Your election to the presidency of this session of the General Assembly is indeed gratifying, Sir, especially since you represent a country linked to Syria by close ties of friendship and co-operation.
We were greatly satisfied by the success of the outgoing President in conducting the work of the forty-first session. We should like to express our appreciation to him, and to wish him and his friendly country continued success. I take this opportunity to put on record our appreciation of the strenuous efforts exerted by the Secretary-General and his assistants to strengthen the role f the United Nations in safeguarding and promoting international peace and security and creating better conditions for co-operation among States.
The world is now moving towards an era of co-operation and détente, following period of tension and confrontation, and a wave of optimism therefore prevails on the international scene. While we join the international community in welcoming his trend, we sincerely hope that it will lead to the achievement of just solutions to issues afflicting some of the world's peoples, foremost among which are the usurpation of peoples' rights, racial discrimination, occupation, foreign hegemony, economic exploitation and the ever-widening gap between developed and developing countries.
The principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, the aim of which is to create a human society in which justice and security reign, ushered in new hope for a better future for mankind. It has been impossible, however, totally to fulfil those noble principles owing to the escalation of aggressive tendencies, the use or the threat of the use of force in international relations and the suppression of the will of peoples with a view to dominating them and their potential.
In the international domain, the arms race poses the gravest dangers to humanity. Foremost among those dangers is the possibility of a nuclear world war, whether triggered by accident or by a sense of superiority. We therefore regard every effort to reduce nuclear weapons with a view to eliminating them completely an important factor that would help to strengthen international peace and security. Accordingly, we support the agreement in principle between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the United States of America with respect to the intermediate-range nuclear forces and tactical weapons. We consider it to be a positive step that could have considerable significance if it were followed by wider steps that would eliminate strategic nuclear weapons and lead to comprehensive and complete nuclear disarmament.
Israel's possession and development of nuclear weapons and its participation in the "star wars" programme pose a direct and constant threat to security in the Middle East and Mediterranean regions. It has become imperative to declare the Middle East region a nuclear-free zone in order to ensure peace and security there. The obstacle to the attainment of that objective is Israel's constant refusal to adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and to place its nuclear installations under international control, as well as its rejection of the system of international safeguards.
The Syrian Arab Republic is well aware of the connection between disarmament and development. It is axiomatic that the world cannot continue to incur the enormous costs of the arms race while simultaneously investing, in an adequate manner, the necessary funds in programmes of economic and social development. Therefore, my country would support any agreement by the international community to embark on an ambitious disarmament programme that would release sufficient funds for investment in programmes of economic and social development in the world, particularly in the developing countries. Furthermore, Syria shares the conviction that the United Nations has a role to play in promoting disarmament and development, and hence in creating a general feeling of collective security.
We support the initiative of the group of socialist countries calling for the establishment of a comprehensive system of international security. Such a system would be based on strengthening the role of the United Nations in the adoption of practical measures that would guarantee compliance with the provisions of the Charter and ensure their implementation. That is essential to respect for the sovereignty of States, their national independence and their territorial integrity and to the non-use of force in relations among States, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the right of all peoples to self-determination, the elimination of colonialism, racism, racial discrimination, apartheid and foreign occupation and domination.
The Arab-Israeli conflict remains one of the most explosive regional conflicts and the farthest away from a just and lasting solution, despite the overall favourable international climate and the world-wide support for the convening of the International Conference under the auspices of the United Nations. That should not seem strange, since other regional conflicts, regardless of their intensity and destructiveness, can come to an end and just, realistic solutions can be found to them so long as neither of the parties claims to have God-given territories and rights - as is alleged by Israel.
By retaining the occupied Arab territories and annexing some of them, and by building settlements there, Israel in no way adheres to the principles of international law or of the United Nations Charter. Instead, it acts - as is evident from the overall attitudes of its successive leaders - on the basis of metaphysical convictions and legendary tales backed by extremely reactionary and fundamentalist concepts.
It is naive to believe that the often-spoken-of differences among the rulers in Tel Aviv are differences between those who accept giving up the occupied Arab territories and those who refuse to do so. Rather/ the difference is between, on the one hand, those who want to extract a formal Arab signature on a document relinquishing most of the occupied Arab territories as well as usurped Palestinian rights and, on the other, those who do not even admit the existence of occupied Arab lands and usurped Palestinian rights. In fact, there is no substantial difference among all the rulers in Tel Aviv in regard to maintaining Israel's voracious appetite for devouring Arab lands and building more settlements thereon. The ultimate objective of the rulers in Tel Aviv is to establish Greater Israel and impose its undisputed hegemony over the countries and peoples of the region.
It is our conviction that the Israeli attitude to the international conference on peace in the Middle East should be interpreted only in the light of those facts. We ought to proceed sincerely from an objective assessment of Israeli intentions and not from illusions or the attempts of some to justify their support for or dealings with Israel. The international community can thus easily realize why Israel's rulers reject a genuine International conference and why the Israeli faction that accepts the idea of an international conference stipulates that it should be a mere umbrella for direct bilateral negotiations and have no authority whatsoever. The Tel Aviv rulers are all agreed on not establishing a genuine, just peace in the region.
Israel's rejection of peace based on justice is inevitably a source of constant concern to the entire world, no matter how calm conditions may appear on the surface. It must also be a source of true concern also to the Israelis themselves, because violence generates violence, and Israel's extremist doctrine in fighting and attempting to humiliate the Arabs will in turn give rise to more violence and extremism. Israel's bitter experience during its invasion of Lebanon still lives in the memory and will remain an irksome nightmare for the Israelis for many years to come.
Israel will never enjoy peace in our region, irrespective of its military might, so long as it continues to occupy any part of the Arab lands. Israel cannot for ever be protected by the unlimited support of the United States and the strategic alliance between them. Israel's imposition of its peace terms on Egypt did not and will not achieve true peace between Israel and the brother people of Egypt, no matter how hard the rulers in Cairo and Tel Aviv try to obscure these facts and mislead world public opinion.
Syria believes that the establishment of a just and comprehensive peace depends on the total withdrawal of Israel from all the occupied Arab territories and on guarantees of the national rights of the Palestinian people within the framework of an international peace conference, to be held under United Nations auspices, provided that the conference is genuine and has authority.
The economic and social institutions of our sister country, Lebanon, have suffered grave disruptions. The people of Lebanon have suffered greatly from a devastating civil War and the brutal Israeli invasion, both of which brought tremendous destruction of property, acts of terrorism and the forcible evacuation of citizens.
There is no question but that many have lost confidence in the Lebanese regime as a result of the assassination last June of Lebanon's Prime Minister,
Rash id Karami, a man who stood for dialogue and national reconciliation, and the failure so far to find the killers and those who backed them. It is regrettable that the Lebanese regime has not tried, as it should have, to benefit from Syria's great help and immense sacrifices, whose purpose was to save Lebanon from fighting and chaos and place it again on the path of dialogue and national reconciliation. Nevertheless, Syria - which is bound to Lebanon by family ties, a shared destiny security, history and common interests - will spare neither toil nor sacrifice to assist our Lebanese brothers in their effort to emerge from this dark tunnel. Moreover, Syria will continue to support the heroic Lebanese resistance until the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon and the liberation of the last inch of Lebanese territory.
The tense situation in the Gulf region is a cause of grave concern, particularly in the light of the enormous concentration of foreign military fleets. Of particular note is the flocking of the military vessels of Western countries, one after the other, in the wake of the arrival of the United States fleet, after the majority of their Governments had initially voiced reservations about sending them.
The Syrian people in particular, and the Arab people in general, have the right to ask whether those huge concentrations of vessels are intended to ensure freedom of international navigation in the waters of the Gulf or are there to secure military bases in the region and restore the policy of spheres of influence, is the purpose of those military concentrations in the Gulf region to prevent the expansion of the war and limit its damage, or is it to embroil the other countries of the region in order to deplete all their resources and distract them from their essential national role of liberating the occupied Arab territories and recovering the usurped rights of the Palestinian Arab people?
While posing those legitimate questions, we reaffirm our support for freedom of international navigation for all in the waters of the Gulf. We reaffirm our denunciation of attempts to expand the war and involve other countries in it and our belief in the importance of good-neighbourly relations and understanding between the Arab States of the Gulf and the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as our demand that all foreign military fleets be withdrawn from the region.
We all know that in recent years the international community has devoted a major part of its attention to the phenomenon of terrorism. I have previously stated from this rostrum our views on this subject. In our statement at the last session of the General Assembly we set out our views on terrorism and the distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggle of peoples for freedom. We also exposed the deliberate attempts to confuse terrorist acts - which are totally rejected and condemned - and the struggle of peoples against foreign occupation, colonialism and racism. We said also that the international community
is as much the victim of State terrorism as it is of terrorism by individuals. We have called upon the international community through the United Nations to engage in a joint effort to set rules and norms by which to draw a distinction between terrorist acts and the legitimate struggle of peoples for national liberation as provided for in the United Nations Charter and in numerous General Assembly resolutions. Accordingly, we have proposed the convening of an international conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of peoples for national liberation. We appreciate the positive attitude to that initiative adopted by regional and international bodies such as the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Non-Aligned Movement.
We are pleased to note that the General Assembly has adopted the Arab position submitted by Syria for the inclusion of a new item on the agenda of this year's session of the Assembly with regard to the convening of an international conference to define terrorism and to set norms and standards to distinguish between terrorism and the struggle of peoples for national liberation. My delegation would be pleased to co-operate with other delegations in preparing a draft resolution on this subject for submission to the General Assembly for debate and adoption.
The Group of Non-Aligned Countries, to which my country belongs, was established at the very outset on the concept of persistent work to ensure respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter and to observe the application of those principles in dealings among States. On several occasions the Group exerted a constructive effort that had a positive impact on the international scene. We should like, therefore, to express our firm support of the Non-Aligned Movement and of its activities. We fervently call upon all States in the various groups to extend support and encouragement to the Movement, since it has proved on several occasions that it is a positive factor of benefit to the international community as a whole.
Southern Africa still suffers from a tragic colonial situation due to the continued occupation of Namibia by the Pretoria regime in violation of United Nations resolutions, in particular Security Council resolution 435 (197Θ), which includes the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. Also, the Pretoria regime continues to carry out acts of oppression, persecution and killing, and to impose the apartheid regime on the majority of the inhabitants of southern Africa.
We should strongly condemn the close collaboration between the regimes of Pretoria and Tel Aviv, which is designed primarily to suppress the will of the Arabs and the Africans and to undermine the aspirations of their peoples. Those two racist regimes should be isolated in the international arena, and an end must be put to their racist and expansionist policies.
The international community is duty bound to confront the challenges of the Pretoria regime. Likewise, the Security Council must adopt a resolution imposing on that regime the mandatory and comprehensive sanctions provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter.
In this context we laud the Organization of African Unity and its resolutions and decisions adopted at its successive conferences, the latest of which are the resolutions and the declaration of the twenty-eighth Summit Conference of the Organization of African Unity, held in Addis Ababa, which reaffirmed the practical measures to be taken by States in various fields in order to isolate and eventually eliminate the apartheid regime.
The question of Cyprus remains a source of concern to the Mediterranean countries. Any solution to this problem should be based on the implementation of all relevant United Nations resolutions so as to safeguard the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus. We welcome the idea of convening an international conference on this subject under the auspices of the United Nations.
We support the efforts of the Government of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea to reunite the Korean peninsula by peaceful means and to achieve the withdrawal of foreign troops from South Korea. We also support its call to transform the Korean peninsula into a zone of peace free from military bases and nuclear weapons.	.
With respect to Afghanistan, we support the independence, sovereignty and non-alignment of that friendly country. We hope that the efforts exerted to solve the difficulties existing between Afghanistan and its neighbours, to which we are linked with close historical ties, will be successful. Likewise, we welcome the cease—fire declared by the Afghan Government, as well as its initiative to achieve national reconciliation. We also commend the praiseworthy efforts of the representative of the Secretary-General with respect to the Afghan question, and we hope to see a quick solution to the problem.
We express our grave concern over the external pressures exerted upon Nicaragua and the interference in its domestic affairs. We regard as positive the measures agreed upon by the States of Central America in the capital of Guatemala on 7 August 1987 concerning the establishment of a firm and durable peace in Central America, measures which could contribute to enhancing the efforts of the States of the region to safeguard their independence and sovereignty. On this occasion, we commend the efforts exerted in this regard by the Contadora Group and the Latin American Support Group.
The United Nations General Assembly exerted considerable effort in 1974 with respect to the adoption of a resolution on the establishment of the new international economic order. That order sets forth the structural changes as a policy based primarily on the concept of interdependence among the peoples of the world, rich and poor, to realize international security and global welfare. However, all of us know that this new international economic order has not been implemented because of the lack of political will on the part of most of the developed countries. Recommendations were adopted by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development aimed at achieving some structural changes in the system of international economic relations, in general, and in trade and financial relations, in particular. Those recommendations, however, were not given due attention by the group of rich countries, while other recommendations that were translated into resolutions have not been implemented.
 The main cause of this painful state of affairs in international economic relations lies in the fact that the group of rich countries, while advocating the concept of interdependence among all nations, in practice do not act upon it. Their primary concern is rather to realize the maximum and most expedient profits, which is the extreme opposite of the concept of interdependence among peoples.
It is strange that this policy, characterized by greed and short-sightedness, often backfires against the interests of the group of rich countries themselves, sometimes leading to controversies, protectionist measures and trade wars among them. We have already seen this take place on many occasions. The major losers in this unjust situation, however, are the developing countries, which still suffer from the deterioration of the prices of their raw materials and from the enormous burden they shoulder due to their international indebtedness, as well as from the protectionist measures imposed by the developed countries on their exports.
Sufficient proof of this grave imbalance in current international economic relations is the fact that the developed countries control the fixing of prices of raw materials produced by the developing countries according to their own interests. At the same time, they are free to fix the prices of their manufactured goods according to their own interests too. As a result, unequal and unfair trade exchange relations ensue, to the detriment of the developing countries.
The peoples of the world always look to the United Nations full of hope that the international Organization will meet its commitment towards issues of justice, peace and development. The United Nations role is highly significant and will have a profound effect if efforts are directed to the achievement of objective, non-selective solutions for chronic conflicts, foremost among which is the Arab-Israeli conflict, which poses a continuous and far-reaching threat to peace.
Syria affirms its continued commitment to support and promote the role of the United Nations as a collective world instrument for fulfilment of the hopes pinned on it.


The Soviet delegation has instructed me Sir, to congratulate you on your election to the honourable post of President of the forty-second session of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
One of the rules of procedure of this Organization reserves a minute for prayer or meditation. Each session of the United Nations General Assembly is an occasion for reflection on the future of the world. Today the world is on the threshold of great changes and our thoughts are about that. For the first time in history, the idea of nuclear disarmament is close to the beginning of fulfilment. It is not a new idea. What is new is that this is proving to be possible. Only yesterday, all we could see ahead of us was a blank wall: today we can see far ahead.
Two thousand warheads are but a small part of nuclear arsenals, but that is a big enough part forbids disappearance to give to the world a new vision. The agreement on these weapons is only a small part of what has happened. Something much more important has taken place; the Soviet Union and the United states have finally spoken together the first word in a nuclear-free vocabulary. When that word becomes deed, the world will also gain new knowledge. It will become convinced that nuclear weapons and security are not synonymous and that security becomes stronger when those weapons disappear.
For the present, that principle is being established in a specific case, but it is already being established in practice. The whole question now is whether we shall be able, proceeding from the same logical premise, to abandon the entire nuclear arsenal rather than just a part of it, to scrap all weapons of mass destruction.
The Soviet Union is convinced that we shall be able to do so. The launching pad is small but it provides a boost to a great undertaking. The recent agreement may be followed by an accord on the reduction by as much as one half of strategic weapons - provided, of course, that the Treaty limiting anti-ballistic missile system is preserved.
Today there is an increasingly realistic prospect of a convention on the prohibition and complete destruction of chemical weapons. We can expect a productive development of the parallel process of reduction of conventional weapons based on the concept of sufficiency. There is a possibility of making headway because we have bold ideas and willingness to remove the remaining obstacles.
An affirmative answer to the question of whether it is possible to scrap nuclear arsenals will become a reality if the international community once again helps us.
There is no need to compete here for the palm of victory, which does not go well with the olive branch of peace. I could describe how the Soviet Union has worked towards the global double zero, but let others claim the credit if they wish. For that matter, if we have to compete in something it should be only in nuclear disarmament. What is important for us is that what was sought has now been achieved and the outcome is not at variance with the will of the majority.
We are moved by the enthusiasm with which the world has welcomed the agreement. It convinces us once again that we are on the right track. Listening to the voices of approval and solidarity, which drown the morose and solitary voice of the nuclear profiteers, your Soviet colleague, without sharing the euphoria and yet without curbing the optimism  keenly feel that today all of us here are truly United nations - United not merely by formal membership in this Organization but by a common destiny and a shared objective. We thank you for this wonderful feeling. It should be treasured and carried further. Thank you for the atmosphere of unity of thought, co-operation and support which alone could have produced an agreement.
In this sense the agreement is yours. And the fact that it belongs to everyone is, as we see it, the best guarantee of its implementation.
"We were born to live together. And our community is like an arch which holds up precisely because Its stones prevent each other from falling ..." One is amazed by the ability of human thought to establish the supreme ethical law for all times. "We were born to live together", so wrote Seneca to Lucillius many years ago in his Epistles, but it is only today that this idea is being understood as the imperative of our time.
Today, Lenin's Decree of Peace is perceived as a message of supreme morality addressed to our time. The repudiation of secret treaties, open and public conduct of International affairs, the immediate withdrawal from the war and the rejection of War as a method of resolving conflicts reflected, even as far back as 1917, a common need, which has now become the will of the entire International community.
A long and difficult road must be traversed for human thought to become action, but it does happen sooner or later. When, in Washington, we were discussing the techniques of the destruction of nuclear warheads we were suddenly struck by the fact that only a year ago this had seemed something well beyond our grasp. Our American partners can confirm this. It is hard to find words to express this. Let us just say that the past gives a powerful impetus to the present, and the present gives guarantees to the future.
"The reality and the guarantees of a secure world" is the title of Mikhail Gorbachev's article published before this session began, and it conveys the gist of our thinking today.
A secure world is possible. It Is possible because anything else is too dangerous. The possibility of a secure world is commensurate with the need for it This is the reality. As for guarantees, we see them in a comprehensive system of security. It is the natural task of the United Nations to give inspiration to and take the lead in building such a system.
This, reduced to a concise formula, is the logic of that article, which develops the doctrine of a secure world. It stems from the history of our country and is the fruit of political thinking that honestly analyses the entire preceding period.
In this context I would venture to remind the Assembly that its forty-second session coincides with the eve of the seventieth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. This is our celebration and we are not imposing it on anyone. The feelings aroused by the birthday of our State are ours. Nevertheless, I would venture to share with representatives my thoughts on some of the international implications of that date.
I do not think that it can be disputed that the October Revolution was one of the major events of this century and has had a tremendous impact on the destinies of peoples, not only those of the former Russian Empire. We think that the process of renovation which is under way in our country is more than just a strictly domestic affair of the Soviet Union, It is impossible to describe as purely the concern of the Soviet Union its desire to do away with one of the products of the cold war, which is the splitting of the world into hostile alliances.
All this, naturally, is also part of the objectives of perestroika - our process of change - while glasnost - openness - and dialogue are, as logically, its instruments, in both domestic and foreign policies. Between these two there exists a direct and open relationship and one cannot be implemented without the other. This, and this alone, allows me, when speaking about the seventieth anniversary of our revolution, to invite you all to take thought together.
If we have a concept of a world revolution, which is most closely linked with the process of revolutionary change in our country, we make no secret of it. It is this: organizing the entire human community on the basis of recognizing peace as the supreme value of existence, human life, freedom and dignity as a general yardstick, and peaceful coexistence as a universal principle of relations among States. This concept, proclaimed in the Political Report to the 27th Congress of our Communist Party, has been substantiated by a series of practical steps taken by the Soviet Union,
Perestroika has also heralded major changes in international affairs. It should not be obstructed. But, of course, unlike the position in 1917 or 1918, in 1987 no external action could halt our revolution. Today we live in different times, and it is a different country. And that could be one of the greatest achievements of the October Revolution. The price of this was enormous. It was set by the foreign intervention and the civil war; the ruined economy and the economic blockade; terror and the attempts to subvert the foundations of our multinational State; Nazi aggression and the cold war, which was imposed on us; nuclear blackmail and constant attempts at political diktat. Not a single day passed without our having to pay the highest price.
Unlike many other revolutions, the October Revolution was almost bloodless. Unlike many others, its architects never Intended to build their temple on blood; they never thought, as had many before them, that cruelty, violence and fear were the best glue for cementing their ideal.
It was the policies of conspiracy, terror and intervention against Soviet Russia that made it shut and lock its doors and cut itself off from a hostile world.

In order to survive it was necessary to do the maximum within the historically minimum space of time. A chronic lack of time and unending pressure on all fronts also helped create the conditions which resulted in innocent victims and irreparable losses. We are saying this for all to hear: there is not and there cannot be any justification for that. We do more than just say it. As heirs to both victories and defeats, achievements and mistakes, we are doing our utmost to consolidate the victories and to prevent even the slightest possibility of the errors being repeated In either domestic or in foreign policies.
This is a distinctive feature of our perestroika, its dominant trend, any indicator of the vigour and health of our society, a guarantee of Its future, of its profound internal democratism, openness and integrity. And there is no need to engage in linguistic research to try to provide listeners with an English equivalent of the word glasnost. One might go astray in a foreign language, as has indeed already happened with the same speaker, who claimed that there is no word meaning "freedom" in the Russian language. It is generally dangerous to play with words in this forum in which by no means everyone is ready to applaud insults summarily flung at entire countries and peoples. Freedom does indeed serve peace - but it is not the freedom that is interpreted as licence to interfere in the affairs of others and to finance counter-revolution as a most profitable business.
As for our perestroika, no one should be a prey to illusions. We shall not turn aside from the main road or borrow from others their norms and rules of democracy. We thank them for their advice, but we shall conduct perestroika according to our own design, on our own socialist basis. Allow us to determine for ourselves what the Soviet Union is going to be and that will be what the Soviet people want it to be.
Those who want to support us will also support the project of rebuilding international relations on a broad democratic basis. They will support the concept of a nuclear-free world and all actions to resolve the knottiest issues of world politics. For here the interests of most members of the community fully coincide.
This rostrum is not a pulpit for preaching "free enterprise". This Hall is not a schoolroom or a university auditorium in which one can teach lessons in rhetoric or lecture the international community on the manners of "good political behaviour". it is even less worthy to adopt the tone of pastoral admonition and tell the Organization that "sometimes it has strayed" and "it is time for it to come home". One can say, however, that this rostrum and this Hall are the very place where new political thinking should be expressed.
However much the world is split by confrontation and hatred, it is United in facing the need to preserve itself and to perpetuate mankind.
Prom this objective reality there emerges another guiding light for new political thinking; in our time, the correlation between the national interest and the interest of all mankind has changed. It has changed in the sense that truly national interests cannot be opposed to common interests.
If, on the pretext that something is contrary to the interests of national security or to considerations of national prestige, one rejects everything that is born of the political thinking of the systems or governments that one does not like, then, sooner or later, this will boomerang on the genuine national interests of one's own people and State.
New political thinking must put an end to that. New political thinking will put an end to it if it is put into action. And there is no doubt that it will be, for action, unity of concept and implementation, of thought and its realization, of word and deed, are crucial conditions for the existence of mankind.
New political thinking will inevitably make its way, for it is nourished by some remarkable elements: by the accumulation of progressive political experience  by strictly scientific analysis, evaluation and forecasting of contemporary realities} and, ultimately, by the freedom of new political thinking from national narrow-mindedness that provokes animosity towards countries, groups of countries or social political systems.
In this regard, let me say that the policy of hostility towards socialism is now bankrupt, both in theory and in practice. The very fact of the establishment of the United Nations contained the embryo of the new political thinking. Even at that time its principles were embodied in the articles of the United Nations Charter  which is undoubtedly one of the greatest statutory instruments of all time and of all nations.
The fact that our Organization has been functioning for over 40 years now is testimony to the triumph of mankind's common interests over narrow-minded nationalism and great-Power attitudes. In fact, all the post-war decades have been nothing but the history of the struggle between outdated political concepts and the new political thinking that was born in the agony of war.
When life on earth depends on one's ability to destroy it 20 times over, there is something wrong either with oneself and one's trust in such a guarantee of life, or with the very idea of deterrence. Most likely, it is both. New political thinking exposes the absurdity of the idea of safeguarding anyone's security with nuclear weapons.
However, a question immediately arises: Is it possible to ensure peace by other methods and, indeed, do such methods exist at all? New political thinking answers: Yes. And here again I should like to focus on a comprehensive system of international security.
As emerges clearly from Mikhail Gorbachev's statements, we envision its formation as a multilinear process extending over time and implemented through collective efforts. In essence, its objective is that peace should be ensured exclusively by the United Nations and its Security Council on the basis of strict observance of the principles and provisions of its Charter. I anticipate a question here: If that is your objective, then what is the meaning of your proposal? After all, the Charter of the United Nations already exists and the universal organization for peace is functioning.
Let me remind the Assembly that the United Nations was established for a world free of nuclear weapons and that its Charter was, naturally, designed to solve the problems of such a world.
Nuclear weapons gave rise to a different reality which, in the final analysis, made it impossible to use the United Nations fully as the principal mechanism for the maintenance of peace and security. It so happened that the nuclear tumour limited the scope of, and the possibilities for applying the Charter. Now the prospect of militarization of outer space threatens to erode its principles even further. There should however be no question of adapting the Charter to the realities of the nuclear and space age or, still less, of wrecking it. The Charter is a great document, which even today contains all the necessary provisions to enable mankind to live and solve its problems without war.
However, even the Charter cannot do the impossible. No organization, no set of rules, no code of behaviour can save the world in the few minutes between the launching of a missile and a nuclear holocaust. If and when the implementation of the "Star Wars" programme begins, the "shagreen leather" of that time interval will shrink even further. And yet that programme has been touted here once again as a way "to ensure a safer world".
This is not so. And here I will refer to a person whose statements have been quoted so readily by the President of the United States - even the day before yesterday. That person is academician Andrei Sakharov, who said:
"My opinion as regards this programme is different from that of the Reagan Administration... it is also wrong to assert that the existence of the SDI programme has made the Soviet Union negotiate on disarmament. To the contrary, the SDI programme impedes the negotiations."
If we are to believe an academician in one area, why should we not believe him in another, in which he is really a qualified expert and a professional?
Leave the ocean of space to peaceful vessels, so that future generations - our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren - will not have to build space minesweeper s.
Excluding the nuclear and space component from the security equation is the only path towards real security. We regard a comprehensive system of security as a kind of interim programme for reasserting the role of the United Nations and its Charter as the primary instruments for peace.
What, then, are the practical aspects of a comprehensive system? Throughout the past year the sponsors of the resolution on this question have held consultations with Members of the United Nations and discussed their proposal in international forums. As a result many things have now become clearer, our ideas have become more concrete, and an atmosphere of teamwork has arisen. The system is taking precise shape in all its four aspects: politico-military, economic, environmental and humanitarian.
In the politico-military area, it comprises the obligation of Governments not to be the first to use nuclear weapons or any force or threat of force making military doctrines exclusively defensive in nature) making public data regarding defence expenditures and calendars of exercises and manoeuvres) the adoption by all of the principle of non-offensive defence} and instituting a reliable system of verification.
We are convinced that a comprehensive system of security will also provide the key to the settlement of situations of regional conflict. That may be one of the roost difficult tasks of today.
In this connection I shall venture to make a brief digression to address some ideas presented here the other day. I am referring to the statement made here by the President of the United States the day before yesterday. I am not going to relish engaging in polemics with him. The emotions aroused by the agreement we have reached, ray status as a guest and respect for seniority restrain  e from taking up, point by point, allegations and arguments that are groundless in the extreme. But since the President mentioned the human heart - claiming, as it were, a monopoly on having a heart while denying it to others - I should like to say the following.
It is heartless to declare regions and continents zones of special interest for the so-called free world out of which it pumps into its own economy resources belonging to other peoples. It is heartless to recruit and arm mercenaries, to proclaim them freedom fighters, and to pay millions of dollars for the murders committed by them. It is heartless to put into the hands of bandits weapons they use to shoot down civilian aircraft. The human heart is an extremely sensitive organ, and it shudders at such treatment.
Those who have not suffered have no compassion for anyone, we know what war on our own territory means. Therefore it is not for the sake of rhetorical effect that we declare our support for the efforts of the United Nations.
It plays an extremely important peace-making role in Afghanistan, where the mission of the Personal Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General organically combines with the policy of national reconciliation. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Afghans themselves are able to decide the future of their own country and indeed are doing so. This new encouraging trend is in keeping with our sincere desire to withdraw Soviet forces from Afghanistan as soon as possible, and in this we are meeting with the full understanding of the Afghan leadership.
In Central America, the States of the region themselves have made impressive headway towards a long-awaited peace. Their success is shared by members of the Contadora Group and the Support Group and by all Latin American countries.
Dialogue between the countries of Indo-China and the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has revealed promising elements. The policy of national reconciliation is also beginning to work in Kampuchea.
Real possibilities exist for the settlement of the Korean problem. The yearning of the Korean people for an easing of tension in the peninsula and the withdrawal of foreign troops and nuclear weapons cannot but evoke sympathy.
The United Nations has a detailed plan for giving effect to the resolution on the granting of independence to the Namibian people. Its implementation would also constitute a major step towards a settlement of the situation in southern Africa. A consensus is emerging in favour of convening a conference on the Middle East problem. In Cyprus, our Organization and its Secretary-General have also been taking vigorous action and refusing to retreat in the face of obstacles.
Here is our view of the situation in the Persian Gulf. It has become critically dangerous and might get out of control. We are not at all pleased that the development of events - which we warned was quite possible from the very outset - shows that we were right. The greater the military presence, the higher the probability of yet another conflict and the involvement in it of a State not belonging to the region. This is a source of great anxiety to us; it also strengthens our resolve to act in a sober and carefully considered manner and leads us once again to emphasize the question of removing the danger of a massive military presence.
In the circumstances, it is extremely important to preserve the unity in the Security Council. That is not an end in itself, but a prerequisite for implementing resolution 598 (1987) . In their individual actions, each member of the Council must abide by the resolution's requirements and not violate them.
The safety of navigation in the Gulf can and must be ensured by the entire world community, on whose behalf the United Nations will be acting. If necessary, appropriate and sufficient forces should be made effectively available to it, and the Soviet Union would agree to such a decision.
It is necessary to secure, concurrently and immediately, a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq and to work for the fulfilment of the Secretary-General's mission with respect to an impartial body to investigate the question of responsibility for the conflict. The Security Council should receive a report within a clearly established time-frame. This would also make it possible painlessly to withdraw foreign naval and other armed forces from the Persian Gulf.
It is very important now, in our view, to keep our composure and render every assistance to the Secretary-General and the Security Council.
In the economic field, a comprehensive system of security seeks to promote co-operation that would be free of confrontation and would cover the entire system of co-ordinates of international economic relations. A failure to resolve issues in this area is fraught with an explosive potential which, if detonated, would spell catastrophe for mankind. The picture of prosperity painted here the day before yesterday fades in the harsh light of reality, it is hard to imagine a "march of democracy" in the developing countries saddled as they are with a trillion-dollar debt. It is Impossible to talk seriously of equal opportunities when a new, technological, variety of colonialism is at work.
It is imperative to act.
We believe that the international community could reach agreement to reduce interest payments on bank credits, institute further benefits for the least developed countries, limit the annual debt-service payments of each developing country to a fixed portion of its annual export earnings, accept export products of debtor nations as payment for their debts and remove protectionist barriers to their imports, and refrain from charging additional interest for loan-payment rescheduling and debt refinancing.
These, of course, are only suggestions for discussion, but even now consideration could be given to devising a programme of Immediate action to ease the debt burden of the developing world.
Over the long term it is also necessary to restructure the entire international monetary system. And, of course, nothing would be more conducive to the economic development of nations than the most far-reaching programme of disarmament.
We are familiar also with a different viewpoint which does not acknowledge the relationship between disarmament and development. There are some who explain poverty by the inability of people to work and build their own lives. This is but another form of outright racism. No people is without talent or incapable of creating material and spiritual wealth. It is just a matter of different conditions that either help a people to realize its potential or thwart its efforts to do so. The elimination of economic discrimination creates favourable conditions for people to prosper economically and spiritually.
The environmental aspect of the proposed concept reflects the evolution of thinking about the relationship between man and nature. The achievement of mankind's environmental security is as imperative as the threat of an ecological disaster facing it is real. Today we must realize that the protection of the environment must be ensured on a world-wide basis. Confrontation narrows the scope for concerted action, while co-operation can expand it. Our concept provides for a set of measures in this area.
The human dimension is the primary yardstick for a comprehensive system of security. Nations can and must co-operate in establishing the best international conditions for safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual everywhere, democratising internal conditions and building trust and harmony on that basis.
We should together begin to devise a broad range of practical steps in the humanitarian area, promote co-operation in eradicating apartheid, racism, chauvinism, nationalism and discrimination on those bases, deal jointly with the problems of national minorities and refugees, and safeguard the rights of emigrants.
We submit that for States and nations trust begins at home and that to a large extent it is based on the unity of words and deeds and in complete accord between political declarations and actual positions. Our domestic and foreign policy is and will continue to be guided by that principle, and we reserve our right to demand the same of all other Governments/ our partners. The political, social, economic and cultural rights of the individual should be safeguarded on the basis of generally accepted international instruments. That is the way it should be everywhere.
The countries that have put forward this proposal do not claim a certificate of copyright. The system of security grows out of what has already been accomplished in the process of the peaceful coexistence of nations in the post-War years. It grows out of the activities of the United Nations, It is rooted in a broad legal foundation and the treaties which restrain the arms race. It is rooted in the negotiations on the central problems of our time and the codification of human rights standards/ in regional security-building processes and in the Non-Aligned Movement.
As a logical result of the development of mankind's common culture in this century, that system promises to become in the future a framework for the collective application of the creative efforts of all countries and peoples. Today, when 2/000 weapons can be removed from the face of the earth/ when a historic breakthrough has been achieved in a 42-year-long trend/ such a system reflects what we believe to be a genuine, irreversible process; a product of will and perseverance. For we are indeed born to live together and we shall stand together if we become an arch in which we support each other.
Our Assembly session provides the best occasion for reflecting on this. Its time should not be taken up with confrontation and hostility, I tell you frankly that the world is tired of that. There have been too many quotations intended to prove that you are dealing with the spawn of Hell. That is simply not serious or well founded. There have been too many accusations that detract front the dignity of nations. It is time for us to proceed to earnest dialogue; time to get down to business.
In these moments, as we stand face to face with the past and the present, we are keenly aware that when this pause for reflection is over we shall once again have to act, and again act.


On behalf of the Government and people of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas and on my own behalf, I extend warm congratulations to you, Sir, on your assumption of the presidency of this Assembly. My delegation, aware of your competence and experience in diplomacy, is confident that important agreements can be reached on many of the problems facing our Member States. I take this opportunity also to commend Foreign Minister Choudhury of Bangladesh for the skilful manner in which he conducted the business of the forty-first session of the General Assembly.
On 19 June the Bahamas electorate returned my Government to an unprecedented sixth term of office. This vote has given my Government a strong mandate to continue to promote effective programmes for the economic development and political stability of the Bahamas. As a result of this vote, my Government can continue to use its voice and energies for the advancement of this great world forum.
My Government therefore takes this opportunity to encourage our Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, in his leadership role in this Organization, to implement measures that would elicit greater co-operation among States, thereby minimizing confrontation.
There are perennial problems on the United Nations agenda, such as those of the world economic situation, the debt, drug trafficking and abuse, disarmament, regional conflicts and, in Africa, apartheid, political unrest, economic stagnation, drought and famine which beset much of the continent. The African Problems defy easy solutions because of an unwillingness to join fully in the war on apartheid on the part of those countries which could do the most to effect change.
I shall, however, be focusing only on those issues in respect of which my delegation feels it can offer some suggestions or practical observations which will contribute to progress in their resolution. In this vein, I should like to address first the issue of small States, especially their economic viability and security.
In the final analysis  the question is not whether small States are viable entities, history has already answered this question in the affirmative. The crux of the matter, in fact, is that if ambivalence continues to prevail in respect of small States they do then become burdens. All of us have heard the wise observation give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man how to fish and you feed him for life. Small States need only understanding, patience and productive assistance. We, in the category of small States have identified goals and projects in respect of which such requirements should be met. We have some of the tools to attain our goals and fulfil our projects. What we now need is the means to improve these tools and the forbearance to let us work out our own destiny.
Within the special category of small States is an even more specialized grouping of States that require particular attention and understanding on the part of the international community. This is the grouping of island developing States, to which geography has bequeathed more constraints in relation to their size than blessings. In addition to economic and social burdens, such as dependence on one or a few commodities, external debt and a shortage of administrative personnel, which beset other developing States, island States face not only smallness of size but remoteness and sometimes great distance from market centres, constraints in transportation, a limited internal market and general lack of natural or traditionally viable natural resources. Nevertheless, if permitted to enjoy an effective level of self-reliance as well as internal stability, small States can strengthen rather than threaten international order, peace and collective security.
Another year has passed and the abhorrent apartheid regime of South Africa persists, despite increased pressure by the international community, as well as the private sector, through resolutions, calls for divestment, demonstrations, sanctions and embargoes. World public opinion has swung firmly to our side? it is clear that the Botha regime has lost the struggle in psychological terms, but there are still many obstacles to overcome. The poison of Pretoria continues to affect the neighbouring country of Namibia, which cries out for its rightful place as an independent State in the international community.
It is time for us, the people, to face the effects of complicity when it comes to South Africa and Namibia. If we do not, we all become as guilty of oppression and murder as those States which back away from exercising economic pressure and political influence on South Africa.
In 1985 the Commonwealth Heads of Government, meeting in Nassau, came to grips with South Africa's intransigence with regard to dismantling apartheid. Under the chairmanship of Sir Lynden Pindling, Prime Minister of the Bahamas, the Heads of Government appointed the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group on Southern Africa. For six months in 1986, in which its members travelled extensively in southern Africa, the Eminent Persons Group worked to promote a process of dialogue for change, ending apartheid and establishing a genuine non-racial democracy in South Africa. Sadly, the Government of South Africa listened, but did not hear: acknowledged, but did not act. Consequently, the Commonwealth convened a mini-summit of seven countries in London to attempt to place increased pressure on South Africa.
With Sir Lynden Pindling as Chairman, the Governments of India, Canada, Australia, Zimbabwe, Britain, Zambia and the Bahamas reaffirmed a commitment to the Commonwealth accord on southern Africa concluded at Chogm in Nassau. Because of Pretoria's unwillingness to negotiate, the group of seven, with the exception of Britain, agreed to adopt economic measures against South Africa as a moral and political imperative.
When Commonwealth Heads of Government convene in Vancouver next week, the Bahamas assuredly will be in the forefront of the fight for racial equality and freedom in all southern Africa.
In the view of the Bahamas there must be unqualified acceptance of the urgent need for action to dismantle apartheid in South Africa. Meaningful measures must also incorporate practical commitment to infrastructural issues such as the abolition of discriminatory education. In that context, the Bahamas Government welcomed and supports, through contributions to the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth South Africa Scholarship Fund, which administers the Commonwealth Nassau Fellowships established at the 1985 meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in the capital of the Bahamas to help educate South Africans disadvantaged by apartheid, so that they can acquire the skills likely to be required for the progress of a post-apartheid South Africa. The Bahamas Government has also consistently supported United Nations programmes for oppressed and refugee South Africans, including the United Nations Fund for Namibia and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Also, to curb significantly front-line States' economic dependence on South Africa and to safeguard their security against South African aggression it is imperative that assistance to these States be increased. Apart from the question of economic dependency on South Africa, the security of front-line States is constantly being violated by South Africa either by direct aggression or by material assistance to armed opposition within front-line States. It has been ascertained not only that South Africa uses internal and external aggression to frighten front-line States into abandoning their support for the black majority, but also that it exploits their economic dependence through the jobs given to nationals of front-line States. Further, the provision of those jobs ignores mass unemployment among black South Africans, depresses the general wage level and enables the South African Government to maintain control of the labour force. To assist in curbing front-line States' economic dependence on South Africa, the Bahamas has contributed financially to United Nations programmes as well as to the non-aligned fund for the front-line States.
To ignore the elements just enumerated is to nullify the sacrifices, personal and financial, which many nations, organizations and individuals have made with a view to dismantling apartheid. It could contribute to the fire of revolution, which could make ashes of the achievements of the billions of dollars from Western developed nations invested in South Africa. Moreover, it could cause the poison of Pretoria to suffocate forever the independence and freedom of Namibia. Therefore, despite the attention now being focused on the internal situation in South Africa, renewed emphasis must be placed on the blueprint for the independence of Namibia contained in Security Council resolution 435 (1970).
In 1985 the world economy slowed down, and in 1986 aid so again. That, of course, was to the detriment of many developing countries, particularly those in Africa. Developing countries with the least amount of economic diversity have suffered the most as a result of this worsening situation. Overwhelmed by foreign debt, many of these developing countries find themselves in unstable domestic situations and with negative growth entrenching itself as a way of life.
Compare that debilitating economic scenario of developing countries with the situation of the developed market economies, which experienced growth in per capita income in 1986. This is a picture that does not say much for the implementation by the United Nations of the economic principles of its Charter.
The correct path was indicated to us at the seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. The consensus document that emanated from that session can serve as a significant guiding light for the international community in efforts to rectify the world economy. I wish to underscore here its prescriptions for sustainable and non-inflationary growth in developed countries and an environment conducive to accelerated growth for developing countries. Those prescriptions are a co-operative and flexible strategy on the question of international debt, a halt to protectionist policies and the shouldering by industrialized countries of their responsibility to foster a more stable and predictable economic environment, especially in the area of commodity prices.
The Bahamas Government continues to direct a strong appeal to the super-Powers to work together to reach mutually satisfactory bilateral accords. These should be supported by complementary arms-control agreements extending to other nuclear, militarily significant. States. Serious efforts at arms control must also be accompanied by such meaningful acts as the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones and the abolition of the use of chemical weapons. The World Disarmament Campaign and the world disarmament conference proposed in paragraphs 15 and 122, respectively, of the Final Document of the tenth special session of the General Assembly, devoted to disarmament, constitute golden opportunities for challenging the people of the world, young and old, to make a concrete contribution to disarmament, or at the very least to global agreement that arms at their lowest quantitative and qualitative levels must be only the last resort in conflicts among nations.
There are at present encouraging signs that the United States and the Soviet Union, aided by the courageous and historic commitment of Chancellor Kohl of the Federal Republic of Germany, are on the verge of an agreement which could draw the world back from the threat of the use of nuclear weapons. My Government applauds these rare acts of political will in the interest of national and international security. The benefits to the world of reduced spending on armaments are incalculable. The Bahamas would support all measures aimed at disarmament-fuelled development, especially those that would enable the expertise and technology now expended on the arms race to be applied to global problems such as pollution control, prevention of disease and other projects which only await funding. The Bahamas supports disarmament-fuelled development to bring all people everywhere an acceptable standard and quality of life.
The situations in Afghanistan and in Central America, to cite two glaring examples, are instructive in that they both illustrate that rigid adherence to spheres of influence by the two super-Powers in the context of balance-of-power politics does not contribute to a stable world order.
The Bahamas, therefore, continues to call for the total withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan and additionally submits that the negotiation of agreed guarantees for the restoration of non-alignment to Afghanistan is perhaps the only enduring solution to the internal suffering and political stalemate which the conflict in that beleaguered country has produced. The Bahamas is heartened by the demonstration of political will in the Central American sub-region, which has followed the direction and the intensive efforts of the Contadora Group and its Support Group to find a peaceful solution to the intra-regional conflict.
The Bahamas, therefore, welcomes the Central American Presidents' plan on procedures for the establishment of a firm and lasting peace in Central America, signed on 7 August, and the act of installation of the International Verification and Follow-up Commission, signed 15 days later by their Foreign Ministers, the Contadora Group and Support Group countries and the Secretary-General of the Organization of American States.
Both these initiatives merit maximum international support as evidence of genuine commitment to the restoration of peace in Central America. In this context, the Bahamas therefore encourages relevant United Nations organs, such as the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to offer every practical assistance to Central American Governments at every stage of the implementation timetable for the peace plan. Given the serious economic and social problems which are to a large extent the root causes of conflicts in Central America, international assistance is a crucial element if peace is to result from a return to the path of progress through economic and social justice.
The resolve of the international community to counteract the devastating and destructive phenomena of drug abuse and illicit trafficking has resulted in unprecedented drug control initiatives. The most significant effort in recent years was the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking (ICDAIT) held in Vienna earlier this year, ICDAIT successfully brought together those in the forefront of drug control - representatives from the United Nations system. Governments and intergovernmental organizations. Of equal importance was the spirit of compromise and co-operation that guided the work of the Conference and resulted in the adoption by consensus of its principal documents - the comprehensive multidisciplinary outline and a Declaration.
The momentum of ICDAIT also had a positive effect on the work of the intergovernmental group of experts which met immediately after the Conference to begin work on a new convention against illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The success of efforts such as ICDAIT and the new convention ought not be measured simply in terms of consensus documents. The level of success will become evident with time as Governments exercise the political will expressed in the Declaration and implement through regional and national legislation and practices, the measures recommended in the comprehensive multi-disciplinary outline, as well as the Treaties and relevant resolutions and decisions of the United Nations on drug abuse control.
The Bahamas will remain part of this struggle against drug abuse and drug trafficking because it believes that in the interests of domestic, social and global stability the war against drugs must be won.
By way of conclusion I wish to remind members that we are living on a shrinking planet, made so by technological breakthroughs in communication, transportation and science. It is self-evident that decisions taken at the United Nations can be transmitted technologically and through direct personal intervention to all parts of the globe within seconds or a maximum of a few hours. Therefore no member can continue to plead ignorance or helplessness with respect to the plight of our brothers and sisters on this planet. We are either victims or beneficiaries of our own actions. It is thus essential to accept that we are our brother's keepers and cannot sit idly by when he suffers. I am convinced that under your guidance, Mr. President, some if not all of the issues confronting our community will be fully aired and resolved.


The forty-second session of the General Assembly takes place against the background of some encouraging developments in international relations. It is Guyana  hope that the Organization will be able to Play its part in accelerating this positive trend. We are confident that during Comrade Florin's presidency he will deploy his well—known skills and tact in guiding our deliberations so that we may together reach conclusions which will be to the benefit of mankind as a whole. In offering Comrade Peter Florin an eminent son of the German Democratic Republic, our warmest congratulations on his unanimous elect ion ř I pledge the ready co-operation of my delegation in our search for global understanding and agreement·
Let me take this opportunity also to extend felicitations to his predecessor in office# the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, for his admirable conduct of the Assembly  business during the past year.
As we contemplate the many major issues which are before the Assembly, we cannot but be struck by their interrelationship and by the fact that the solutions to them must be based on a global approach· This is in acknowledgement of the reality that we live in an increasingly interdependent world, one in which it should be the aim of this Organization to advance in an equal way the interests of all Member States.
Peace, as we all know, is indivisible. So too, I contend, is development. Many of the issues related to development, some of which are topical, affect us all, rich and poor. Debt, drugs and disease are not indigenous to any one people. They are ubiquitous. If we are to ensure global stability, it would be foolhardy to seek their eradication in certain areas while they flourish elsewhere- There are after all no frontiers or boundaries that can halt their wider proliferation. Whether the issue we consider is political, economic or social, whether it pertains to peace, underdevelopment or the environment, national or unilateral action alone would not suffice· The action to be taken must be concerted and must involve all States.
Since last we met, the dialogue on nuclear disarmament has advanced. Unhappily, however, the expectations that had been engendered with regard to international economic co-operation have not materialized; and the principle of multilateralism remains to be fully embraced. It is salutary to observe, however, that the willingness of regional States to solve conflict situations in their areas and to promote economic and functional co-operation, has strengthened.
If the results of our efforts have been uneven, one thing remains constant. It is the yearning of the vast majority of mankind for a peaceful international environment and for the creation of conditions that can best secure and sustain their economic development.
In the area of the international economy, world output last year, as a measure of our combined productive effort, remained positive; and inflation continued its downward trend. These developments encouraged the expectation of further improvements in the performance of the world economy and of a better quality of life for the many in the developing countries. Sadly, these favourable indications have not been maintained, as output is not growing at the anticipated rate. As a consequence, there is increased concern over the prospects for developing countries and the ability of the world economy to withstand further stress.
Current trends therefore leave us little option but to maintain a troubled view of the condition of international trade? a factor which is so critical to sustained recovery. Not only is its rate or expansion disappointing but there is the real possibility of its contraction, in the light of the intensification of protectionist measures. Indeed, Guyana knows only too well of the damage that protectionist measures could cause to exports. It has seen the access of one of its major exports, sugar, to an important market, progressively reduced in a short period of time· The intensification of these measures by industrialized countries is inevitably injurious to the best efforts of development- I venture to say that those who harbour the thought that they are protected from its worst repercussions may awaken too late to its real adversity. Similarly, as regards the terms of trade for primary commodities, the situation is still far from hopeful, despite the upturn in the prices of some commodities and the recent multilateral attempts to salvage international co-operation in this area.
Last year, in one of its resolutions, the General Assembly placed in its proper perspective the requirements for resolving the debt problem. Those decisions represented an attempt to grapple with a difficult and politically sensitive problem and promised a more positive outlook. Current economic trends, however, especially those relating to output and trade, reinforce apprehension about the extent to which the goal of alleviating the debt burden can be realized. Despite this, we need to build on that determination in the light of the emerging appreciation of the full dimensions of the effect of the problem on national and international policies.
Beyond that, the current difficulties in the global economy warrant a more concerted approach by the entire community. Indeed, what is required now is the urgent realization that, in economic and social matters, prosperity is very much like peace - integral and indivisible. It is clear that, unless the international milieu favours equitable development among all nations, the welfare of all of us is in jeopardy. Yet the imperatives of co-operation have not been fully heeded. Policies continue to be pursued by some without full consideration of the situation prevailing in the rest of the world- Nowhere is this more evident than in relation to the international monetary system. There remains, unfortunately, an avoidance of global solutions. Instead, selective but limited reforms are pursued. Some of these are in the right direction.
In relation to the International Monetary Fund, for example, the mix of policies should be more widely varied in recognition of differing conditions between countries. Where unanticipated or unavoidable factors give rise to adverse growth trends, resources should be made available to support growth programmes; and finally, more flexibility should be employed with regard to quantitative targets and longer periods allowed for demand adjustment policies to take effect.
The reforms, however, need to be extensive. Unless this happens, the principles of interdependence and mutual responsibility would be further eroded. A  re-commitment to multilateralism is essential to any solution of the current economic crisis.
One positive development in this respect has been the resolve of developing countries to encourage and expand economic co-operation among themselves. Progress in this direction is appreciable, as was evident at the recent Pyongyang meeting of non-aligned countries. The United Nations system can play a valuable role in assisting the promotion of economic co-operation among developing countries. We urge it to do so.
The threats to international peace are manifold. These include not only underdevelopment, to which I have alluded  but also regional conflicts and  importantly  adversarial relations between the super-Powers. That is why the improvement in relations between the super-Powers constitutes a significant step towards the diminution of tension and the creation of an atmosphere propitious to the improvement of interstate relations. In this regard, we applaud the efforts being made by the United States and the Soviet Union to agree on the removal from their arsenals of certain categories of nuclear weapons. Such an accord may not be significant in quantitative terms. It can, however, if pursued with sincerity, represent the beginning of a process which could lead to further agreements on nuclear disarmament. Hopefully, it can also usher in a new relationship between the two States, based not on confrontation but on healthy competition within the framework of collective international co-operation, and based upon respect for each other's social system.
The United Nations must however maintain total and complete disarmament as an issue of central concern. Preparations for the third special session on disarmament must proceed apace to benefit from the current momentum and to ensure that the outcome goes beyond the meagre results achieved in the past.
If all these efforts are successful, resources which are allocated to the preparation for war would naturally be released for other purposes. Such resources should be used for development, especially of the developing countries. In this context Guyana believes that, limited though they were, the results of the recently concluded Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development provide a basis for further dialogue and agreement. We urge all, each Member State, to join in that dialogue.
In the meantime, however, conflicts continue to prevail in several regions of the world. Some of them have so far proved intractable. Others offer solutions on the basis of dialogue and negotiation which take into account the interests of the concerned States.
To speak of the region to which Guyana belongs - Latin America and the Caribbean - the process of a political negotiated solution is now in the ascendancy. That this is so is due in no small measure to the undaunted diplomacy of the Contadora and Support Groups. The agreement signed by the five Presidents of Central America in Guatemala, following the initiative of President Arias Sanchez of Costa Rica, if scrupulously implemented and universally respected, will offer a reasonable chance for peace in the region. We therefore urge all concerned parties, both inside and outside the region, to respect the Guatemala agreement and to co-operate fully in its faithful execution. The agreement is of transcendental significance, and we believe that the United Nations can play a helpful role in the process of implementation.
Earlier this year the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, at a special ministerial meeting of the Co-ordinating Bureau held in the capital of my country, devoted much attention to the situation in Central America and issued the Georgetown appeal for peace in the region. In his welcoming address, the President of Guyana, Comrade Hugh Desmond Hoyte, observed that "peace in Central America is essential to the security of the whole region". Guyana therefore welcomes the positive developments that have since taken place.
It is not without interest that in their attempt to implement the various accords the parties have issued an appeal for immediate economic and technical assistance. This call is in clear recognition that the situation in the area stems not from ideological differences but from the chronic social and economic condition which the States in this region have for so long endured.
Central America is therefore in .many ways a microcosm of the third world which, by and large, suffers from structural deficiencies and which, as a consequence, is generally prone to upheaval. The linkage between stability and underdevelopment is, in Guyana's view, self-evident. It is not difficult to see that many political crises originate from essentially volatile economic and social conditions.
The search for political negotiated solutions to conflicts is being pursued in other regions. The Involvement of the United Nations in such negotiations is a source of satisfaction to Guyana. In this regard, we commend the Secretary-General of our Organization for his tireless efforts in the discharge of the many mandates with which he has been entrusted. We wish him every success.
The continuation of the war between Iran and Iraq is a source of distress to us. We support the most recent resolution of the Security Council, which calls inter alia for a cease-fire, and other efforts which enlarge the prospects for peace in the region.
As regards the Middle East, the quickening of the process towards the convening of the international peace conference, involving the Palestine Liberation Organization, is urgently required if peace is to come to the region. For this peace to be just and durable, the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland in Palestine must be respected, as must the principle of the non-acquisition of territory by force, and the right of all States in the region to live within secure and recognized boundaries.
Likewise, Guyana wishes to encourage the Secretary-General in his patient search for a settlement in Cyprus. The causes of strife, including the continuing presence of foreign troops, must be fully addressed.
Similarly, in Korea, where a long divided people yearn for peaceful reunification, efforts must be intensified to pursue the promising signs of an eventual reconciliation.
Guyana also supports the efforts of the United Nations in bringing about political negotiated solutions to the situations in Afghanistan and Kampuchea. These solutions must be in consonance with well-known principles of this Organization, especially those relating to sovereignty, territorial integrity and self-determination.
Turning to the situation in South Africa, I am reminded that during his trial on the trumped-up charge of treason. Nelson Mandela declared that he was fighting "for a society of equal opportunity". That still remains the objective of the oppressed masses in South Africa. For 75 years they have maintained a resolute and passionate struggle, first seeking change through peaceful means, but later driven by the intransigence of the racist regime in Pretoria to engage in armed struggle. The overall struggle of the South African people has been supported by various States and other sectors and forces in the international community.
Since the last major initiative by the Commonwealth to bring about peaceful change was contemptuously rebuffed and sabotaged by Pretoria, there has been no amelioration of the situation. In fact it has worsened. And the state of emergency has become the norm.
An increasing number of erstwhile supporters within South Africa of so-called separate development are now challenging the efficacy of the system of apartheid. Its collapse is inevitable. At this particular conjuncture, it therefore becomes even more Important to support fully the South African freedom fighters and to continue to give material support to the front-line States, against which Pretoria is prone to unleash its military machine. It is also necessary to strengthen and expand existing arrangements, including sanctions, in order to further isolate South Africa, and weaken and eventually eradicate apartheid.
This same abominable system o£ apartheid and plunder also holds the people of Namibia captive. This Organization has long determined the steps to be taken for Namibia's liberation. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) will, if implemented in all its aspects, speedily and effectively achieve that objective. The scoff laws in South Africa have however remained intransigent. Unfortunately, this attitude is not being discouraged by other States which have a vested interest in the exploitation of Namibia's rich resources and in supporting South Africa's so-called strategic position. Victory for the struggling masses of South Africa and Namibia is not in doubt. We owe it to them, both in this Organization and outside it, to bring the strongest pressure to bear on the racist regime of Pretoria for an early demission from power. In anticipation of the peoples’ victory, we should seek as well, as my President counselled at the eighth Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, in Harare, to assist the people of South Africa and Namibia in preparing themselves to take their rightful place in the international community and to enjoy the full fruits of their independence.
There are also other issues which lend themselves to concerted global action if realistic solutions are to be found. One of those is the protection of the environment. The report of the World Commission on Environment and Development now before the Assembly calls for an immediate return to multilateralism. As the Commission's report states:
"The unity of human needs requires a functioning multilateral system that respects the democratic principle of consent and accepts that not only the Earth but also the world is one". (A/42/427, para. 53)
The awareness of the fragility of the eco-system which has been so dramatically demonstrated in the report must, in Guyana's view, inevitably give new meaning to the concept of collective economic security. The arguments are persuasive and should lend urgency to joint action in resolving the overwhelming problems now confronting us.
In devising appropriate programmes for action, however, there is a need to ensure that developing countries are not penalized for their co-operation; nor should their right to a balanced economic growth be sacrificed. Indeed, when it is considered that the eco-system of the developing countries is necessary for the welfare of the developed world, it is not far-fetched to contemplate some form of compensation for this clear benefit. I urge the relevant committee of the Assembly to give due consideration to this idea as we endeavour to manage the environment properly and thereby ensure the survival of the human race.
Another issue of concern to all of us has already proved susceptible to global co-operation. I refer here to our efforts to combat the dangers of drug abuse, a matter which needs to be addressed in all its aspects - production, trafficking and, importantly, consumption. The results achieved at the Vienna Conference earlier this year demonstrate the value of collective action. The follow-up measures which these results require should not be allowed to languish. We must reinforce joint and national endeavours to find disincentives to the continued production and use of noxious substances.
We have begun the task of reform of the Organization in acknowledgement of today's realities. The prime objective must always be efficiency and the need to make the best use of resources in the interest of all Member States, what will create difficulties is if the process of adjustment is used to achieve or maintain narrow political advantage. Adjustment must be in the interest of mankind; it must be done with a human face, sensitive to the needs of suffering people and responsive to the imperative of equitable development.
Over the years there has been a maturation of the concept of an interdependent world. Nation States themselves are undertaking programmes of structural adjustment, not only to promote the welfare of their own people but also to harmonize their relationships in the wider international community.
For this process of structural adjustment to be fully effective, new concepts of national and collective security would have to be formulated. In such a scheme of things, confrontation should give way to co-operation, and the needs of humanity should be our foremost concern. Put another way, the war ethic must be replaced by one rooted in peace, multilateralism strengthened and greater reliance placed on dialogue and negotiation for conflict resolution, in this context the importance of sovereign equality cannot be overstressed since it should be the axis on which a democratic system revolves.
Enormous obstacles will be encountered in furthering the process. We should not however desist from pursuing our objective, which indeed has become imperative. Guyana is fully committed to this goal. The prospects are exciting. Let us go forward together.