I congratulate Mr. de Pinies, a prominent diplomatic representative of a country with which we are developing mutually beneficial co-operation, on his election to the office of President of the fortieth anniversary session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. I wish him and also the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, every success in their responsible tasks.
I wish also to pay a tribute to his predecessor, Mr. Paul Lusaka, the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Zambia, a country to which we are tied by bonds of friendship, for his strenuous efforts in the past year.
I should like to offer our profound condolences to the people and Government of Mexico in connection with the recent natural disaster that has caused that friendly country such painful losses.
As we solemnly commemorate the 40 years of existence of our Organization, I appear before its supreme body, the General Assembly, with a special feeling of responsibility to emphasize as strongly as I can that today international relations are simply inconceivable without the United Nations. Born in the fire of the struggle of nations to save civilization from fascism, a struggle in which States with different social systems were united, the United Nations has engraved on its shild the noble words of the Charter which have become a symbol of its era: "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
It was this fundamental idea that a Czechoslovak representative took up when he stated at the time of the Organization's birth:
"Whoever speaks of the inevitability of the next war is out of order and going beyond the bounds of the realistic and idealistic realms of our adventure, the greatest ever undertaken by mere mortals. It is called United Nations".
He are proud that Czechoslovakia, a true ally of the great alliance and of the Soviet Union which played a decisive part in the defeat of Nazism, contributed its pis re to the great victory.
Our people, one of the first victims of Hitler ism, rose in arms against it both at home and abroad. Our troops fought on the side of the Allies at Kharkov, Kiev and in the Carpathian mountains, defended Paris and London, African Tobruk and Benghazi and took part in the invasion of Normandy. The name of the Czech village of Lidice is still mentioned in the same breath with Coventry and Oradour. It was Prague, the capital of our country, where the fighting on the European continent came to an end on the last day of that horrible war. As we were hastening to participate enthusiastically in the historic moment of the founding of our Organization, the Soviet Army was still waging on our territory a fierce struggle against the occupying forces. During the six dark years from the black days of Munich to 9 May 1945, hundreds of thousands of human beings from our country were sacrificed on the altar of the common victory.
Ever since that time, guided by its unwavering desire to cooperate unswervingly within the ranks of the United Nations and true to the objectives of its Charter, we have always accorded top priority to the supreme task of averting war, safeguarding peace, strengthening international security, achieving disarmament and developing co-operation in all fields. We have always been sincerely pleased by all its successes and have never been indifferent to its failures.
And so, for the first time in the history of mankind, we have a universal world Organization. As the Secretary-General states in this year's report on the work of the Organization,
"it is the best place to avoid the worst and to strive for improvement". (A/40/1, p. 3)
To that end the Organization has done good work, perhaps far better than we realize. It therefore deserves our recognition. How it should use all its great experience to become even more effective, to enhance its activities in the political and security-building spheres, to deepen and broaden co-operation in the economic, social, legal; cultural and humanitarian fields and to become more flexible, using all the existing potential and doing away with elements of formalism, so as to achieve a general strengthening of its position and role in international relations. The declaration adopted at the solemn meeting of the Security Council is a worthy promise thereof and at the same time a challenge to us all.
In the promotion of peace, international security and the peaceful coexistence of States with different social systems Europe plays an irreplaceable role. It was there that in this century two atrocious world wars broke out. Yet it was there also that the policy of detente, which has taken such deep roots in the consciousness of the people, came into being. This was demonstrated especially at the recent meeting held on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Helsinki Conference. That meeting confirmed the vitality of the principles of the Final Act. It proved that European countries unquestionably prefer revitalizing detente to paralyzing it and they have rejected the practices of confrontation. Attempts to impose such practices have ended in clear failure.
For our part, we intend to continue to contribute to the broadening of political dialog among States with different social systems. The dynamism of our bilateral contacts with European countries is a most striking example of this.
Having drawn a lesson from the troubles of the adolescence of the policy of detente, all participating States should redouble their efforts to extend it into the military sphere. This will not be an easy task. It has had to surmount many obstacles on its road so far and there are many pot-holes and ditches still awaiting it.

However, in the post-Hiroshima era, we cannot afford to wait and see what happens or what might happen. The situation requires resolution based on mature political will. Political leaders are duty-bound to make decisions that the peoples of Europe deserve to show ability worthy of historic statesmanlike judgment.
As the deliberations of the Stockholm Conference continue, indications of the possibility that its conclusion may be successful grow stronger. We consider that it has now readied the stage of clarifying the broad framework that would make it possible to proceed soon to substantive negotiations about a concluding document. We advocate the formulation of significant and effective military-political and military-technical confidence- and security-building measures, including a treaty on the renunciation of the use of military force in relations among States, a treaty that is already beginning to take shape. In this spirit, together with our
allies, we have submitted a number of working papers with specifically drafted proposals. We hope they will meet with the reception they deserve.
The results of the Helsinki meeting are encouraging. We hope that other meetings within the process of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe - the cultural forum in Budapest, the seminar on contacts between people in Bern, and particularly the next follow-up meeting to be held in Vienna in the autumn of 1986 - will have a similarly constructive spirit.
Positive movement could also be achieved in the talks on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe. What is required here is responsible consideration by the Western participants of the far-reaching compromise proposals of the Socialist countries. In Vienna, too, it is necessary to remain within the realm of reason and to give up any attempts at demonizing the other side. In April, when we extended the validity of the Warsaw Treaty, we reaffirmed our readiness to dissolve that alliance if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bloc were willing to do the same - and that still holds good today.
We welcome the mutual movement in the dialog between the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMSA) and the European Economic Community (EEC) that has been noted recently. We expect it to play the role of a constructive catalyst in developing equal and mutually advantageous economic co-operation between the two largest European integrated groupings, in the spirit of the Final Act.
Although it is said that some signs of a thaw have lately begun to appear in the international situation, the political horizon still remains covered with clouds and tensions abound. The blame lies with the imperialist circles. Driven by a vision of military superiority, they have been escalating the arms race, trying to add to it a space dimension. The implementation of such plans would considerably increase the danger of nuclear war. Further immense resources, badly needed to solve the urgent tasks of the economic and social development of all States, primarily the developing countries, would be cast into the abyss of the arms race. If it were really meant seriously that "a new nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought", then the attitude of those who are responsible for it would have to be different. In this situation, the primary task, as we see it, is for all Member states to unite their efforts to avert war. This requires, first of all, unconditionally preventing the extension of the arms race into outer space, halting it on earth and limiting and reducing nuclear armaments until their complete elimination.
Czechoslovakia is the third country, after the Soviet Union and the United States, from which a citizen has entered outer space. It is actively participating in peaceful space programs and fully supports the idea of "star.peace" as opposed to the threat of "star wars".
Let mankind proceed to grandiose projects industrializing the space around Earth. Let mankind create new materials and products in conditions of weightlessness. The implementation of such plans worthy of the pioneering spirit, of mankind is, however, possible only in conditions of non-militarization of outer space. Space technology must be placed exclusively at the service of all, the entire human race. It must not be monopolized as a destructive force, as happened in the mid-1940s with nuclear energy.
The evil intention to militarize outer space threatens to have immeasurable consequences. Today it is the greatest danger to peace. This is how the overwhelming majority of mankind feels, as demonstrated by the statements of so many speakers from this rostrum.
Nevertheless, some politicians try to convince the public that this is merely a new stage of research that, supposedly, would naturally lead to the reduction of nuclear armaments and eventually eliminate nuclear war from society. To say something like that is to be completely out of touch with reality. If the project of the so-called strategic defense initiative is a detonator for an even more dangerous stage of the arms race, then what is called its scientific-research phase must be viewed in the same way. what is involved are the first components of a project for space weapons designed to allow for a first nuclear strike that would go unpunished. The argument that this peace-destabilizing concept strengthens strategic stability simply cannot be maintained.
The introduction of any sophisticated technology into the military sphere cannot benefit the security of one side if it poses a threat to others. There is only one criterion: mutual security or mutual insecurity - for all.
And so we attach all the greater importance to the Soviet-United States talks on space and nuclear weapons in Geneva. They would definitely be favorably affected by the adoption of the Soviet proposals to institute for the duration of the talks a moratorium on the development - including scientific research work -testing and deployment of offensive space weapons, to freeze strategic offensive weapons of both sides, to halt the deployment of united States intermediate-range missiles in Europe and the expansion of respective counter-measures. Finally it would be most beneficial for the talks if the United States were to join in the Soviet moratorium on all nuclear explosions declared by
Mikhail Sergeivich Gorbachev. It is a truly reasonable initiative, simple enough to be understood by everybody. So what is wrong with it? It just paves the way for a total ban on nuclear tests and thus for the stopping the modernization of nuclear weaponry. It is a good example for other States that possess nuclear weapons.
Regrettably, however, the response of the other side is negative. It reveals an absolute lack of good political will, reflecting an attempt to conceal the direct relationship between nuclear tests and the program to militarize outer space.
So what is there to say? The main point is that once and for all one must abandon the fatal illusion that the development and production of destructive arms systems would force the socialist countries to give up on not allowing the existing approximate strategic balance to be upset.
Czechoslovakia advocates a ban on all kinds of weapons designed for use against objects in outer space and from space against the earth. It calls for the elimination of space from the sphere of the arms race, and that this become an inviolable norm of the policy of all States and a generally recognized international obligation. We therefore regard as innovative and most timely the. proposal by the Soviet Union on international co-operation in the peaceful exploitation of outer space under conditions of its non-militarization, an item that has been included on our agenda. We support its idea that the General Assembly should convene, by 1987 at latest, an international conference to be attended by States with significant space potential and other interested countries, that could agree upon the basic directions and principles of peaceful co-operation in space. Equally constructive is the suggestion that the conference should consider the question of establishing a world space organization for the activities of States in peaceful space activities. Implementation of those projects would undoubtedly give man the feeling that he needs so much, that he has firm ground under his feet.
We cherish the hope that in spite of all obstacles the forthcoming Soviet-United States summit level talks will make it possible to look to the future, not only of those two large countries, but of all mankind. Certainly much can be remedied if both sides are ready to compromise, but that means discussing, not the myths and stereotypes of which everyone has grown weary, it means focusing on the true problems of the world community and considering them on the basis of equality, true equality. After all, neither of the two sides has ever lost to the other in a war, or even a battle, and moreover they owe each other absolutely nothing. We welcome the significant talks of Foreign Minister Shevardnadze in Washington, being convinced that Geneva in November will fulfill what is expected of it.
It is our view that achieving the desired goal - a world free from nuclear weapons - requires a speedy formulation and adoption of a program of nuclear disarmament. Nostalgic yearning for global hegemony does not correspond in today's world with the laws, of nuclear physics. And so such a program should encompass moral and political, as well as legal but, above all, practical and far-reaching material measures based on the principles of reciprocity, equality and equal security. It would offer a historic opportunity to set up a basis for a peaceful entry into the twenty-first century, and with a completely different nuclear strategy and with a significant reduction of the risk that civilization may burn down in the fire of a nuclear apocalypse.
Of course, no agreement has any chance of success if a mutual deep understanding of the catastrophic nature of a nuclear conflict does not develop and if a political will and mutual restraint do not change false illusions or unrealistically calculated intentions. That is where the rational core of a new thinking in the nuclear age lies.
We consistently support also the proposal that all nuclear Powers pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons. We advocate both a quantitative and qualitative freeze on nuclear weapons and we value the joint declaration of the Heads of State and Government of Argentina, India, Mexico, Greece, Sweden and Tanzania adopted in January this year in New Delhi, which emphasizes the extraordinarily strong topicality of those issues today.
We attach great importance to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a significant factor strengthening international security. We identify ourselves with the results of the third Review Conference. They have confirmed that that document is one of the fundamental pillars of the international legal system. It is a major obstacle to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, at the same time, it is an instrument that does provide sufficient opportunity for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We believe the Treaty should be made fully universal so that it becomes even more effective.
An integral part of the non-proliferation regime is that existing nuclear-weapon-free zones be respected and new ones created. We support the proposal for a nuclear-free corridor in Central Europe, which directly involves Czechoslovakia. We also support such zones in the northern part of our continent and in the Balkans. We are ready to support any constructive proposals on this question that relate to other parts of the world also.
We also advocate the speedy convening of a conference to discuss the question of making the Indian Ocean a zone of peace.
As to another dangerous kind of weapon of mass destruction, chemical arms, we advocate a world-wide ban. Regrettably, practical progress on this question at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva has been blocked by the obstructionist attitude of certain well-known circles. Moreover, the United States decision to resume production of binary chemical ammunition destined mainly for Western Europe makes this situation even more difficult. In the circumstances, we consider it necessary to take parallel steps at the regional level, particularly in Europe. The Governments of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the German Democratic Republic proposed therefore to the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that we conclude an agreement on establishing a chemical-weapon-free zone that at the initial stage would include the territories of those three States. We are glad to hear from the statement made here by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany that it is studying our proposal, and we hope that it will take a favorable view of it. For our part, we are ready to open the respective negotiations as soon as possible.
We support measures to prevent any increase in military expenditures, and indeed reduce them, so that the resources made available can be spent on social and economic development, particularly in the developing countries.
We continue to attach great importance to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva as the only multilateral disarmament forum of a global nature. We welcome the progress that was made there at this year's session, as demonstrated, for example, by the establishment of the Ad Hoc Committee on Outer Space. Regrettably, some Western States have been trying to transform the Conference gradually from an organ of negotiation into a mere debating club. They have been blocking the establishment of working groups on issues of priority importance, and obstructing progress on questions under consideration. We are convinced that this fortieth anniversary session of the General Assembly should give States participating in the Conference a strong impetus to mobilize their political will and lead the Geneva negotiations out of its long-lasting stagnation.
As far as hotbeds of tension are concerned, I should like to mention first of all the situation in Central America, where overt imperialism has been escalating its aggressive action, including military actions, against the sovereign Republic of Nicaragua, against the national liberation movement in El Salvador, and against other countries. We respect the constructive position taken by the Nicaraguan Government. We value the activity of the Contadora Group and also the support given to it by other Latin American countries.
We would insistently urge the Security Council to adopt effective sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa. The new waves of terror perpetrated by the racists against the majority, the African population, reveal that the so-called reforms carried out by the Pretoria regime do not change by one whit the disgraceful and shameful nature of apartheid. The situation does not allow of any delay. Apartheid must be swept away from the face of Africa as soon as possible. We resolutely advocate the immediate granting of independence to the people of Namibia on the basis of the implementation of the relevant decisions of the United
Nations, including the resolutions of the Security Council. The latest aggression by South Africa against the sovereign People's Republic of Angola, has just confirmed once again that there can be no peace in that region as long as the apartheid regime exists. We condemn that aggression as a ruthless manifestation of the policy of State terrorism. We express our full support for the courageous struggle waged by the people of Angola in defending the independence of their homeland.
In the Middle East current developments once again show clearly that the policy of separate steps on the Camp David model cannot lead to a just solution. Such a policy is possible only at the cost of the interests and national rights of not only the Palestinian people but all Arab nations. A way out of the present situation caused by Israeli aggression is offered in the unified course of action proposed by the Arab States and adopted by them at the summit conference in Fez. The principles agreed on there could be put into practice through the convening of an international conference on the Middle East, as proposed by the Soviet Union. Naturally, a condition for this would be the participation of all parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and recognition of their right to establish their own independent State. We would also express our full support for the efforts to restore the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon.
We strongly condemn the most recent aggressive act of Israel whose victim at this time was Tunisia. Unfortunately, the aggressor is still enjoying the cynical support of allies in the strategic alliance it belongs to.
We advocate a swift halt to the Iraq-Iran conflict. If there is good political will, the disputed questions can be settled by peaceful negotiation.
That would be in harmony with the interests of the people of both countries and also the people of the whole region. He resolutely condemn the attempts by imperialism to misuse that conflict in order to increase its military presence in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean.
It is our firm view that the normalization of the situation around Afghanistan is possible only if the right of its people to independent development is fully respected and if an end is put to armed as well as other interference in the internal affairs of that country. We regard as useful the process of negotiations between the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and Pakistan through the intermediary of the representative of the Secretary-General. It would be beneficial if the negotiations proceeded to the stage of direct talks.
As to the situation in South-East Asia, we support the proposals of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea aimed at transforming South-East Asia into a zone of peace, stability and co-operation. We consider that the only effective way of settling the problems of the region lies through political dialog, especially between the IndoChinese States and the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). We regard as an absolutely just step, corresponding to reality, that the people's Republic of Kampuchea be represented in the United Nations.
We reaffirm our full support for the efforts of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea for peaceful reunification of Korea on democratic principles, without external interference. We also support its demands for the withdrawal of all foreign troops stationed in South Korea and the transformation of the Korean peninsula into a nuclear-free-weapon zone. A good basis for the settlement of the Korean question would be the resolution adopted at the thirtieth session of the United Nations General Assembly on the initiative of the People's Democratic Republic of Korea.
We are convinced that the strengthening of stability in the world would be substantially promoted by implementing a number of well-known initiatives to transform the whole of Asia into a zone of peace and security. This requires the endeavors of all Asian States, regardless their social system, up to the possible establishment of an all-Asian forum to consider the entire complex of issues involving the safeguarding of peaceful coexistence and good-neighborly relations on that continent, something along the lines of what happened in Europe at the Helsinki Conference.
We fully support a peaceful and equitable settlement of the question of Cyprus. That would mean that Cyprus could remain an independent, sovereign, territorially integral, united and non-aligned State, free from all foreign interference and military presence.
It is a sad reality that today, 40 years after the founding of the United Nations and 25 years after the adoption of the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, the peoples of a large number of Territories are still denied their fundamental and inalienable right to freedom and independence. That is why we have advocated, repeatedly and emphatically, an immediate eradication of all remnants of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations, including neo-colonialism.
Our Organization has been participating to a significant extent in the solution of international economic and social problems. It has gradually established organs, organizations and specialized agencies that co-ordinate economic, trade, scientific and technical co-operation. It has also provided a framework for the adoption of important multilateral instruments regulating that co-operation.
Unfortunately, the principles embodied therein have been constantly violated. Together with many developing countries we have for a number of years been pointing out the need to safeguard economic security. We condemn trade embargoes, discriminatory measures, sanctions or the conditioning of economic and humanitarian assistance on political concessions.
The relations between the indebted developing countries and their creditors cannot be narrowed down to the rather primitive bookkeeping formula of "debits" and "credits". After all, they are the result of the centuries-old process of the exploitation of African, Asian and Latin American countries by colonialism and neo-colonialism, and, also, they are the result of unprecedented manipulation of the terms of credit redemption. Let us remember that in the Middle Ages in Europe, usurers were punished for practicing usury or machinations with credit and ruthless fleecing of debtors by severe penalties, including burning at the stake and impalement.
We advocate complete normalization of the credit policies. We fully support the proposal presented here by the Prime Minister of the Polish People's Republic, Wojciech Jaruzelski, that, under the aegis of the Secretary-General, an international debt and development research centre be established.
We have been constantly striving for a restructuring of international economic relations based on just and democratic foundations and creating conditions for equal co-operation. Reaffirming it, we proposed a programme of action designed to remedy the wrongs done in those relations. It was put forward at the summit meeting of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance. It is an open offer to all countries.
We are pleased that the proposals emanating from the recent Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries in Luanda are oriented in the same direction. That broad peace-loving group has been playing an ever more important and, indeed, irreplaceable role in the present difficult situation in the world today. We value its work in the struggle against the danger of nuclear catastrophe, its struggle for a peaceful outer space, disarmament, development of broad mutually advantageous
international co-operation, peaceful settlement of conflicts, and the elimination of the hotbeds of tension throughout the world.
If we are to talk about human rights, then we must say that that is an ideal as old as the human race itself. If they are to be valid in all parts of the world, throughout the globe, why are just some selected countries branded with the mark of Cain as alleged offenders while an ideal of democratic perfection is attributed to others, as political needs dictate?
Therefore I ask: are those who are so eager to point their finger at others free of sin themselves? Have they embodied in their constitutions the right to work for all their fellow human beings? Do they grant them the right to free education? To free medical care? To a time of rest from work? To pensions? Have they ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights or on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights? Are they not, in their search for wrong answers to right questions, seeing a speck of dust in someone else's eye while failing to see the beam in their own eyes, as the biblical saying goes? It must be repeated again and again that human rights are always a concrete combination of civil and political rights with fundamental economic and social rights and that each country has its own concept of them. This fact must be taken into consideration. Otherwise we shall continue to be trapped in the vicious circle of irrationality.
I can assure the General Assembly that Czechoslovakia, committed to the lofty mission of our Organization, will continue to pursue its noble goals. As the President of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Gustav Husak, said,
"He shall continue to struggle to avert the threat of war, to achieve disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, to achieve the peaceful settlement of international problems on the basis of the principles of equality and equal security and to bring international relations back to the path of detente and constructive co-operation".


I must begin by expressing the profound regret of the New Zealand people at the terrible earthquakes in Mexico. Our thoughts are with the people of Mexico. New Zealand is a country which is subject to earthquakes - we know the devastation they can cause.
It is a privilege and a pleasure for me to address the Assembly over which Ambassador de Pinies presides. I first came to the United Nations as a student intern in the 1960s. By then Ambassador de Pinies had already been a prominent figure here for some years. It is entirely appropriate that he should now have been elected to the Assembly's highest office. I offer him my congratulations, and the full support of my delegation for his efforts to make this fortieth session a fruitful and memorable one.
As we celebrate this fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, the thoughts of all of us must turn to reflect on the aspirations and objectives that were pursued with such energy and confidence when the Charter of this Organization was drawn up. For a New Zealand representative it is natural to remember with pride that our Prime Minister of the day, the Right Honorable Peter Fraser, contributed to this original process with statesmanlike vigor. Today especially I wish to recall and pay homage to the leading role he played in seeking to assert the rights of small countries to the maximum possible protection under the Charter against the vicissitudes of international life and in the aftermath of two World Wars.
Now, forty years on, this is no less cogent a problem. My Government, by irony of fate, finds itself at this rostrum again concerned to see maintained, in difficult circumstances, the sovereign rights of a small state against the increasingly complex and sophisticated pressures that are generated from larger
countries within the international community.
It continues to be ray Government's apprehension that, forty years on, the atomic weapon has kept its malign pace along with the existence of the United Nations. No less than in 1945, the horrific atomic shadow still falls across all
our proceedings.
In saying that, I am not expressing a platitude. My point is that the continued development of this weapon over the lifetime of our organization has in fact succeeded in distorting the fabric of international life. In our own experience it conditions the sovereign freedoms we had thought in 1945 were once and for all assured to us. At the very least as policies of power are pursued it has impinged on standards or international morality and behavior.

In such a political climate, it is natural that smaller countries may turn to the possibilities of collective self-help that the Charter of the United Nations encourages. It is indeed to the advantage of the United Nations that each country contributes the perspective of that part of the world in which it finds itself -the South Pacific - there has over recent years been a growing perception that great Power rivalries could start to extend to our region. The fact is, however, that the strategic circumstances of the South Pacific are not those of the northern hemisphere; nor has the South Pacific so far been an area of great-Power confrontation. It need never be; and our own security is best served by keeping it so.
Against that background the countries in the region have acted. We have set in being the best practical measure of agreed arms control available to us to guard against the emplacement of nuclear weapons in our midst. As was announced earlier this year, the South Pacific Forum countries endorsed and opened for signature on 6 August, the anniversary of Hiroshima Day, a treaty establishing the world's second nuclear-weapon-free zone in a permanently inhabited area. This South Pacific nuclear free zone Treaty signals in no uncertain terms the deeply anti-nuclear sentiments of our peoples, and their desire to live in peace and independence and to run their own affairs in accordance with their own wishes.
It is basic to their peace of mind that there should be no use, testing or stationing of nuclear explosives in the South Pacific, and that the activities of the South Pacific countries themselves should fully respect and fulfill the aims of such applicable international measures as the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
To these ends, all parties to the South Pacific nuclear free zone Treaty undertake not to possess, manufacture or acquire nuclear explosive devices anywhere, nor allow them to be stationed on their territory. They also undertake to prevent the diversion of fissionable material to non-peaceful purposes, and not to dump radioactive waste at sea in the zone.
Under the Treaty, South Pacific countries retain their unqualified sovereign rights to decide for themselves, consistently with their support for these objectives, their security rights, and such questions as the access to their ports and airfields by vessels and aircraft of their countries. The Treaty is not, therefore, some sort of disguised attempt to undermine existing military alliances. It is a determined effort to ensure that the South Pacific is not riven by the tensions which have overshadowed so many other parts of the world.
To the South, the Zone borders the area of another and much older agreement -the Antarctic Treaty. We value that Treaty not just because of the nuclear-free and demilitarized zone it establishes for Antarctica but because for 25 years it has effectively guaranteed the stability of the region to the South of New Zealand. It remains the only possible guarantee that that region will continue to remain free from international rivalry and conflict.
To the East, the new zone borders the area covered by the Treaty of Tlatelolco. The joining of the areas covered by that Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty with the vast area covered by the new Treaty means that a large part of the Southern hemisphere has declared its determination to be free of nuclear weapons. As my own Prime Minister said last year to this General Assembly:
"This initiative represents, I believe, a major advance for the region. It would not, we know, spare us from the consequences of nuclear war but, when in place, it would significantly strengthen the existing measures, both global and regional, to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons." (A/39/PV.7, p. 11) Now in 1985, with the Treaty concluded and awaiting in due course its entry into force, we see it as a fitting contribution to this anniversary of the United Nations that we are celebrating.
I should add that the South Pacific Forum countries hope that the five nuclear States will, after consultation with them, sign the relevant Protocols to this Treaty. Thereby they would agree not to use, or threaten to use, nuclear explosive devices against any country or territory in the zone. They would also undertake not to test nuclear explosive devices there.
In this anniversary year of the United Nations, it is painful to have to point out once again that one of the nuclear-weapon states continues to test nuclear explosives in the South Pacific, against the manifest and long-established wish of all the countries in the area that this activity should cease.
These nuclear testing activities have this year led to a new turn of events in the region which, because of its gravity, I am bound to bring to your attention.
Politically motivated offenses and terrorism have been virtually unknown in New Zealand in the past. But the scene has changed as a result of the incident in July 1985 in which the Greenpeace vessel "Rainbow Warrior" was sunk at its berth in Auckland, New Zealand, by a bomb attack which killed a crew member. The circumstances indicated international terrorism. It was well known that the vessel was intended to sail to French Polynesia to protest against the continuation of nuclear explosions at Mururoa Atoll. The incident has gained world-wide attention, and the New Zealand Government has made known its determination to bring those responsible to full account for this outrage. Large scale investigations by the New Zealand police are still under way. Within New Zealand, two French nationals have been arrested and charged with murder, arson and conspiracy, and are due to come before the court in New Zealand in November this year.
I shall not expand upon this notorious incident in detail, except to note that the latest public pronouncement by the Prime Minister of France, after the French Government's own most recent investigations, has acknowledged that agents of the French secret services did indeed sink the "Rainbow Warrior", acting under orders to that effect. It had earlier been established that, for the purpose of surveillance of the Greenpeace fleet, elements of French military forces had been deliberately introduced into New Zealand, under orders from their Government, without the permission of the Government of New Zealand and in derogation of our sovereignty.
Small States must place reliance on international law and we must rely on the protection which the international community, through the United Nations, can give us in circumstances of this serious nature.
Inquiries into the "Rainbow warrior" incident are still being pursued, and the Government of New Zealand is concerned that a traditionally good and highly valued relationship with the Government of France should continue. I am bound to note that the New Zealand Government addressed on 6 September 1985 a formal communication to the Government of France.
In that message New Zealand has reserved its legal position and its rights of action under international law, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, with respect to matters arising from this unfortunate incident. That is a clear enunciation of our position in relation to an issue which is shown to implicate the responsibility of the French Government.
It is certainly my Government's hope that the most recent statement by the French Prime Minister will provide a basis for resolving outstanding questions . between the two Governments arising out of the affair. And I am very pleased to report to the Assembly today that only last evening I met with the French Minister for Foreign Relations, Mr. Dumas, at the New Zealand Mission to the United Nations. He began to discuss possible ways to find solutions to problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior incident, and we have agreed to have another meeting within the next few days.
By virtue of their vulnerability, smaller States have often felt that they must take additional steps to preserve their Charter rights. In the years following the Second World War, a number of countries, including New Zealand, moved, consistently with the Charter, into defensive treaty alliances. This has not meant, however, that countries such as New Zealand have forsaken their right to think for themselves or have abandoned significant sovereign rights. That was not intended.
New Zealand, for example, as a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has forgone the possession of nuclear weapons. We have also declared unambiguously that we do not want any country to defend New Zealand with nuclear weapons. In short, my Government does not seek to be part of any calculation that involves the accumulation of nuclear weapons. We will not have any nuclear weapons on our territory. We will not allow any to be brought in. And ships that are nuclear armed will not come into New Zealand ports.
As will be clear from what I have already said in relation to the South Pacific nuclear-free-zone Treaty, we have taken our own stand on principle, because in the South Pacific there is no need for a build-up of nuclear armaments - indeed, the reverse is true.
The stand we have taken is fully consistent with New Zealand's active membership of the Western community. We see our participation in that community, our partnership with our friends and neighbors in the South Pacific and our support for this world Organization as cumulatively strengthening the fabric of peace in our part of the world.
In practical terms, the effect of the re-evaluation of our interests that we have undertaken will be a new concentration of New Zealand's efforts on our immediate neighborhood. This will involve an expansion of New Zealand's political, economic and defense activities in the South Pacific region and the assertion of an increasingly active role there. This new and strengthened regional approach should provide the basis for a continued, sound and stable relationship with Australia and the United States based on a clear definition of New Zealand's interests and a policy of self-reliance.
Events of recent years lead one to ponder whether the reiteration of the ideals of our Charter over the past 40 years has not bred a measure of easy familiarity, even of complacency, against which we should be very much on our guard in the period ahead. Even those States which themselves generated the great national revolutions - revolutions which inspired the League of Nations and our Charter - have only imperfectly acknowledged in practice the full implications of the existence of newly independent States and the democratic rights those States are perfectly entitled to see maintained and protected.
I hope that our ocean region will not be vulnerable in that respect. It certainly need not be, and it is already organized in regional ways to assert its own distinctive voice internationally*
Here, the United Nations can take its due credit in helping a tide of decolonization which has changed the political map of the Pacific dramatically. In 1945 no island country was independent; in 1985 12 are. United Nations stewardship has often been instrumental in the peaceful achievement of self-determination. The Charter, as well as the 1960 Declaration on decolonization, provided the guiding beacons for the navigators who plotted the course towards independence, and the Special Committee of 24 has monitored progress. It still continues to do so, and New Zealand will be happy to receive next year a Visiting Mission from the Committee to the last remaining overseas responsibility which New Zealand has - the island community of Tokelau.
Decolonization in the South Pacific is not yet complete. In Micronesia to the north, lengthy negotiations per many years with the United States have produced Compacts of Free Association which have the support of the relevant peoples of the Trust Territory. We do not believe that unilateral changes should be made now to the agreed definition of the future relationship between the United States and the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia. We will, however, look for and support an early termination of the Trusteeship Agreement in respect of those parts of the Trust Territory, in accordance with the expressed wishes of the peoples. We look forward to welcoming the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau into membership of the South Pacific Forum before too long.
Further south, the region watches anxiously the difficulties faced by the people of New Caledonia in building a consensus for independence in that country. The rights and aspirations of the indigenous Kanak people must be met in the context of New Caledonia's multiracial society. We regret the violence and loss of life which have occurred over the past year. New Zealand supports the present plan for the establishment of regional councils and a congress, leading to a referendum on self-determination before the end of 1987. We welcome the recognition by the administering Power, France, that independence is the logical outcome of this process. It will be important to ensure that the steps outlined are adhered to. The Kanaks have been disappointed too often in the past. Only by following a predictable and short pathway to independence can further disruption and violence be avoided.
I have already noted that political emancipation and the assertion of a say in their own destiny have led the South Pacific countries to early recognition of the desirability of co-operation with each other. Political independence in the Pacific, as elsewhere, is not automatically accompanied by economic self-determination, but acting together has strengthened the voice of the region in international forums. And it can assist in tackling some of the intractable problems arising from smallness, isolation and a scarcity of resources. The island States depend heavily on external assistance. The international price of copra and sugar has a profound affect on people's daily lives. Some significant regional efforts have been made under the auspices of the South Pacific Forum to improve trade access, shipping, telecommunications and the knowledge and control of marine mineral and fishing resources.
Distant water fishing nations have been less respectful of the region's main resource in the past. This situation is improving, largely as a result of the evasiveness of the Pacific Forum nations, and important multilateral negotiations with the Government of the United States on a treaty regulating fishing are currently under way. A successful conclusion will make possible control of purse seiner activity within the 200-mile economic zones of Pacific signatories, and eliminate an area of serious friction. New Zealand looks to the United Nations and other international bodies to continue to help is overcoming the problems of economic security for the very small island States, in support of the region's own efforts to do so.
One issue on which the countries of the South Pacific are united is that of racial discrimination. We all have multiracial societies; we are all committed to making racial harmony the foundation for our nation-building. It follows that we are all totally opposed to the systematic racial discrimination that is practiced in South Africa under the name of apartheid. Since my Government came to office last year we have demonstrated our commitment to that cause: the South Africans have closed their consulate in Wellington, and a proposed rugby tour of South Africa has been canceled. All New Zealanders are appalled the rising tide of violence that is threatening to engulf South Africa. The South African Government must be persuaded to institute the necessary reforms before it is too late. It must be brought to realize that it cannot maintain apartheid by force. It must talk unconditionally to the leaders of the black majority. It must accept that racial partnership offers the only hope for the future of that tormented country. All of us must do whatever we can in a concerted way to produce this result. New Zealand's contacts with South Africa, whether economic or otherwise, are now minimal. I need hardly say that we shall readily comply with any additional sanctions imposed by the international community;
I have focused on practical issues of importance to our Pacific neighborhood - because it is in workable solutions to those issues that the elements lie for continued stable and peaceful development in the South Pacific. He are aware of the larger dimensions to all these problems, and notably of the tensions that impede the prospect of achieving genuine disarmament in our time.
Implicit in what I said earlier is that my part of the world is by no means impressed either with the speed of the global disarmament process or with the failure of the nuclear Powers to read an agreement on limiting their nuclear arsenals.
In the General Assembly last year my Government gave expression to the conviction amongst New Zealanders, as amongst peoples everywhere, that nuclear weapons expose to annihilation those whom they purport to protect; that each new development in nuclear weaponry opens up a more alarming and a potentially more destabilizing prospect than the last. There are already more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy us all many times over. Yet the number goes on increasing. The dilemma is recognized universally. TO control the spread of nuclear weapons and eventually to eliminate them completely are goals of the greatest importance. Where those who have them and those who do not seem to differ is in the sense of urgency. And it is to the United Nations that smaller countries such as my own must look to express that agonizing conviction, which has so recently been voiced by the vast majority of countries assembled at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference just concluded in Geneva.
A year age the Soviet Union agreed to take up the offer of the United States to resume bilateral arias control negotiations, with the goal of leading to the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere. My Government greatly welcomed that move. The issues are complex. We know only too well that there will be no easy or necessarily quick solutions. But solutions are not beyond the skills of negotiation if the political will is there. New Zealand calls on the negotiating parties to pursue their task with good faith and the utmost urgency. The time is past for picking around the edges of the agenda or for diversionary proposals -time-bound and shrouded in propaganda.
We would view with the deepest concern any prospect of competition between the major Powers extending into yet another environment - outer space. But we do not accept that there can be no progress in the talks on strategic weapons and intermediate-range nuclear forces as long as there is no agreement on outer space. The talks must not be held hostage in this way.
Much hangs on the meeting that will take place shortly between President Reagan and General-Secretary Gorbachev. We most earnestly hope for a successful outcome. We do not for a moment underestimate the complexities of the issues the two leaders must deal with. But we urge them to set a framework for a new co-operation from which the negotiations in Geneva may derive the momentum they need to reach agreements to stop the arms race.
At the same time, the efforts of the international community towards meaningful international arms control agreements must continue. The Conference on Disarmament addresses many important issues. No task is more difficult than to forge reliable instruments of international law. But progress in the Conference on Disarmament is, at best, haltingly slow. We urge it to get on with its tasks with commitment and determination.
This Assembly considers many disarmament and arms control proposals in the course of its deliberations. Many of these recommend what is practical and achievable. Some are symptomatic only of an ideological divide.
One of the most serious proposals before the Assembly will again be the draft resolution, jointly sponsored by New Zealand end Australia, urging the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban. A comprehensive test ban, banning all testing in all environments permanently, is regarded by virtually all States as the most immediate and practical step that can be taken to halt and then reverse the arms race. Balanced, practical, verifiable, it will be a major restraint on the spread of nuclear weapons. It will straitjacket the development of new types of weapons without undermining existing strategic balances. It will inhibit compulsive competitiveness among the nuclear Powers.
On two occasions, in the early sixties and in the late seventies, agreement was almost achieved on a comprehensive test ban. We have been disappointed by the setbacks which have prevented such a prohibition from being put in place. My delegation will again seek the means to encourage and speed up this work.
We are celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. Time has not produced universal contentment with this Organization. Some of the criticisms which have been made arise from exaggerated and unrealistic expectations. As the Secretary-General reminds us in his latest annual report, the United Nations is not a super-State. It cannot do more than its Members will allow it to do. The policies of Member States have so far prevented the Organization from exercising some of the powers given it by the Charter. They have also prevented it from achieving some of its fundamental purposes. Those are facts.
It is also a fact that the Charter remains the only universally accepted basis of international order. The principles it enshrines are generally recognized today, as they were 40 years ago, to be essential for world peaces and those principles are the foundations of the international regime under which we all live - a regime which, with all its failings, gives individual countries and peoples more freedom than they have ever had before. The United Nations is today the beacon of hope for all small nations. It is their democratic voice by which they can express their fears and their aspirations.
The essential function of this Organization is to uphold the principles of the Charter. First in importance is the principle that "all Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force". Living, as we do, under the threat of nuclear annihilation, we have as strong a common interest as ever in supporting the United Nations and helping to achieve this, its most elusive, but its moat vital, objective.


It gives me great pleasure. Sir, to begin my statement by congratulating you on your election to the presidency of this session which coincides with the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. We are gratified by the great confidence placed in you through your election since we highly appreciate the close ties of friendship that bind our country to your great country, as well as your praiseworthy record in the promotion of the purposes for which the United Nations was established.
I wish to express our sincere condolences and sympathy to the friendly people and Government of Mexico on the tragic calamity which has struck Mexico in the last few days while it was pursuing its efforts towards reconstruction and development. I am confident that I express the sentiments of all delegations present here when I reaffirm our solidarity with the friendly people of Mexico and reiterate that we stand by them while they are facing this distressing ordeal. In such moments, we are guided by the spirit and principles of the United Nations and by our belief that we all, irrespective of our national loyalties, stand in the same trench in the face of dangers and challenges.
I speak from this rostrum on an important historical occasion, namely, the observance of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. This Organization was established as an expression of the aspirations of the peoples of the world to begin a new era in which mankind could avoid the scourge of devastating wars and live happily in a climate of just and lasting peace that would enable it to gear its energies and resources towards tackling economic problems and achieving social progress and economic growth, free from despotism, oppression or aggression.
The establishment of this Organization did not take place in a vacuum, nor was it an accidental occurrence occasioned by temporary circumstances. Rather, it was an outstanding landmark in the evolution of the international community, which had undergone bitter experiences during two world wars that flared up within half a century, and witnessed the development of sophisticated weapons of mass destruction and havoc, which reached a dangerous peak in the use of the atomic bomb. Such a state of affairs increased the people*' resolve to set up a new international system that would ensure against the outbreak of new wars that would inevitably cause the annihilation of all forms of life over a wide area and wipe out many features of civilization.
For all these reasons, the occasion we are commemorating in these days acquires a special importance for Egypt as one of the 51 founding Member States that established the Organization and actively participated in drawing up its Charter and laying down its purposes and principles. This importance also derives from Egypt's geopolitical position at the heart of a region beset by conflicts and tensions. Cross its affiliation to regional and international groupings confronted with crushing, decisive issues which give rise to possibilities of peace or war, survival or death, economic growth or paralysis and deterioration. Thus, Egypt was a founding member of the League of Arab States, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.
It is natural, therefore, that Egypt attaches high importance to the establishment of the United Nations, the development of its role and the enhancement of its effectiveness, it is equally natural that Egypt contributes intellectually and substantively to this required development in response to the vast changes that have swept over the arena of international relations since the establishment of the Organization. Some of these changes were: the breakdown of the international alliance which had won the Second World War and set up the United Nations; the unprecedented progress in the production of nuclear bombs and weapons of a destructive capability that far exceeded any imagination; and the changes in the structure of the international community as a result of the accession to independence of many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, bringing the total membership of the Organization to 159 countries - three times the original number of States within a short span of time. Moreover, the economic factor in international relations acquired added importance as economic issues and problems became the primary preoccupation of all States, large and small, developed and developing, rich and poor alike.
It may not be appropriate here to make a thorough evaluation of the performance of the United Nations since its inception, to enumerate the positive and negative aspects of its activities or to analyze its achievements and setbacks. This topic needs a lengthy expose. Furthermore, much has been said about this issue on many earlier occasions. Suffice it to refer to the valuable report of the United Nations Secretary-General which he submitted on 4 September, Instead, I propose to concentrate on two major points which I believe to be pivotal in any serious attempt to launch the Organization into a new orbit in keeping with present-day challenges.

The important thing is neither to look back on the past and weigh success against failure nor to censure or assign responsibility to one party or another. What is really necessary to look at the future,, with all its potential fields of action and possibilities of change in order to arrive at a better formula for effective collective action, regardless of existing obstacles and restrictions. It will naturally be necessary to scrutinize the performance of the Organization in the past four decades too find out whether there is a specific pattern covering the fields in which the Organization has succeeded and those in which difficulties and impediments have prevailed. Our objective in such an exercise will be to reform the United Nations system and adapt it to evolving needs.
The first point I wish to raise in this regard is that the basic problem facing States, individually and collectively, is the economic one. The issue here is not confined to the problems facing States in their foreign relations; the domestic economy of most States has become a heavy burden which cannot be ignored or underestimated. While all of us are confronted with this problem, the developing countries are the most hard-hit and feel that it is a flagrant injustice to be left to bear the burden of problems in the creation of which they had no say, not having contributed substantially to the establishment of the international system which brought about those problems.
It is a source of grave concern that the economic situation in developing countries continues to deteriorate though much is repeatedly said about the need to rectify this situation and halting its deterioration. Thus the gap between hope and reality is continuously widening - a situation that does not augur well. Suffice it to mention here that the debts of developing countries at the end of 1984 totaled $US 900 billion and that this great increase in the volume of debts has been compounded by increasing servicing burdens on the export earnings of debtor countries coinciding with the stagnation of the official development assistance granted by rich to developing countries. Although the International Development Strategy set 0.7 per cent of the gross national product of developed countries as a target for official development assistance, this assistance, has stagnated in recent years at less than half the target set in the Strategy. In addition, the terms of international trade have deteriorated and protectionist practices in developed countries have increased. All those factors combined have created a serious situation the consequences of which cannot be limited to a particular international group but will inevitably affect the international system as a whole. Either we tackle this dilemma through a realistic, comprehensive formula that deals with the situation in all due seriousness or we shall all be subjected to more deterioration and loss.
The picture is all the more grim when we look at the situation in sub-Saharan Africa, where problems resulting from drought, desertification and food shortages are worsening and have been compounded by the deterioration in Africa's terms of trade and the fall in its commodity prices. This situation poses a serious threat to the lives of millions of Africans, undermines the social fabric of their countries and shatters their legitimate aspirations to stable and continued development at a time when their main preoccupation is to secure the basic means of subsistence.
We should all realize that the African continent suffered for a long time from colonization, exploitation and domination and that over the centuries it was deprived of a fair chance to develop its material and human resources or to utilize its energies in the interest of its peoples. The foreign Powers which ruled at that time regarded the continent as a source of raw materials and thus did not allow it to share the fruits of the resultant industrial and technological wealth.
For all those reasons it is incumbent upon us to approach the situation in a new spirit that does not count profit and loss in rigid arithmetical terms or stem from narrow individual interests. Such a new spirit should take into account the fact that the interests of all of us are interrelated and that there can be no victor or vanquished in this struggle.
Therefore we voice our full support from this rostrum for the call made by the 21st summit meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) for the convening of a special General Assembly session at the ministerial level to discuss the economic problems of Africa, and the appeal to the international community to take the necessary measures to support the efforts made by the African countries towards undertaking economic reform, implementing development projects and staving off the threat of disasters.
On the other hand, we appeal to the Governments of creditor countries, financing institutions and international banks to co-operate with debtor countries within the framework of an enlightened political dialog, free from pressure, with a view to reaching a lasting solution to the problem of indebtedness that will preserve the rights of developing countries, safeguard their aspirations in regard to food, basic health and educational services, and ensure their social and political stability.
The second point I propose to touch upon briefly is the need to seek a genuine and radical solution to the problem of the lack of effectiveness of the United Nations in coping with the crises which threaten international peace and security. TO our mind, such ineffectiveness is not due to any shortage of resolutions adopted by the Organization and its various bodies in critical times. On the contrary, a host of resolutions have been adopted on all problems, despite recourse to the veto by some permanent members of the Security Council to bar the adoption of certain
resolutions on specific issues, for reasons that are no secret to anyone. However, the resolutions adopted remain a dead letter, void of life, ineffective and useless. This undermines the true value of the Organization and weakens its position vis-a-vis the peoples directly involved in the issues. Moreover, it encourages these States which violate the provisions of the Charter to persist in their aggression and defiance of the collective will of the international community.
Allow me in this context to refer to three issues by way of example, in the hope that we can examine them in depth in a manner that does not ignore the international status quo but, equally, does not lead to paralysis and helplessness before the attempts made by some States to impose their will by force.
The first issue I should like to put before the Assembly is the Palestinian question, on which enough resolutions to fill large volumes have been adopted. However, the Palestinian people still live under the yoke of occupation and military rule in the West Bank and Gaza. Israeli settlements are still being established on their lands and restrictions are still being imposed on their movement and political, economic and cultural activities. Collective punitive measures are still being practised against the Palestinian people, and acts of violence and extremism are escalating. We believe that the key to a beginning to redressing this situation is the implementation of the resolutions that stipulate that the Palestinian people be allowed to exercise the right to self-determination and to establish their own State in the manner they choose, as well as the necessity to halt demographic changes in the occupied territories and to respect Arab, Islamic and Christian rights in Jerusalem.
The second issue relates to the deteriorating situation in southern Africa as a result of the persistence of the racist regime of Pretoria in violating the rights of our brothers in Namibia, South Africa and the front-line States, despite the clear resolutions of the Security Council in this regard. It is neither conceivable nor, indeed, acceptable that the African majority of the population should continue to be subjected to the atrocities of this racist regime, which is escalating its practices of violence, suppression and terrorism and which does not hesitate to violate basic human norms and provisions of law, relying rather on brute force, as if it were living in the Dark Ages.
The third issue is the war raging in the Gulf between Iran and Iraq and the resulting harm to the interests of both the warring parties and all neighboring countries. This situation gives rise to a state of unrest and tension which could be used as a pretext for large-scale foreign intervention - a development that could lead to a widening of the sphere of conflict and an escalation of fighting and destruction.
I do not intend here to delve into the technical aspects of amending the Articles of the Charter or reinforcing the role of the Security Council and improving its rules of procedure. I would only state that the primary issue is one of political will, because, in the final analysis, the United Nations is what we want it to be and it is we who decide how it will fulfill its functions and carry out its mission.
We should always remember that the objective is to reinforce this Organization and to lift the restrictions that curb its ability to respond to the increasing demands of the international family of nations in an age pervaded by unrest, uncertainty and insecurity, in which new generations are wondering what the future holds in store for them: comfort or pain, hope or despair, efficiency or paralysis.
We firmly believe in the ability of mankind to choose and define targets when it has a clear vision before it, its priorities are sound and its intentions are good and when the dangers are obvious, since the will to live is capable of fashioning miracles.
May God guide our steps and bless our actions.


Seeing you, Mr. President, seated in pride of place presiding over this, the fortieth session of the United Nations General Assembly, only serves to convince me that the appropriate conduct of this session has been comfortably placed in your very capable hands, blessed as you are with years of experience.
It is difficult to over-emphasize the historical link forged by the voyages and explorations of the renowned navigator Cristobal Colon between your country and the new world, of which my country forms an integral part.
I should therefore like to take this opportunity on behalf of the delegation of Saint Christopher and Nevis to add my congratulations to those hitherto expressed to you, Sir, and to your country as you continue to superintend and administer these proceedings with your usual consummate skill and innate dexterity.
I must also hasten to pay tribute to and voice full appreciation of the inestimable importance of sessions such as this one to the realization and preservation of international peace, functional co-operation, economic security, respect for the dignity of peoples and the sovereignty of States, however small.
In this context, the people of Saint Christopher and Nevis are proud of their emergence from colonialism into the brotherhood of the United Nations. I bring fond greetings from our Prime Minister, Dr. Kennedy Alphonse Simmonds, who has swiftly and brilliantly spearheaded our transition from colonial dependence to international independence.
I should like at this stage to extend the sympathy and condolences of the Government of Saint Christopher and Nevis to the Government and the people of Mexico on their recent tragic experiences. We who live in an area which is annually threatened by hurricanes fully understand the sense of helpless shock experienced by persons confronted with the devastation of a natural disaster of this magnitude.
Our nation is comprised of the islands of Saint Christopher and Nevis, also called St. Kitts and Nevis, and we are located in the Caribbean, to the south-east of Puerto Rico, near the United States and the British Virgin Islands, near the Dutch colonies of St. Eustatius and Saba, the French island of St. Bartholomew, French and Dutch St. Maarten and the British colonies of Anguilla and Montserrat.
It is perhaps because of this geographic situation that our people are quick to understand the significance of a multilateral approach to issues.
We inherited the colonial problems of the monoculture of sugar, but despite limitations of size, economic vulnerability and the vagaries of weather, we, have made significant developmental strides during our first two years of independence. Indeed, we have established the basis for economic diversification and a better way of life for all our people.
Within. days of our birth as a free nation, we gained admission to this body, and this signifies our recognition of the fact that in an age of considerable turmoil, the United Nations with its body of collaborating Member States continues to play a leading role in the pursuit and retention of a more peaceful, more organized and more contented world.
Of particular significance to us is the question of the multilateral approach to the security of small States and the establishment of order in the exploitation of the resources of the sea.
We who believe in peace must not be dominated by those who believe in force. We who are committed to the lofty ideals of CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, must never allow any of our member States to be manipulated and destabilized by external pressures. This applies to the political pressure of power politics, the economic maneuvers of industrialized society or the conspiracy of those who would destroy our population by trafficking in Illegal drugs.
We have signed the Law of the Sea Convention. As a nation of islands, our people look to the surrounding seas in their effort to achieve a comfortable existence. We have to ensure that no one be allowed to deplete the resources of our maritime economic zone. We have to be able to develop fully and peacefully the economic utilization of the sea-bed and the resources of the seas above.
Our Constitution faithfully follows the tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was created specifically to suit our particular situation as a twin island State, and we addressed all the issues of fundamental rights and freedoms, ensuring the rights of all, including our women and children.
However, constitutional postulation alone cannot ensure the creation of a just society. The Government and the people of Saint Christopher and Nevis continue to have at home a peace, justice and human rights record which demonstrates that they fully and truly identify with and live up to the purposes and principles of the Charter o" the United Nations. We have taken many mixtures of race and made them one; we have earned the classification of the freest nation on earth.
With this setting at home, it is with revulsion and shock that we face the distasteful and despicable situation in South Africa. Our Prime Minister has praised France for placing an embargo on new French investments in South Africa, praised the United States Congress for recommending economic sanctions against the dictatorial white minority Government, called vociferously on the international community represented by the United Nations to take a principled stand against apartheid, appealed for an end to the state of emergency and the wanton murder and oppression of the black people of South Africa, and demanded that the people of Namibia and Angola be allowed to enjoy their hard-earned right to freedom and independence.
We are deeply concerned at the prolonged starvation in Ethiopia and other parts of Africa, and we view with alarm the decision that we in the Caribbean should graduate from international development assistance loans on the basis of per capita income. One is forced to conclude that developed countries are galvanized into action by crisis, hunger and starvation.
There is a fundamental need for economic preventive medication and there is clearly a dire need for a total reassessment of the present international economic order, as it is evident that the present criteria work manifest injustice on small nations.
The amount that must be expended on infrastructure by a small nation is much greater, in proportion to its income, than the amount that must be expended by a large nation. To reduce this to simplicity, a small country and a large country may require the same sized airport to enable the same sized aeroplanes to operate. There is clearly a need for us to address this issue swiftly if we are not to create undue hardship for countries faced with the problem of markets being closed by the industrialized nations. We intend to raise in every forum the need for improved infrastructure facilities, more trade, assistance in the form of training and equipment, and co-ordinated public and private-sector investment.
St. Kitts and Nevis has given practical expression to this policy by privatizing its telecommunications system. The system is now owned by a corporation whose shareholders are Cable and Wireless and the Government of St. Kitts and Nevis. This concept of joint venture is being implemented in other fields of investment, including dairy farming, cotton production and processing, and communications.
Regional organizations have their part to play within the international framework. It is of supreme importance to the vigor and vitality of the global framework of the United Nations that such regional bodies as the Organization of American States be sustained in full bloom. The Organization of American States proudly represents the interests of the United states of America, the countries of Central and South America and the French-, Spanish-, Dutch- and English-speaking Caribbean nations. It is highly undesirable that such an invaluable organization, critical to the maintenance and upkeep of development through peace, should be at present languishing on the sick-bed of financial constraints imposed by the unwillingness of the more affluent member States to live up to hitherto agreed contributions. This of necessity must have a negative impact on cat program of technical and cultural development.
One hopes that this most auspicious year of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations will also mark a commitment on the part of nations to encourage the revitalization of the Organization of American States, not in terms of empty rhetoric but through an active demonstration of financial commitment and support.
Equally, such renewed commitment is required to the revitalization and strengthening of the various agencies of the United Nations which bring much-needed educational, cultural and technical assistance to developing countries.
We are pleased to learn of the ongoing dialog between North and South Korea, and we hope that we will soon see negotiations in relation to areas where other disputing peoples have a similarity of race and history, in the Far East, in the Middle East and in Central America. As the United Nations is celebrating its fortieth anniversary, it is timely for it to take a significant step towards the complete realization of the principle of universality by admitting both the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea as Members of the Organization. We believe that the admission of both nations as Members of the United Nations 'could make a positive contribution to the reduction of tension on the Korean peninsula and thus to the promotion of international peace and security.
In this age of the micro-computer, we are beginning to emphasize precision and smallness rather than inefficiency and large size. We in Saint Christopher and Nevis earnestly "aspire to become a micro-State which can serve as a model because of the quality of life enjoyed by its people. We were in the vanguard of international thought in calling in Saint Christopher and Nevis the first conference to discuss ways and means to commemorate the five-hundredth anniversary
of the voyages of Christopher Columbus to the New World. The work of that conference is bearing fruit and will result in positive action.
Because we feel that this fortieth anniversary of the United Nations is of such tremendous significance, the Government of Saint Christopher and Nevis has allocated a site in our historic capital of Basseterre. There we shall establish a Center of higher education and a national library emphasizing the history and function of our great international body. This area we shall proudly dedicate as the United Nations educational complex.
I sincerely hope that everyone here will some day walk into that historic complex and recognize its significance as a symbol of our commitment to multilateralism and our appreciation of the imperative of interdependence as an indispensable ingredient for the achievement of world peace.