist when they have a history, a culture, and a
willingness to live together. The international
com-munity must recognize their rights.
147.	We are convinced that in affirming the
right to difference we affirm the right to life
and to develop¬ment. Economic crises are all too
often accompanied by a crisis of identity, a
cultural crisis. This leads to resignation and a
fatalistic surrender to destiny. It seems,
unfortunately, that there exists a link between
the dulling of our intellectual capacities and
the worsening of the crisis. We must heed the
forces of the spirit and of creativity. We must
pay a tribute to and help those who have within
them a strong determination to assert that we
will emerge from this situation. This is our sole
purpose, in France, in giving absolute priority
to research and culture. A society that does not
create, that does not call upon the resources of
the will and the intellect, is a moribund society.
148.	This conviction has also guided France's
deter¬mination to contribute to the promotion of
individual and collective human rights. In this
France remains faithful to its vocation and its
history. This means that our foremost concern is
to respect the principles of national sovereignty
and non-interference in internal affairs in
relations between States and that we must not
lose sight of the fact that the Charter of the
United Nations confers a universal character on
human rights.
149.	The Charter must remain the hope of the
oppressed. It recognizes the right if not the
duty of the organized international community to
concern itself with the way in which each State
acquits itself of its obligations towards its own
nationals. In this spirit France has recently
recognized on the regional level the right of
individual recourse provided for in the European
Convention on Human Rights. Similarly we have
just recognized the right: laid down in arti¬cle
14 of the International Convention on the
Elimina¬tion of all Forms of Racial
Discrimination.
150.	But we believe that in this field
co-operation with the States concerned should be
encouraged. In our view this alone justifies the
limitations which the universality of human
rights imposes upon the principle of
non-interference.
151.	Similarly this indispensable co-operation
is the only guarantee for the States concerned
that interna-tional supervision, a peaceful and
humanitarian act, can never be conceived of as an
unfriendly act. Full enjoyment of all human
rights presupposes an eco¬nomic balance, which
itself depends on a certain con¬ception of
development. It is in this spirit that within the
United Nations France is taking an active part in
the preparation of a draft declaration on the
right to development.
152.	We welcome the increase in regional
super¬vision. Europe, with the Commission and the
Court at Strasbourg, is no longer acting alone in
the regional protection of human rights, as is
shown by the growing role played by the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the
American continent. Similarly we should stress
the progress achieved in Africa with the
proclamation of the African Charter of Human and
People's Rights.
153.	This development has, furthermore, made
it possible to develop global protection of the
right to self-determination by taking internal
situations into account, due consideration being
given to the juridical identity of each
particular region.
154.	We want to make this point categorically:
the freedom of a people—even once it has become
inde-pendent—to decide on its own future with the
par¬ticipation of all is essential for the
safeguarding of human rights in the world.
155.	the United Nations is not only the most
im¬portant meeting place in the world of which
the As¬sembly is the living symbol; it is also a
formidable instrument that has been considerably
enriched since its foundation. The creation of an
impressive number of specialized agencies has
made it possible to work in all areas to achieve
the objectives set forth in the Preamble to the
Charter. We must therefore make these instruments
effective. It is a question of imagination and
will. I should like in this connection to thank
the Secretary- General for the remarkable report
he has presented to us. In breaking with a well
established tradition, he has gone out of his way
to focus attention on the capacity of the
Organization to maintain peace and to strengthen
the system of collective security which,
unfortunately, we can only note has not been
success¬ful. Mr. Secretary-General, you have made
concrete suggestions in this regard, and by and
large we sub¬scribe to them. Your proposals are
in fact very much in keeping with the constant
concerns of France.
156.	We endorse your desire to make the
Organiza¬tion, and the Security Council in
particular, a forum for negotiations once again.
We favor a revision of United Nations practices
and procedures, which you have recommended. Like
you we should like to see the Organization act
more rapidly and more effectively. To that end we
are ready to contribute to the necessary
strengthening of peace-keeping opera¬tions. In
fact France has demonstrated this very point
today in Lebanon.
157.	The imperative need for solidarity calls
also for a massive consolidation of the
international financial system. This can be
achieved through the following means: a very
substantial increase in the size and resources of
the International Monetary Fund [/MF] to enable
it to assume its role of supporting countries
caught in the grip of financial difficulties and
recover its fundamental role of monitoring
monetary policies and rates of exchange;
systematic intervention by the Bank for
International Settlements in the solution of
financial crises; early implementation, within
the framework of UNCTAD, of the Common Fund for
Commodities, accompanied by renewed efforts aimed
at reaching commodity agreements together with
effective mean for the stabilization of prices;
estab-lishment of an energy affiliate of the
World Bank or some other comparable system so as
to have avail¬able an instrument appropriate to
the size of the energy investments the developing
countries will have to make in the course of the
coming decade.
158.	There must be progress on all these
subjects in the various bodies where they are
being discussed. It is essential to seize every
opportunity for dialogue and meetings in order to
restore the proper signifi¬cance to the
multilateral institutions existing in the
economic and political field and make them fully
functional and useful.
159.	It is imperative to promote the spirit of
interna¬tional co-operation, which alone can
enable us together to return to the path to
development and prosperity and, ultimately,
peace. This strengthening of international
institutions thus calls for the drafting of a new
and better balanced code of law. The work of
codification, which has been going on for more
than 30 years, has certainly shown progress. But
we must take into account the profound changes
that the international community has experienced
as an organized entity. We must therefore forge
new instruments.
160.	There is one specific area that
illustrates this determination: the law of the
sea. La^ April practically all the Members of the
Organization adopted a con¬vention. In spite of
the reservations it may have on certain of its
provisions, France voted in favor of that text.
We considered that it was in itself an
illustration of the North-South dialogue, which
we advocate, and that it also constituted an
important step towards an improvement of the
world system. That is why I very much hope that
the inadequacies and imperfections of the text
will be remedied, which will make possible larger
adherence to the Convention. I should like to
announce today—and I do so symbolically from this
rostrum—that France will sign the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, because it does
not confine itself to coming here to make
proposals. We also want to preach by example and
to make our deeds fit our words.
161.	I am also in a position to inform the
general  Assembly that France has decided to
endorse the principles contained in the 1975
Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from
Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Today I shall give official notification of this
to the Secretary-General on behalf of the French
Gov¬ernment.
162.	Finally I should like to add that France
will recognize the right of a State or an
individual to exercise, before the Human Rights
Committee, the right of recourse provided for in
article 41 and the Protocol of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
163.	Before coming here to address the
Assembly, I re-read the remarks made by Leon Blum
in June 1936 in the League of Nations. Many of
his arguments are still relevant today; France
still means "to declare publicly, and to attest
to by its deeds, its loyalty to international
law. For history is not made up only of conflicts
among men. It is also shaped by their dreams and
their Utopias. And what finer idea! is there than
the one we symbolize here: that of an
interna¬tional society capable of abiding by a
discipline to which it has freely consented? We
are the image of what the world could be, and
that image can give hope to millions of people on
this planet. For our role has not changed. The
task is sti!! to put an end to what Victor Hugo
called "the world's great insomnia". And, as Leon
Blum added, "Men want to be able to sleep again.
They want to rest their heads peacefully on their
pillows after a hard day's work. They place their
hope in you. "
164.	Yes, the Organization must once again
become synonymous with hope. We can do it if we
want to.


A year ago, during the thirty-sixth session, President Moussa Traore,
head of State of Mali, affirmed from this rostrum that "The
aspiration of our peoples to live in dignity and in spiritual, moral
and material tranquility is thus being increasingly jeopardized".
Alas, the past year confirms that statement which should be a source
of fruitful meditation and deep reflection for us. In fact, 1982 will
above all confirm the prevalence of relationships of force in
international relations. The international community has been shaken
by political, economic and military crises which treaten the very
foundations of human civilization.
The past year, more than any other, seems to have been a year of
disillusion. Solutions to fundamental questions basic to the balance
of the world which were at one time within our reach crumbled because
of the resurgence of warlike activism and last- minute intransigence.
That is why the eyes of the world, a world which legitimately expects
from us just and lasting solutions for its stability, its security,
its economic, social and cultural progress, are fixed particularly
upon the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly.
Because we know that Mr. Hollai is an experienced diplomat with a
long and full career; because he has dedicated part of that career to
defending, in this very Organization, the fundamental objectives of
the Charter, the Republic of Mali, a friend of his country, the
People's Republic of Hungary, places great hopes in his well-deserved
election which will, we are convinced, contribute to enriching our
common action in maintaining peace, respect for the sovereign
equality of States and the peaceful coexistence of all nations.
Of course, I cannot conceal the legitimate pride that my delegation
takes in the wide-ranging and positive action accomplished so
skilfully by Mr. Hollai's outstanding predecessor, Mr. Kittani, that
worthy son of the third world, of Iraq, a country which is a friend
of my own, who acquitted himself so ably in they should like also to
reiterate to the new Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, the
best wishes of the Government of the Republic of Mali, which
reaffirms its full readiness to co-operate most sincerely with him.
One of the long line of individuals who devote their talents and
their political courage to the cause of peace, he bears with him the
faith and hopes of the third-world countries which are resolutely
committed to preventing the bipolarization of the world. He has
already reflected in stirring terms in his report on the work of the
Organization and in his speeches the meaning of his fight for justice
and equity and also for the strengthening of the system of collective
security of the United Nations, an irreplaceable instrument for world
peace.
The United Nations is neither called upon nor able to provide magical
solutions to international problems. But we had become accustomed
year after year, in spite of certain negative factors, to winning
victories over ourselves which reflected our deep dedication to the
ideals, goals and principles of the Charter and to have our awareness
of our international responsibilities heightened day by day.
In the course of the past decades, the United Nations has given
particular meaning to its ascent towards universality. New forces
have strengthened its action and given new dynamism to its
structures. The virtues of wisdom and realism have often dispersed
the clouds which, streaked with lighting heralding lethal
thunderbolts, darkened the international horizon. Where agreement was
sometimes lacking, hope at least was allowed. That is why the United
Nations can quite rightly be pleased at having made its appreciable
contribution to the national liberation struggles. It can take pride
in having prepared international development strategy decades tor
low-income countries. It can also be proud at having created hopes
for the establishment of a new international economic order. Well may
it be proud also at having contributed to a sharper perception of the
danger represented by the arms race, especially the danger of atomic
weapons, and at having placed the individual at the center of its
concerns by stressing the magnificence and protection of his basic
rights.
Thus, in spite of pitfalls, in spite of certain sharp setbacks, in
spite of uncertainties that have often characterized the
international situation, at each of the previous sessions the
Assembly has attempted to pay its share for the safeguard and
maintenance of peace. The feeling has prevailed that where we lacked
immediate solutions to international problems, dialogue did enable us
to discharge our international responsibilities with respect for our
fundamental interests.
But this is where our hopes stop short. Indeed, as the
Secretary-General himself recalls in his brilliant report "The past
year has seen an alarming succession of international crises as well
as stalemates on a number of... international issues". Hence the
thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly has opened in the
atmosphere of a terrible, distressing vacuum.
It is therefore easy to understand why the recent twelfth special
session of the General Assembly, devoted to disarmament, in which
many distinguished personalities participated, concluded without even
reflecting the hopes that had been placed in it. And, worse still,
while it was meeting Beirut was crumbling under Israeli bombs and new
so-called conventional weapons were appearing on the battlefield,
which thus served as a testing ground.
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has been adopted,
but with its chances of implementation blocked. The North-South
dialogue on the coming into being of the new international economic
order has foundered on national egoism.
The racist, illegal Pretoria regime has strengthened its alliances,
heightened its repression against South African patriots and
violated, with increasing brutality and even more bloodshed, the
sovereignty and integrity of neighboring States. Some Member States
persist, in their delirium of power, in their attempts to break the
will of peoples for independence. The United Nations will not at this
session be enriched by the admission of one of the nations still
under domination-although we had every reason to hope that that would
be so.
Thus the challenges that we have committed ourselves to meeting are
in fact taking on frightful dimensions.
The thirty-seventh session of the Assembly is being held at a time
when Palestinian people is experiencing the most tragic situation in
its existence. The Zionist war machine has been unleashed against the
Lebanese and Palestinian peoples with unequalled furor. The siege of
Beirut, the invasion of that city, the systematic destruction of
Palestinian refugee camps, hospitals and schools and, lastly and
above all, the Sabra and Shatila massacres lend the war in Lebanon
the character of genocide, a crime against mankind. That outright
aggression against Lebanon is a premeditated act of war against the
sovereignty and integrity of a State Member of the Organization. The
horrors that have been perpetrated bring back terrible memories. But
the peoples that do not have short memories have spoken up everywhere
in the world, including in Israel itself, against this repetition of
the massacre of an entire people.
What took place in Lebanon disturbs and frightens us, because there
is no greater incitement to crime than the apathy of those who, under
the dangerous illusion that only the neighbor's house is burning,
accept the inadmissible role of hearing and seeing no evil. In
international relations, indifference is the most serious complicity,
because it makes it possible for evil to progress and worsen.
The Zionist aggression in Lebanon is the consequence of the
unpunished acts of Israel which therefore continues to defy the
international community every day-as though the odious aggression of
June 1981 against the Iraqi people were not enough and as though the
arrogant annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights were a minor event.
Today it is the Lebanese and Palestinian civilians who are the
innocent victims of the blind violence characteristic of the policy
of the Zionist State.
The Security Council should have, for the cause of peace, drawn from
Chapter VII of the Charter its inspiration and justification for
action to induce the Government of Israel to respect the elementary
rules of international law. It is high time to come to our senses,
because Zionism just like apartheid and both are by their very
essence generators of tension-will expose mankind to a new
conflagration. Let us therefore act together to guarantee the
collective security of all the nations of the world.
There is no other solution for the Middle East crisis, and especially
the Palestinian question, than that set forth at this very rostrum a
year ago, at the 23rd meeting of the thirty-sixth session, by the
head of State of Mali, who, even at that time, welcomed what was
still called the Fahd plan and advocated, first, withdrawal from all
the occupied Arab territories and, secondly, recognition and
guarantee of the exercise of the national rights of the Palestinian
people under the leadership of the PLO, its sole authentic
representative.
Those proposals were reaffirmed once again by the non-aligned
movement during its recent Extraordinary Ministerial Meetings. They
are being increasingly accepted, even by Israel's friends, including
the most fervent ones. They are the backbone of the recent plan, of
the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference, at Fez, which the Government of
Mali supports.
Israel's brutal rejection of those proposals is not at all
surprising. This systematically rigid attitude is part of the Zionist
logic based on defiance and arrogance. The leaders of the PLO, with
their usual grandeur, have solemnly declared that they adhere to
those realistic proposals. Israel, on the other hand, rejects any
solution which might stop the massacre in the Middle East and enable
all the peoples of that region to live in peace, honor and dignity.
However, we must remember this: the Palestinian fighters have left
Beirut but their destiny is not buried there. They left Beirut with
the strong determination to impose their national identity.
The repercussions of the situation in Palestine have on four
occasions almost led mankind to perdition. In the face of the
persistence of that danger and the imminent outbreak of even more
serious conflicts, the relevant General Assembly resolutions on the
convening in 1983 of an international conference on Palestine demand
attention as very valuable proposals in the accomplishment of our
compelling duty to restore peace to the Middle East and finally
enable the Palestinian people to enjoy its inalienable right to
freedom.
That right to freedom is part of the whole series of rights that the
Charter acknowledges for all peoples and that have been codified,
particularly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, like
Israel, South Africa does not understand these principles, which have
international scope, for the system which it has made into a system
of administration, denies man his very existence. This unacceptable
system is disturbing the harmony of international relations.
In its resolution 36/172 B the General Assembly proclaimed the year
1982 the International Year of Mobilization for Sanctions against
South Africa. Since then, the recommendations made to that end by
many political, economic and social governmental and nongovernmental
organizations have taken on new meaning, on this twentieth
anniversary of the arbitrary imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, whose
vision of freedom is the same as that of those great men who by their
courage and actions gave meaning to life.
The banning of the apartheid regime from United Nations activities is
only poor consolation for those who are truly committed to defending
the basic rights of man and peace. Chapter VII of the Charter has a
wealth of resources for isolating and destroying that hateful system
of	It is that system which is preventing a just and peaceful
solution to the problem of Namibia.
The United Nations by legitimately assuming trusteeship over that
Territory committed itself to helping the Namibian people to complete
the re- conquest of its homeland. The steps taken in accordance with
that commitment have been essentially of two types: the first was the
recognition of SWAPO as the sole authentic representative of the
Namibian people, because it is the only organization which has palm
in blood the price of the dignity of its homeland; the second led to
the adoption by the United Nations of recommendations and decisions
pertaining to the Namibian issue, including Security Council
resolutions 385 and 435, adopted unanimously, which contain a plan to
settle the crisis. The methods for implementing that plan were the
subject of long and patient negotiations between Pretoria and,
respectively, the United Nations and five Western Powers. An
exceptional opportunity was thus presented to us to abide by our
commitments in regard to the maintenance of international peace and
security.
But Pretoria remained frozen in its total lack of understanding for
the requirements of peace. Each time that a glimmer of hope appeared
on the horizon for Namibia's accession to independence, the racist
regime of South Africa snuffed it out through successive
recantations-some involving fantastic allegations in regard to the
partiality of the Organization, others putting the emphasis on the
presence of Cuban troops in Angola. The duty incumbent upon us is to
commit ourselves resolutely to correct implementation of the relevant
resolutions on Namibia. The implementation of those resolutions which
pertain solely to the independence of that Territory cannot have any
impact on or link with commitments entered into by States bordering
on South Africa, in the exercise of their sovereignty, to ensure the
security of their peoples in the face of precisely the warlike
incursions of South Africa.
Mali's people and leaders vigorously oppose that grotesque
machination, which is only a fallacious amalgam aimed at delaying the
process of independence for Namibia. For Mali, the presence of Cuban
forces comes within the exclusive sovereignty of Angola and cannot be
an element for negotiation between South Africa and those who are
fighting-that is, the heroic SWAPO combatants.
The position adopted by the United Nations, to lead Namibia to
independence, is based on the purposes and principles of the Charter.
If it has provoked the wrath of South Africa, as was to be expected,
it is even more valid.
It is up to the Namibian people and to them alone to seek and apply
the appropriate political formulas to guide them in carrying out
their national duty. Any attempt to subject its independence to other
purposes will only lead to the preservation of foreign interests.
The Government of the Republic of Mali hopes that between now and the
end of the current session of the General Assembly, an independent
Namibia, with its territorial integrity intact, will take its
rightful place in the United Nations. That independence will only be
deserved, in view of the great sacrifices made by the courageous
Namibian people in the defense of the ideals of the United Nations.
It is on behalf of those ideals of justice, equity and peace that the
Government of the Republic of Mali has committed itself to the quest
for a peaceful solution to the problem of the future of the Sahraoui
people. We have on several occasions set forth and analyzed here the
various steps taken by Africa and the many initiatives taken by the
head of State of Mali to bring about a satisfactory solution to this
painful-because it is fratricidal-conflict. The question of Western
Sahara, which bears the imprint of incomplete decolonization, cannot
be solved without free expression by the Sahraoui people-that is to
say, the exercise of true and inevitable self-determination. Africa,
in its traditional wisdom, had already at the fifteenth session of
the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the OAU, at
Khartoum, recognized that to be the only solution. But it was only at
the eighteenth session, at Nairobi, that unanimous agreement was
reached by the parties to the conflict to the organization of a general
and free referendum on self-determination.
One could have thought, therefore, that the real dangers inherent in
that conflict had been eliminated because the path of wisdom and
realism had finally been taken by the protagonists, thanks to the
vigilance and firmness of Africa. But to think that was not to
understand sufficiently the demons of history. If the latest African
meeting, the nineteenth session of the OAU Assembly, held at Tripoli,
bore the stamp of the Sahraoui equation, it is comforting to note
that once again Africa showed proof there of its traditional wisdom.
My country, Mali, which is honored to have constantly benefited from
the confidence of Africa in all its attempts patiently to search for
a solution to that delicate problem, will continue its efforts to
ensure that our continent, as in the heroic epochs of resistance and
struggles for independence, will in unity complete the elimination of
the after-effects and last vestiges of the colonial system. That
noble mission must be the concern of all African States, forced us
not to forget that the OAU remains above all the symbol of
anti-colonial resistance. The current crisis in our continental
organization will be mastered. Eternal Africa will be able to draw
from its age-old values the resources necessary to allow our unified
organization to pursue its constant march towards happiness, progress
and solidarity among African peoples.
To live in peace means to establish and strengthen links of
co-operation and tolerance of political and economic choices. That
means non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and
the strengthening of relations of good-neighborliness. The policy of
good-neighborliness recognized by the United Nations is indubitably
one of the most dynamic factors for the exploitation of the enormous
potential which continued progress in science and technology makes
available to nations.
The crossroad for several civilizations which enriched each other,
the cradle of a people which linked its destiny to that of others,
Mali has made good-neighborliness one of the pillars of its foreign
policy, The language that it desires to speak to its neighbors is
that of sincerity, tolerance and respect for the basic principles
which govern the existence of States. Mali is always open to
dialogue, to constructive discussions which unite people around
common basic interests.
That policy of positive good-neighborliness also implies active
solidarity among fraternal peoples faced with temporary difficulties.
That is why our country constantly pursues its efforts within the
African family to safeguard the national unity and territorial
integrity of Chad. Those objectives can only be achieved without any
outside interference in the internal affairs of an independent and
sovereign State, whose current crisis is no reason for placing it
under any trusteeship.
It is also on the strength of the principles I have just mentioned
that we appeal to our brothers on the Horn of Africa and in
Kampuchea, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Cyprus
honorably to end conflicts which can only expose them further to the
appetites of the forces of domination and make the fruits of the
struggle for emancipation increasingly bitter as well as dangerously
weaken the front that the third world has decided to form for the
restoration of its human and natural resources.
 From Korea there does not come any glimmer of hope that would permit
us to believe in the just redress of one of the errors of the last
world war, which established arbitrary borders-an artificial line
within a single country, all of whose people aspires profoundly to
the unification of their common homeland. We hope that fraternal
dialogue and fruitful co-operation will triumph so that the great
Korean family will come together on the basis of the 10-point
reunification plan, which is an infinite source of inspiration.
As can be seen, an analysis of the international situation reminds
one of the situation during the great fear of the year 1000. Today
conflicts born of liberation struggles are taking on formidable
dimensions. Brothers are tearing each other apart. The policy of
diktat is resurfacing. The desire to impose solutions to
international disputes through threats and the use of force is again
common currency.
Conceived and drawn up on the ruins of a monstrous war, the Charter
of the United Nations was designed to open the world onto an era of
reconciliation of hearts and minds. But, unfortunately, the spirit of
competition continues. Nuclear experiments continue although,
according to all estimates, the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons
is more than capable of destroying our planet several times over.
There is no agreement on the spiraling arms race, because the
arguments advanced in the negotiations to restrain it are attached to
concepts which tend to transform effect into cause. The initial
concept can be reduced to the old adage, "If you want peace, prepare
for war". However, people have never stopped preparing for war and
have never stopped being in a state of war. Armament is seen to be a
stabilizing element in international relations, whereas, on the
contrary, the maintenance of such stability is conceivable only
without the threat of the use of armed force. The second concept is
that no disarmament is possible without the prior establishment of a
climate of international confidence. Here again, the terms of the
discussions on disarmament are inverted. Confidence is dissipated; it
emerges through a prism whose pieces must be put together on the
basis of a common agreement. Here the stumbling-block which has
impeded negotiations on disarmament is again the balance of forces.
Once again rhetoric has prevailed over the real will to negotiate. In
an atmosphere of negotiation in which confidence does not reign or in
which the stockpiling and improvement of weapons appear to be the
only guarantees against widespread conflict, the basis on which the
balance of strength rests is only a figment of the imagination.
The arms race leads inevitably to war. Only the kind of political
will that has made possible the adoption of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Development
Strategy for the First and the Second United Nations Development
Decade can lead to results in the negotiations on disarmament.
The manifestation of this political will was, unfortunately, lacking
during the launching of the global negotiations at the thirty-sixth
session. Nevertheless, here again, the goal pursued was very close.
The need for the establishment of a new international economic order
was seen by all to be a demand of our times. A number of obstacles
along the way were eliminated after long and patient negotiations.
The consensus which enabled progress to be achieved was not
maintained into the final phase of the negotiations, although these
pertained only to questions of procedure.
Here again, in the final phase of the negotiations, the North-South
dialogue lost its raison d'etre. A group of States, thinking only of
the status of their national economies, blocked the dialogue that had
been begun with a view to finding concerted solutions to common
problems. These problems may be rerouted, they may be subordinated to
temporary concerns, but their scope and their universality can only
become more compelling. They are common problems because they pertain
to the interdependence of States, and they require common solutions,
without which the world economic situation will only deteriorate
further.
An analysis of the world economic situation shows on the one hand a
more marked deterioration of trade relations and on the other hand a
trend towards absorbing the crisis through selfish and isolated
national policies. That is the way in which I have summarized the
bitter observations in the World Economic Survey, 1981-1982:
"Economic expansion decelerated markedly throughout the world... The
deceleration was particularly intense in the developing countries,
most of which experienced a significant fall in per capita incomes".
The growth rates of the developing countries have been falling
dangerously since 1978. The terms of trade have deteriorated further;
export earnings have not been sufficient to ensure debt servicing,
while at the same time official development assistance has become
more scarce and been tied to more and more conditions. For the first
time since the welcome establishment of UNDP-and we wish to praise
its efforts and its merits-UNDP has had its resources reduced. The
Ottawa, Cancun and Versailles economic summit meetings, as well as
the United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, gave
rise to many hopes, which were very quickly dashed. Global
negotiations, the immediate launching of which is seen every day to
be an undeniable necessity, although promised, do not seem to be on
the horizon.
However, the industrialized countries are beginning in their turn to
be affected to their very foundations by something from which they
thought they were shielded, that is, an upheaval in the anachronistic
world economic system. In fact we are on the eve of an implosion of
the international monetary system. An increasingly large number of
developing countries can no longer pay the North the interest on
their numerous debts, which have reached the outrageous sum of $500
billion. Even though they transfer every year to the North the tidy
sum of $50 billion to service the debts and even though the South
receives annually from the North only $25 billion in the form of
official development assistance, the banks of the North are still
threatened with collapse. This is in no way surprising. This
disturbing observation only underscores once again the degree to
which the world economy is interdependent.
We must above all be convinced that it is upon an improvement of the
living conditions of the three quarters of the population of our
world which continues to live in extreme distress that the world
balance and the maintenance of international security depend. For
millions of people whose average income is less than $1 a day, it
takes little thought to comprehend and realize the fact that every
day about 4 million times that income goes into the production of
devices that could deprive them of the meagre benefits they hope to
derive for their subsistence. How can we explain to them, when every
day they wonder what their chances are of obtaining a small crust of
bread, that the cost of a jet fighter is equivalent to that of 15,000
tons of wheat and that the cost of a bomber is equivalent to that of
30 schools or 15 hospitals? How is it possible for them to
understand-and here we are referring to the statistics of the World
Bank-that 800 million of them are condemned to illiteracy while sums
that defy the imagination are swallowed up in the unbridled arms race?
For us, the peoples of the Sahelian region, where a relentless
drought prevails, where millions of people see their very survival
endangered, this dangerous evolution of the world's civilization is
stupefying. The international community has, of course, decided to
mobilize to restore life to the Sahel. We are therefore pleased once
again to thank the many States and groups of States and governmental
and non-governmental international organizations that have helped us
to carry out some of our projects. However, it remains true that the
desert continues to advance. The drought that prevails in the
Sahelian regions can no longer be attributed to temporary
meteorological phenomena. It prevails as a profound and more and more
widespread evil, for the combating of which, however, technical and
human resources exist.
A careful look at the phenomenon of drought, because of its
persistence and its magnitude, shows a disturbing evolution in the
ecology of our world. Yet the time is past when lightning caused man
to dash for cover. The struggle to keep our environment healthy and
sound so that man can flourish by applying all his creative skills,
has never been closer to being won. Unfortunately, thousands of
experts, and even the most competent among them, devote their
intelligence to improving the war machine that is destined to destroy
mankind.
The rehabilitation of the world economy so as to give it new life and
vigor is thus among the primary challenges we shall have to meet in
the course of this decade if we are to preserve peace.
The Republic of Mali, because it is determined to participate
actively in the collective effort to rehabilitate the world economy,
has chosen a course of development that is in keeping with the ethic
of its people and with the demands of the modem international
community. The building of an independent and planned national
economy, in our view, is the appropriate response to the concerns of
our people. Having made this choice, we are endeavoring to adapt our
economic policies to meet the deepest aspirations of our population.
Like our neighbors, we believe that the patient construction of
regional groups and subgroups such as the Organization for the
Development of the Senegal River, the West African Economic
Community, the Conference of Saharan States and the Economic
Community of the States of Western Africa is the only way
significantly and decisively to contribute to the realization of the
Lagos Plan which resulted from the important second special session
of the OAU Assembly in April 19S0 devoted to a thorough consideration
of economic questions of concern to the African continent. The
guidelines contained in that plan, which is now an historic one, arc
for Africans the only way to survive in the face of the serious
economic crisis. At the thirty-sixth session, in this very Hall,
President Moussa Traore spoke these words: "Together with you, we
wish to restore the confidence of our people in their creative
abilities. Together with you, we wish to preserve international peace
and security." We have come here once again to reaffirm our readiness
to build, together with all the States of the international
community, another world, a new world commensurate with our creative
genius so that universal civilization can flourish.
This readiness on the part of the Republic of Mali to work for peace,
justice and equity is constant. That is so because our aspirations
and hopes are shared by the rest of the international community.
Those hopes will exist as long as peoples are compelled to resort to
weapons to defend their raison d'etre and their dignity. They will
exist as long as racism and its most odious manifestation, apartheid,
continue as a system of government.
A world that trembles in fear of nuclear peril is not a free world,
and it is even less a world of peace. People who are ill for lack of
care, who are sick of being hungry will, without warning, upset the
present precarious order, precarious because it is obsolete.
The past year has been fraught with threats. That is why we are here
in this Hall with the other members of the Assembly to clear the
ground for the establishment of a more stable system of collective
security.
We should not be shouldering our responsibilities and we should
betray the confidence of our peoples if in our actions we failed to
provide concrete, pragmatic, realistic and lasting solutions for the
sole raison d'etre of man: that of living in peace with himself and
with his fellow man, free of fear of future misery and conflicts, in
ever larger freedom.