I wish at the outset to extend my personal congratulations, and those of the delegation of Belize to the President on his unanimous election to his high office at the forty-second session of this Assembly.
We follow in the footsteps of a great diplomat and friend of Belize, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury of Bangladesh, to whom I express sincere appreciation for his untiring efforts to generate harmony among the representatives of the world during the forty-first session.
A special word of thanks is also due Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, our esteemed Secretary-General, whose guidance and statesmanship continue to sustain this Organization in its guest for peace in the world.
Assailed by the criticisms of its detractors and beset by the woes of financial crises, the United Nations system nevertheless continues to articulate the vision of its founders and to provide a moral and practical framework for the ideal of an enlightened world order.
The proliferation of new States and the awesome developments in the technologies of destruction have combined to make the management of international relations a far more complex business than the framers of the Charter could ever have imagined. The challenge for the United Nations system has been to keep pace with the requirements of the contemporary era and to become more than a political talking shop and more than a sprawling and soulless bureaucracy.
It is one measure of its responsiveness to changing circumstances that the United Nations has latterly been examining its financial arrangements in order to make the Organization more viable and to quiet some of the voices of discontent. My delegation therefore applauds the new consensus mechanism agreed on by the budgetary committee. The arrangements represent a workable compromise which reflects the concerns of the larger contributors while preserving the all-important principle of equality of Member States.
We can have no truck with the suggestion that small States should be United in the exercise of their sovereignty by some diminished status in the United Nations system. Such an idea is antediluvian and regressive in the extreme. The notion of sovereign equality and the principle of majority rule are the very foundations of the moral authority of the United Nations system. And the right of developing countries to use their numerical strength to influence the world view expressed by this forum is the essence of an attempt at global democracy.
Nevertheless, it is a truism that every right carries a corresponding responsibility. Accordingly, the equality principle which informs the conceptual basis of our Organization must go hand in hand with the responsibility principle, which ought to underpin our decisions, resolutions and programmes of action.
The surest way to erode a right is to abuse it. And it is the perceived abuse of the process of majority rule that has generated the fiercest criticisms of this Organization. If the nay-sayers are to be silenced, the force of numbers - particularly in the General Assembly - must be used in an equitable fashion. The temptation to engage in strident and automatic name-calling must also be resisted so as to preserve pristine the moral force of our pronouncements.
Responsibility and restraint must once again form the basis of debate and resolution. Then there will be no room for the argument that those Western democracies whose views do not necessarily coincide with those of the third-world majority would do best to turn their backs on us. We will still be an imperfect institution in an uncertain world, but that admission should spur us all into a search for ways to increase the effectiveness of our Organization, not question its fundamental importance as the embodiment of International ideals.
The United Nations does succeed in playing a moderating role in world affairs by making use of its global recognition and the public relations strength of its imprimatur or sanction. It is churlish not to concede that the United Nations has at least ensured that we do not return to the long-abandoned days of avowedly Darwinian international politics. As a small country, Belize understands too well the significance of a truly international forum whose collective authority is the ultimate guarantor of the sovereignty, integrity and dignity of small States everywhere.
We do not expect the United Nations to provide all the answers or to substitute for those necessary bilateral arrangements which must still be concluded directly between developed and developing nations But we do expect the United Nations generally to advance the interests and ideals of the world community and to endorse, facilitate and aid those national and regional initiatives which sustain the international order.
One such regional initiative that lends itself to United Nations approbation and support is the recently concluded Central American peace plan. That accord has emerged within the context of the Contadora initiative but is fashioned by the five States themselves involved in the Central American conflict. The plan has already advanced the peace process in Central America and has generally been hailed as providing the basis for a workable and just resolution to the region's problems.
It seems to us in Belize that if the future of Central America were to be left entirely in the hands of Central Americans, the agreements reached at Esquipulas could provide a real blueprint for the pacification of the region. But there are, as always, the complicating realities of geopolitics.
Indeed, external interests have already intervened to give an East-West dimension to a conflict whose origins are rooted in local conditions. In these circumstances, it is clear to my delegation that all of Latin America needs to speak out in support of what is proposed by the region to solve a conflict in the region. External forces acting on the basis of ideological opportunism should not be allowed to defeat indigenous political will. The process of democratisation in Central America must be worked out in site, and not according to some received wisdom stamped " Made in the metropolis".
The initial promise of success of the Central American peace accord owes much to the determination of the leaders and peoples of the isthmus. That such a breakthrough could have occurred signals the possibilities for solutions to other hemispheric crises.
Belizeans are profoundly concerned that national violence once again threatens to consume the independent Republic of Haiti. We understand the people's determination to participate fully in deciding the future direction of their country, and we are conscious that free and fair elections are the first step along the path to political stability, economic recovery and the reduction of social misery. We therefore urge the Government of Haiti to ensure that the already precarious transition to constitutional rule is not further imperilled.
A return to democracy Is also imminent in the Caribbean nation of Suriname. Belize applauds that country's decision to allow international observers to be present at the elections set for November. We hope that the current difficulties can be overcome and the time-table set adhered to, so that political power can be handed back to the people as scheduled.
Of interest to us also is the recent Initiative by Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines towards unification of the eastern Caribbean States. While full consultation with the people of those nations would be essential before any proposal for political union could be implemented, there are obvious advantages to be gained from unity.
Better use of regional expertise, a larger market for domestic goods and more effective and less costly representation abroad are all sufficiently important that they should not be countered with automatic and unthinking assertions about the pre-eminence of political independence. In the case of my own Government  we have been encouraged to redouble our efforts to seek an honourable end to the long-standing problem with our neighbouring Central American State of Guatemala. After six years of uninterrupted enjoyment of independent nationhood Belize has forged its own international personality and established itself firmly among the nations of the world. There is no room in the contemplation of our continued existence for the encouragement of the pretension to all or part of our territory by another State.
With the passage of time, with the universal acknowledgement of our independent reality and against the background of the democratic transformations emerging in our region, my Government feels that there is now a favourable climate for some degree of normalization to take place in relations between Belize and Guatemala.
I say this despite the fact that the talks which took place in April of this year between the two countries failed to produce a breakthrough. Indeed, the Republic of Guatemala insisted on the cession o£ Belizean land as the price for a settlement. Comforted by the continuing support which enlightened nations of the world community give us, Belize totally rejected the Guatemalan position.
Nevertheless, we have agreed to continue talking. Developments have taken place in Guatemala which incline us to feel that the April position was no more than a temporary hiccup in the negotiating process and that the formula can still be found for peaceful and active coexistence between neighbours.
We look forward not only to a diplomatic accommodation with Guatemala but also to the economic co-operation that would surely follow. For the preservation and consolidation of political independence fulfil only part of the obligations of sovereign Governments. The guest for national dignity can succeed only when we satisfy the economic needs of our peoples: their need for food, clothing, shelter and jobs.
For its part the young nation of Belize has already embarked upon the process of diversification from mono-crop preoccupations. An expanded and export-oriented economic base has been created, and we have widened our commercial relations while narrowing our trade gap. The production of bananas, citrus fruit and cacao has been increased. We have commenced an expansion in tourism, bearing in mind the need to preserve our plural culture and our ecological heritage. We have also continued the balanced exploitation of our forest resources and welcomed a new aquaculture industry, while trying to broaden our maritime fisheries.
But even as we attempt to move ahead we come hard upon the realities of an inequitable international economic order. Markets for our products are unstable, commodity prices are low and protectionism has evolved from a device to a policy.
Recognition of this situation points inevitably to the importance of multilateral co-operation in trade, money and finance and development. The need for strengthening the multilateral process as a means of ameliorating inequities in global economic relations becomes even more imperative when we consider the open advocacy on the part of some donor countries to tie bilateral aid to political conformity.
Barriers to reciprocal trade need to be broken down, and the developed world must open its markets to the developing countries. Only with guaranteed access for their products and realistic terms of trade can small States hope to meet their obligations and establish growth.
A new international economic order would also advance the cause of world peace, for it would remove many sources of national and international tension that have as their underlying causes inadequate responses to basic human needs. The spectre of the migration of millions of peoples from their native lands, be It in Africa, Asia or Latin America, crossing into neighbouring territories seeking refuge, strains the Imaginations and resources of the most well-intentioned. Most of our countries are already struggling with the intractable problem of distributing the limited resources available to our natural citizens. But, faced with the greater demands made on those resources by those whose only recourse for survival has been an exodus from their homes, the act of sharing can become almost unbearable.
Conditions must be created to make it an exercisable option for refugees and others deprived of their heritage to return to the land of their birth and fashion their own destiny. Political and economic strategies must be devised to give back the future to those wandering masses.
It is therefore pleasing to note that, for all the criticisms faced by the Organization, a large part of United Nations efforts has been directed towards the salvaging of countries from conditions of ignorance, deprivation and homelessness. Expenditures by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United Nations Development Programme; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the United Nations Children's Fund have brought measurable advantages to peoples all over the world.
When doubts are cast on the usefulness of this body, many States can point to the improved agricultural techniques' that have led to an increase in national productivity, to the programmes of education, immunization and sanitation that have improved the quality of life for their citizens and to the new skills and technologies that have enabled their policies to function and survive in the global village. Those are the tangible consequences of the United Nations system from which our constituencies benefit.
Even as we applaud the results of United Nations developmental actions, we bemoan the inefficacy of some of its political pronouncements. In particular we are deeply troubled by the inability of United Nations resolutions to bring any real comfort to the millions of South African blacks suffering under the inhuman yoke of apartheid. The time has surely come for all Member States to agree on the measures necessary to exorcise a Pretoria regime that has forfeited any claim to civilized regard.
We appeal particularly to those nations whose conceptions of real-politik have inclined them to treat as less than urgent the misery of the oppressed. We ask that they act now in helping to extirpate the abomination that is apartheid.
Similarly, the independence of Namibia has been too long denied. Considerations of linkages cannot be allowed to stand in the way of Namibia' s freedom, self-determination and dignity.
In the Middle East few would wish to contemplate the horrors that an expanded war in the Persian Gulf would entail. The Secretary-General's call for a cease-fire between Iran and Iraq must be heeded, and other interests would do well to reduce their military presence as one means of allowing United Nations diplomacy to take hold.
Every effort must be made to encourage the process of dialogue in other Middle Eastern affairs. It continues to be our hope that an international peace conference will be able to reconcile the need for a Palestinian homeland with the right of Israel to exist within secure borders.
The attention of the General Assembly shall remain focused on Afghanistan so long as the situation in that tragic country continues to create tensions that threaten international peace. Again, we call for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and for genuine attempts at national reconciliation.
The power of self-determination must be conceded to the Afghan people so that the millions who fled their country may soon escape the misery and indignity of refugee life and return to their homeland.
The essential ingredient of the solution to the problems in Kampuchea also involves the withdrawal of foreign troops. In accordance with United Nations resolutions we continue to call for a cease-fire and internationally supervised elections as the means to a comprehensive political settlement which allows the Kampuchean people their inalienable right to independence.
The divided Korean peninsula must be reunited, and the process of reunification should take place through direct dialogue and negotiations between North and South Korea. It is imperative that the deeply rooted mistrust and hostilities between the two Koreas be replaced with the understanding and goodwill which are surely not beyond the capacity of a people whose culture is 5,000 years old.
The fact of worldwide drug abuse and illicit trafficking is no less a danger to international order than the prospect of military confrontation and war. The Secretary-General has stressed the need for a concerted, comprehensive and truly worldwide effort to combat the plague of illegal drugs. My own Government has been nationally militant in the fight against narcotics abuse, and we have also joined in the international United Nations-sponsored efforts aimed at eradicating this menace. Earlier this year we hosted a conference designed to produce more effective strategies for regional co-operation.
Perhaps the greatest threat facing mankind is the possibility of a nuclear Armageddon. Accordingly, we welcome the recent potential breakthrough in the struggle to curb the nuclear arms race. The agreement in principle concluded between the United States and the Soviet Union will for the first time eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons, and perhaps signals a new era of super-Power co-operation in the long journey towards total nuclear disarmament.
The framers of our Chatter, were no unsophisticated people, nor was their vision one of utopian unreality. They conceived a system that combined lofty ideals with functional pragmatism. They devised a mechanism to mediate the competing claims of the just and the strong. They carved a moral landscape out of a barren prospect.
Today, in a strife-ridden world, the United Nations system remains an assertion of our collective being, an affirmation of our humanity. We need to make the system work. We need to make it work or concede our civilization for ever to an encroaching jungle that promises only impenetrable shadows and darkness at noon.


On behalf of our delegation and on our own behalf, we wish to congratulate you. Sir, on your election to the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly at its forty-second session. We are confident that under your wise leadership - like that of your able predecessors - the Assembly will live up to its commitment.
Our profound tribute and gratitude go also to your immediate predecessor, Mr. Humayan Rasheed Choudhury, who led the deliberations of the forty-first session so splendidly last year.
We also wish to pay a special and fitting tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his untiring efforts in managing the complicated and difficult affairs of the United Nations, and for his frequent missions of peace to areas of international conflict, which his high office must constantly monitor and try to resolve - and there are still too many areas of conflict for out general safety and comfort.
The issues of war have almost imposed themselves on the yearly agenda of this Organization. That is because war is incompatible with man's mission on Earth or even the purpose for which he was created. Today man requires peace more than ever before, as modern technology has refined the instruments of war and increased their capacity to inflict maximum destruction. For man to enjoy the total benefits of peace, the United Nations must be given both the financial and the political means it so greatly requires in order to halt potential conflict situations before they erupt into catastrophes. Only when there is peace can the noble mission of the Organization - to fight the perennial enemies of mankind: hunger, disease, ignorance and homelessness - be realized. The protection and promotion of human rights and the guaranteeing of the dignity of man form the corner-stone of the social, economic and political mission with which the United Nations is charged.
We have come to the United Nations General Assembly once again to renew our faith in the noble ideals of the Organization and to reaffirm our commitment to the principles of its Charter. We find it, therefore, fitting for us to call upon those Member States which have consistently violated the goals of the United Nations and its Charter by either deliberately refusing to comply with the Organization's decisions or obstructing its missions for peace to reconsider their position seriously. The result of these violations has been a general perception of the United Nations as an ineffective organization, particularly in the field of international and regional conflicts. The public apathy towards the Organization itself continues unabated, as if it is the fault of the Organization itself and not of the few powerful permanent members of the Security Council that place their national interest above everything else.
Where interference with United Nations decisions is minimized, successes have been eminent, particularly in the areas of health, education and other activities carried out by the specialized agencies. The United Nations needs the full financial and political backing of all Member States, particularly in its efforts to promote peace, disarmament and a generally more equitable international order.
We are very mindful of the fact that the world political situation has not improved much since two years ago, when we had the honour of coming to the rostrum to address the General Assembly. The tendency to resolve disputes by force still persists; the world political map has been dotted with at least 150 local wars since 1945. These conflicts have claimed millions of lives more than were claimed in the last two world wars - and that about sums up the sorry state of our world today.
Allow us to put before this body some of the serious afflictions currently facing Lesotho and the southern African region as a whole.
Lesotho is a small country, entirely surrounded by the Republic of South Africa, and - like most small developing countries - still in receipt of much-needed foreign aid. Because of this precarious geographical position, coupled with this dependency on foreign aid, Lesotho - like most small States - is exposed to considerable problems in coining to a forum such as this one and taking the rightful liberty freely to state its case, concerns, plight, and dilemmas, all of which we feel we desperately need to bring to the attention of the Assembly.
As we all know, the kind of problems which small nations face in stating their concerns freely should not exist, because one of the basic and fundamental principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter is to provide a platform for the voice of all Member States to be heard and to provide an arena for small nations, especially, to mix and participate with bigger nations free from fear of retaliatory consequences. Despite that basic principle, Lesotho and all other small States are subject to considerable external pressures to conform with the wishes and the interests of those to whom they are supposedly beholden and either say nothing or say only that which will please and is required of them.
History has placed us in a geographical and economic situation such that we are completely surrounded by one country, the Republic of South Africa, a situation that is unique to Lesotho. We have watched from within the political scenario as it has been evolving, from 1910, when there was a call for a national convention to determine the future of that country and the participation of all in its administration, to the present day, when the social, economic, racial and political conflicts have developed into a violent confrontation. As a neighbour of South Africa and a member of the international body of nations, we have witnessed with growing concern and anxiety the developments in that country and the rest of our subregion. A correct political direction in 1910, guaranteeing the accommodation of the majority black South Africans in the aspirations and political dispensations of the day and rejecting colour as a basis for determining man's worth, would have ensured a happy, non-racial South Africa enjoying a healthy economic and political development. That is what could have happened.
The current situation is that all the countries of the subregion are engaged in a bitter struggle for a happy and prosperous future for southern Africa. For the States members of the South African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC), it is a struggle to protect their sovereignty and territorial integrity, to build up development strategies that will ensure their sustainable economies, dependent on collective security. It is a struggle whose central causes, whose enormous costs in terms of human misery, human degradation and human life, are often obscured and even distorted by other international interests, concerns and priorities. It is a struggle that is surely one of the most urgent and outstanding moral issues of our time to face the Assembly. Its outcome will have profound consequences, not only for us in southern Africa, but for Africa as a whole. It is a struggle that the international community - if it has the political will, for the capacity is there - could bring to a just and early conclusion, both to shorten the suffering it causes and to prevent the consequences of the alternative, which is protracted, violent struggle wherein the peace and political and economic stability of southern Africa could pass beyond the reach of all of us for many years to come.
Lesotho's geographical position exposes it to peculiar challenges to its national and territorial integrity, to its freedom of action and to its right to seek more self-reliant, self-sustaining development. Those challenges, and their consequences for the rights of small nations as sovereign States, only serve to increase our sense of unity with those who are struggling for the human rights, human dignity and justice that have long since been secured, valued and respected y most of the big, wealthy and powerful nations. In carrying out our obligations under the various international conventions we shall abide strictly by the terms id conditions therein prescribed. We shall, therefore, expect all concerned to >-operate fully with us in their discharge.
Our sense of commitment, sometimes coupled with frustration in the face of the :elites of Lesotho's position, serves only to commit us more deeply to the cause of the majority in South Africa, our brothers and sisters, our neighbours and friends. Our policies are and will remain one with those embodied in the United Nations Charter, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the international covenants on human rights, all of which prohibit racism and all forms of degrading discriminatory systems based on power, wealth and political manipulations. We are also committed to the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement, to the principles that underpin the Freedom Charter and to the African Charter of Human and People's Rights, whose preamble recognizes the duty of all African States to do whatever is in their power to secure the elimination of apartheid and all that it stands for.
The costs - in terms of human life, human suffering and human degradation – of the conflict raging in our region, and the cost of destabilization, far outweigh the costs that would be felt by all of us if apartheid were to be dismantled and abolished immediately. Apart from the inestimable costs in human life, the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference estimated that in the years 1980 to 1984 the destabilization of our economies cost SADCCs member States $US 12,000 million, $US 4,000 million of that total being the result of direct war damage. Those costs continue to rise, outstripping the total amount of foreign aid given to our States. This kind of cost, to nations that desperately need to focus
all their resources and energies on their economic development for self-reliance and the abolition of poverty, actually prevents any such development, while also undermining our credibility at home and abroad. The extensive economic potential of our region therefore remains undeveloped, and we continue to suffer from both overt and covert economic sanctions and political blackmail.
Today we appeal to all the members of the Assembly actively and urgently to begin to seek the most effective means of helping all of us in southern Africa to begin to lay the foundations for a happier, new, post-apartheid order based on those principles the Assembly cherishes and has enshrined. We would therefore ask for immediate international support for the SADCC countries through the development of stronger relations and active programmes and strategies intended to lessen unnecessary dependency, to develop SADCC1 s collective security and to promote self-reliant, sustainable economies. If the international community supported such goals while actively deterring all efforts of destabilization against our countries, such support would be yet one more peaceful measure to bring about the desired changes for all of us in the region. For Lesotho, whose economic and political future will depend on its membership in SADCC and the effective help we get through it, it is our only chance to secure the political, economic and national integrity so vital to preserve and strengthen our national identity.
In addition to SADCC, there is much to be gained by supporting our commitment to the Non-Aligned Movement. The securing of true peace and freedom from military threats and economic blackmail can only bring genuine political and economic stability to our region. If the basic principles of the Non-Aligned Movement are objectively examined, one concludes that there are no real dangers in alignment with such principles. Africa is looking for its own political and social forms of organization based on a combination of indigenous factors of custom and culture and 41 world values. Whether it is for the present SADCC members or for our brothers id sisters in South Africa and Namibia, a strong human-rights posture by all the members of the Assembly can only enhance the prospects for peaceful transformation n southern Africa as a whole and South Africa in particular.
As we stand here today, we humbly appeal to the Assembly to re-examine the issues at stake in the light of the new realities and the new dangers of the present time and to seek to secure the undoubted influence of international pressure to negotiate, now, for a settlement that will bring true peace and genuine security to southern Africa because we may not have such an opportunity for a long time to come.
We wish this Assembly to recognize that it is no longer a question of whether apartheid should be dismantled and abolished, for we in southern Africa are talking about how it will be abolished, about when it will be abolished, on whose timetable it will happen, and with what kind of outside involvement and help it will happen. It is therefore vital for all of us in southern Africa that the international community see these realities of our present struggle not in terms of any East-West conflict and not in terms of ideologies or alignments.
There is a crucial, central interdependence of all the nations and races in such a resource-rich region as southern Africa. The economic experience and expertise of any one group will always be needed, as will the active partnership and skills of the other groups, in moving towards economic prosperity and stability that can only be to the advantage of all of us. We are all faced with a situation that cannot be compared with the post-colonial era, which involved the departure of one nation or ruler. We have all come to know and accept for many years now that ultimately we shall all have to learn to live together, or we shall perish together. No one will be required to leave, for we all recognize that we need each other; and those in the majority groups hope that those in the minority groups will stay, and not feel threatened or swamped. But such a state of affairs can come about only by means of a common citizenship for all and a universal franchise based on agreed formulas and a carefully worked out system of participation, sharing and representation that safeguards the rights of all.
This is no wild dream; it is a vital and urgent necessity, and we seek the active co-operation of the international community to ensure that negotiations on such a transition take place in the very near future. It will not be easy, but it is the only solution if we are to avoid alternatives all too terrible either to contemplate or to allow. Because of our very peculiar and vulnerable situation in the region, Lesotho has to make a special appeal for recognition of its special position and its special political and economic needs· We desperately need more specific international help to enable us to achieve a degree of self-reliance - economic and political - in order to lessen our dependence, the degree of which at present renders us most vulnerable and inhibits and distorts our genuine efforts towards strengthening, protecting, and defending our sovereignty and national integrity. We have the will, but at present our means are inadequate, hence our special appeal.
Today the world is dotted with flash-points of tension and conflict. The peoples of Kampuchea and Afghanistan have for many years now been the victims of war and painful occupation. Lesotho, being a small country that has suffered from war and territorial dispossession in its history, abides strictly by the principle of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States. We therefore believe that we stand on higher moral ground when we request the withdrawal of foreign troops from those countries and many others throughout the world so that their peoples can enjoy peace. We request that their sovereignty and non-aligned status be respected by all.
The suffering of the Palestinian people and the people of Lebanon has been mg and painful. It is obvious that rhetoric has not brought much comfort to the Palestinian people. The Middle East situation now requires bold and imaginative initiatives by all the parties concerned. These initiatives should be geared towards bringing about an international conference on the Middle East situation in which all the parties to the conflict participate on an equal footing and without pre-conditions. The right of Israel to exist as a sovereign State with recognized and secure borders and the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland of their own and ultimately to independence and sovereignty are essential elements of a lasting and peaceful solution of the Middle East crisis.
It would be remiss of us not to express our strong concern about the present situation in the Gulf. The fratricidal war between Iran and Iraq has been allowed to go on for too long, regardless of the cause. Some of us have watched helplessly for years now as two Islamic countries, bound together by traditions of culture, religion and beliefs and Members of the United Nations, have deployed the scarce resources at their disposal to destroy one another.
The destruction of economic infrastructure and the disruption of shipping in the area continue unabated. As in all wars today, the outside Powers are deeply involved. Today, the outside Powers seek the imposition by the Security Council of sanctions against Iran. To us the imposition of sanctions is tantamount to a declaration of war on another front.
We fully support Security Council resolution 598 (1987) , calling for a cease-fire in this conflict that has caused so much loss of life and destruction of property. We followed with great hope the mission of the Secretary-General to that troubled area. No effort should be spared to bring lasting peace to those two nations, with which my own country enjoys fraternal relations.
We have been greatly encouraged by the recent agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union on the elimination of medium-range missiles in Western Europe. This significant development should be applauded, for it signifies a thaw in the relations between the two super-Powers and a marked reduction in East-West tension.
We can hardly draw any comfort from the state of the world economic situation, especially as it affects developing countries. The most serious setback to economic development in developing countries has been the alarming levels and accelerated rates of net transfers of financial resources from developing to developed countries. The increasing debt crisis of developing countries, which is far from being resolved, remains the most severe strain on economic growth. This, coupled with the performance of world trade, whereby the developed nations are applying restrictive macro-economic and trade policies, has resulted in the most unpromising economic situation for us in the third world.
The current international economic situation has been brought about by the economic and financial order of the present day, which is obviously highly unjust. Being among the least developed of the developing countries, Lesotho is committed to the resumption at the earliest possible date of the stalled North-South dialogue. We also believe that meaningful global economic negotiations are bound to lessen international tensions and insecurities. We therefore call upon the developed nations to show a more positive attitude.
We are aware that the recent International Conference on the Relationship Between Disarmament and Development has drawn very encouraging and useful conclusions, which we hope will be regarded as such by all concerned. We have always felt that too many valuable resources are being wasted on rearmament and the production of weapons of mass destruction, resources which could be deployed more usefully for socio-economic development in order to lessen the gap between the developed and the developing nations.


First	of	all	I	wish to congratulate you, Sir, on your well-deserved election to the presidency of the forty-second session of the General Assembly. I trust that under your able and skilled guidance this Assembly will succeed in realizing the aspirations of all peace-loving people in the world.
I should like also to congratulate our Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his untiring efforts to promote international peace, security and co-operation. He needs the assistance of all Member States in this difficult and challenging task. I wish to assure him of Tanzania's continued co-operation and support in this noble endeavor.
Delegates will recall that the last time a President of the United Republic of Tanzania addressed this Assembly was during the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. My predecessor, Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere, then renewed Tanzania's faith in the United Nations. He stressed,
"In this, my last address to the General Assembly, I have described events and ... needs as we in Tanzania perceive them. My country will not stop saying those things when the new President takes over. For we are a poor and underdeveloped country, and we have no power in the world except the power of speech given by the Assembly - and by our humanity. To be silent when we see danger, to refrain from attacking policies which we see as contrary to the interests of peace and justice, would be to surrender our freedom and our dignity. That we shall never do." (A/40/PV.13, p. 21)
So, as the new President of the United Republic of Tanzania, I thought it would be appropriate for me to come and reaffirm that stand before the international community. My country, which became the 104th member of this Organization in 1961, will continue to use the United Nations rostrum to air its concern for and belief in peace, justice and equality. With goodwill towards all the 159 nations represented here, I wish to renew our faith in the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter.
For the United Nations has always played and will continue to play a key role in its primary responsibility, namely, the maintenance of international peace and security. We acknowledge that the United Nations has its imperfections, but we must also accept the fact that Member States are largely responsible for these shortcomings. The United Nations can only do what its Member States are willing to do; thus the collective security system envisaged under the Charter has not worked because some Member States have refused to implement certain provisions of the Charter. The permanent members of the Security Council in particular have not co-operated very often in resolving conflicts.
The majority of the Members of this Organization were not represented at the founding of the United Nations because they were not yet independent at that time. It should not be surprising, therefore, when those newly-independent countries advocate the democratization of this Organization. They do so in order to ensure that their views and interests are fully taken into account in the decision-making process. It is for that reason that they have often called for a fresh look at the
principal organs, especially the Security Council, but that call has often been deliberately misunderstood by those whose vested interests are well entrenched in the United Nations Charter.
Those countries do not want to accept the fact that the changing international scene and the nearly-universal membership of this Organization require that the United Nations be adjusted in order to accommodate the legitimate interests of its new majority. The detractors of the United Nations have used the demands of this new majority as a pretext for undermining this Organization and the spirit of internationalism. They have often adopted unilateral measures to suit their national interests.
We appeal to those countries to reconsider their attitudes towards the United Nations in the interest of global peace. We all agree that there is room for improvement in our Organization. I am sure we can all work together to improve the effectiveness of this Organization. The adoption by consensus at the forty-first session of the General Assembly of resolution 41/213, on the review of the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations, is an important step towards meeting that objective.
In his report to the General Assembly last year the Secretary-General called upon the United Nations
"to bring to an early end those conflicts which have long brought terrible tragedy to the countries and people directly involved and inhibited the growth of international confidence needed for the resolution of broader global problems".
One such conflict exists in southern Africa. Apartheid, which has been condemned by this Organization as a crime against humanity, continues to pose a threat to peace and security in southern Africa. The South African regime has resorted to unprecedented violence involving the daylight shooting of
demonstrators, mass detentions, including the detention of innocent children, and the vigorous imposition of a murderous state of emergency. In May this year it opened a new chapter in repression following elections involving the white minority only. In the euphoria of his victory Mr. Botha declared his determination to preserve his culture and to break the back of his opponents, especially the African National Congress.
While the racist regime is intensifying its brutality against the black majority in South Africa, it is at the same time trying to deceive the world by making flimsy proposals to reform apartheid. Botha's recent proposals to establish a national statutory council and regional service councils with black representation are purely cosmetic in nature. These proposals cannot end apartheid. They are intended to involve the black people in entrenching apartheid. It is not surprising, therefore, that they have been rejected by the African majority and its liberation movements. I wish to emphasize that apartheid is an evil that cannot be reformed, it must be abolished.
In a frantic bid to maintain his minority rule and to direct attention away from his internal crimes, Botha also continues to carry out murderous raids on the front-line and other neighboring States. Every State in the subregion has been attacked:	Botswana,	Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Angola
has been invaded by South Africa on many occasions, and parts of its territory have been occupied.
The MNR and UNITA bandits continue to operate with impunity in Mozambique and Angola, respectively. The damage caused to these States by the racist regime and the bandits has been estimated at well over US* 10 billion over the past five years. In addition, the front-line States and other neighboring States have been subjected to economic pressure. The aim of the apartheid regime is to intimidate these States so that they end their support for the freedom struggle against minority rule.
What is even more disappointing is that this crime of apartheid is being committed in the twentieth century, before the eyes of the civilized world. ThiB crime against humanity is being fully documented, aired and viewed day after day in international forums and in the living rooms of many homes around the world.
Representations have been made to Governments in all continents, but they seem to
have fallen on deaf ears. The world appears completely to have ignored the pleas of the oppressed people of southern Africa. There has been no serious move to stop that blatant crime, let alone punish its perpetrators.
Surely, generations to come will wonder how our generation could have stood by so passively while such an abominable crime was being committed, in the same way as we wonder how a past generation could have been so passive in the face of Hitler's crimes against the Jews. We urge Member States and the international community as a whole to act decisively and collectively to put an end to this intolerable inhumanity in southern Africa.
It is encouraging to note that in many Western European countries and in the United States which have long-standing ties with apartheid South Africa, public opinion is increasingly turning against apartheid. Parliaments, individual legislators, trade unions and women's and youth organizations are exerting pressure on their Governments to take concrete action against apartheid.
We were highly encouraged, for example, by the package of sanctions against South Africa which was approved by the United States Congress over a Presidential veto. We hope that Governments in these countries will live up to the expectations of their peoples and to the aspirations of the victims of apartheid.
I wish to stress that the people of Tanzania - and, indeed, the people of the whole African continent - feel deeply grieved by the plight of the oppressed majority in south Africa and Namibia. We consider our own independence and freedom incomplete so long as there is apartheid in South Africa and brutal colonialism in Namibia. We therefore unreservedly support the right and efforts of the majority populations of these countries to regain their freedom and dignity by every means possible, including, when necessary, armed struggle.
I am aware that there are countries whose abhorrence of violence restrains
them from supporting armed struggles for liberation. It is a position that we find
difficult to understand, for we believe that the victim of a violent crime has the right to ward it off violently. Nevertheless, we respect the position of those countries. We hope, however, that they will support the call for the imposition of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa. This is the only peaceful means left by which to end apartheid. Such economic pressure will make the South African regime abandon apartheid. Without it, South Africa will not dismantle apartheid.
We recognize that such sanctions will harm South Africa's neighbors and the front-line States. Their imposition must therefore be accompanied by a practical Program to support these States against the effects of sanctions, including those which a desperate apartheid regime will impose on them. Great sacrifices will be required, but they will be alleviated if sanctions are universally applied and seriously enforced.
I wish to take this opportunity to pay a tribute to those countries which have demonstrated solidarity with the oppressed masses of southern Africa by imposing a variety of sanctions against South Africa, we are especially inspired by the sanctions imposed by the Nordic countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and some countries of the European Economic Community (EEC).
It is unacceptable that Namibia remain under the illegal occupation of South Africa in spite of the United Nations having terminated the apartheid regime's Mandate 20 years ago. South Africa has shown its total contempt for and complete disregard of the United Nations by refusing to implement Security Council resolution 435 (1978).
We consider the policy of linking the independence of Namibia to the withdrawal of the Cuban forces in Angola to be fundamentally misconceived and practically flawed. Besides prolonging the agony of the Namibian people under
South Africa's brutal rule, it has sent the regime the message that it has powerful and dependable supporters in its policies of apartheid and destabilization.
Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is the only internationally acceptable basis for a peaceful settlement of the Namibian problem. That resolution, which has the support of all Member States, does not establish any linkage between Namibia's independence and the withdrawal of Cuban forces. We therefore support the Secretary-General's efforts to get the parties concerned to start implementing that resolution. We also reaffirm our total support for the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people in its struggle to free its country from colonial occupation.
The United Nations cannot avoid its historical duty and its role in assisting South Africa and Namibia to be free. Time for a peaceful or less violent change is fast running out. Without decisive action by the international community the situation in southern Africa will further deteriorate and lead to increased bloodshed. We have a moral obligation to avert such a situation.
Tanzania is equally distressed by the injustices that are taking place in the Middle East. It is nearly 40 years since the Palestinian people were forcibly evicted from their homeland. For 20 years Israel has illegally occupied Arab territories. We resolutely call for the complete and unconditional withdrawal by Israel from those territories. We reaffirm our support for the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to an independent State under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
It is also our sincere hope that a peaceful settlement will be found to the conflict between the Kingdom of Morocco and the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic.
It is indeed our hope that the people of that Republic will be allowed to determine their own affairs freely and without external interference.
Regional conflicts where great-Power interests either converge or diverge exist in other parts of the world. We are pleased to note that in Afghanistan and Cyprus the good offices of the Secretary-General have been invoked in order to protect the non-aligned character of those countries.
In Kampuchea, we believe that a political settlement involving all the parties should be arrived at without external interference. This would lead to the establishment of a peaceful, independent and non-aligned country. We believe that the eight-point proposal of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and the proposals made by the Association of South-East Asian Nations constitute an important element in such a settlement.
We deplore the aggravation of the situation in Central America by external interference. We support the efforts of the Nicaraguan people and Government to defend their sovereignty. The Guatemala proposal, which was agreed upon by the five Central American leaders on 7 August 1987, deserves our wholehearted support.
We are equally concerned about the tension in the Korean peninsula. We believe that the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the peninsula is an important condition of the stability of the region. A dialog between North and South Korea and the holding of tripartite talks between the two Koreas and the United States should be encouraged.
Tanzania has diplomatic relations with both Iraq and Iran. Our people cherish the most friendly feelings towards the Governments and peoples of those two countries. We renew our appeal to them to find a political settlement to their dispute and to stop the war between them. We urge all great Powers to refrain from taking any measures that would escalate the war and create a more serious threat to regional and global peace. We particularly urge the permanent members of the Security Council to shoulder their collective responsibility and to act in unity in the search for a peaceful settlement of that conflict.
We appeal for the exercise of wisdom so that peaceful solutions can be found to all these conflicts. Global peace would be greatly enhanced if all nations would strictly respect the sovereignty and independence of other nations and refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of others. The threat or use of force should never be made a basis for settling disputes. We should all scrupulously observe the norms of international law governing relations between sovereign and independent nations.
Another great threat to the survival of mankind is the arms race, particularly in nuclear weapons. Over $US 1 trillion is wasted each year in that senseless
race. Resources which could be used for economic and social development are . squandered in a competition which threatens the very survival of mankind.
Some of us had hoped that the Soviet moratorium on nuclear testing would start a process leading to a comprehensive ban on nuclear tests. Regrettably, the opportunity was lost. Nuclear tests continue to be conducted by all nuclear Powers. As a participant in the six-nation peace initiative, Tanzania renews its appeal to the nuclear Powers, especially the two major ones, to halt nuclear tests and ban the arms race in space. In the name of humanity we appeal for respect for our right to life, which is now threatened by nuclear weapons.
We are encouraged by the agreement in principle reached between the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe. We consider that agreement to be an initial step towards the ultimate objective of general and complete disarmament.
Peace and poverty cannot coexist. The economic underdevelopment of the third world, therefore, is also a threat to world peace. While only one third of humanity thrives in prosperity, two thirds of mankind are submerged in abject poverty. Hunger, disease and ignorance afflict hundreds of millions of our people. Ironically, this is not because the world lacks the necessary resources to meet the needs of all mankind.
We are told by the rich industrialized countries that a fair redistribution of the world's resources can take place only through the virtues of free trade. But we all know very well that the champions of so-called free trade are the very ones that institute strong protectionist measures against the exports of developing countries. As a result of such measures third-world countries are denied access to the markets of the industrialized countries. Prices for their export commodities remain depressed, while the prices of manufactured goods imported from the
industrialized countries rise constantly. This has resulted in unfavorable terms
of trade, severe balance-of-payments deficits and an ever growing debt burden for our countries.
It is estimated, for example, that the third world owes the developed countries about $US 1,000 billion. In 1985 alone the developing countries paid $US 115 billion in debt servicing and received only $US 41 billion in new loans.
In other words, there was a net outflow of $US 74 billion from the poor South to the rich North. The export earnings of non-oil-producing developing countries also dropped from $US 104 billion in 1980 to $US 87 billion in 1985. This was caused by declining prices of their export commodities. So, in addition to their export earnings, the developing countries had to look for an additional amount of $US 28 billion solely to service their debts. There is an urgent need for the creditors and borrowers to discuss this serious problem with a view to arriving at a mutually acceptable solution.
The increasing outflow of resources from the poor to the rich through debt servicing and unfavorable terms of trade aggravates the already critical economic situation in the third world. This is a direct result of the existing inequitable world economic system, which only works in favor of the rich industrialized countries. The present system has failed to respond effectively to the development efforts of the developing countries. It is for this reason that the gap between the rich North and the poor South has been widening year after year.
It is obvious, therefore, that the success of the development efforts being made by the developing countries, both individually and collectively, through South-South co-operation, will depend to a large extent on the restructuring of the existing world economic system. This is the basis of our pleas for the establishment of the new international economic order.
We, the third-world countries, have always demonstrated our willingness to negotiate with our colleagues of the North on this important issue. We feel that there is an urgent need to take concerted measures which will promote the development of the developing countries and establish more equitable relations between the North and the South. Our efforts, however, have often been frustrated by the lack of political will on the part of some developed countries which wish to cling to their privileged position at the expense of the suffering majority.
We appeal to those countries to reconsider their position in the interest of justice and prosperity for all mankind. We also believe that the United Nations has a moral obligation to ensure that the struggle for the establishment of a more equitable world order succeeds, so that all mankind can be saved from hunger, starvation and abject poverty.
We therefore appeal for the revival and early commencement of the global negotiations aimed at the establishment of the new international economic order.
These negotiations should put particular emphasis on structural changes in the field of trade and development and on the removal of trade barriers, especially to the exports of the developing countries. The international financial and monetary system should also be restructured. Such a restructuring should take into account, among other things, the need to provide adequate and predictable development resources to the developing countries in order to accelerate their development. Efforts should be made in particular to achieve as quickly as possible the long agreed target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product for official development assistance to developing countries.
For an ailing person the key to recovery is the will and determination to live. This also applies to economic recovery. Africa has demonstrated its will and determination to achieve economic recovery by adopting its Priority Program for Economic Recovery at the 21st summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), in 1985. This Program stresses the need for increased co-operation between African countries. We recognize, however, that the support of the international community is necessary for the implementation of the Program. At the thirteenth special session of this Assembly many donor countries expressed their willingness to assist.
I should like to take this opportunity to express our sincere appreciation to countries and international organizations, especially the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) , for the assistance they have so far given. We hope that others will make this assistance available as soon as possible.
I wish to conclude by reiterating Tanzania's faith in the United Nations. We believe that the United Nations has a great potential to maintain international peace and to promote the economic and social advancement of all peoples. It is true that the Organization has had some problems, some of which have sometimes threatened its very existence. But we must not let frustration, cynicism or despair
overcome us. The idealism which gave birth to the United Nations is still relevant and powerful; the principles upon which the Organization was founded remain valid.
We must therefore strive to build a strong and stable world order based on the principles of sovereign equality. We must rededicate ourselves to the cause of fostering coexistence, co-operation and interdependence. We must work with one another constructively to make our Organization both the symbol and the platform for the evolution of a system of universal peace and security, a system which will fully take into account and help to promote the interests and aspirations of all countries and peoples.
I renew Tanzania's pledge to co-operate in meeting the challenge of realizing this noble objective.


My delegation warmly congratulates you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the forty-second session of the General Assembly. Our thanks and compliments go to your predecessor, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, for his outstanding leadership of the forty-first session.
The international community is aware of the recent political and constitutional developments which have led to the change of Government in Fiji. The situation is an Internal matter which the people of Fiji must be allowed to resolve in their own way. Interference of any kind from outside will not help in resolving our domestic difficulties, and we urge all Member States to show understanding of our situation.
Looking back at the international scene over this past year, my Government has been greatly encouraged by the many instances of positive developments, which indicate that, in spite of serious differences, conflicting countries can come to terms with each other. The recent conclusion of the important peace accord between five Central American countries is a case in point. The many trouble-spots which remain must be tackled in the same spirit if they are to disappear from our agenda.
Sadly, the Middle East remains an area of violent turbulence and a source of potential international instability. The Iran-Iraq war is a tragic reminder of the futility of the use of force. The recent initiatives, especially by the Security Council and by the personal involvement of the Secretary-General, to bring an end to that conflict are a welcome development, and we pray for their success. My Government remains committed to the principle of the right of the Palestinian people to a homeland and the right of all States, including Israel, to safe and secure boundaries.
As an indication of our willingness to contribute in whatever way we can to the peace process in this region# we have continued to maintain troops within the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) as well as in Sinai. However# our participation in the United Nations peace-keeping forces in Lebanon has cost us dearly. Twenty-two of our soldiers have lost their lives in that distant land while our country has been burdened with an escalating debt of over $20 million. This is a very heavy and unfair burden on a small country like Fiji. We urge those States which have withheld their contributions in the past to pay up their arrears and those States still currently withholding them to meet their obligations. We are particularly distressed that the United States# one of the main promoters of UNIFIL# is now the major withholder.
Nothing new can be said to describe the appalling situation in South Africa. There are# however# hopeful signs that some moderate elements within South Africa are attempting to find an honourable way forward# but their voices are still too feeble and need support from outside. The international community must continue to exert all pressure on South Africa to abandon apartheid. South Africa1s stranglehold over Namibia# and its refusal to implement Security Council resolution 435 (1978) in continuing defiance of the rest of the world, is a sorry indictment of the impotence of the international community when only a few countries keep supporting that regime.
Once more# this General Assembly will review the situation in Kampuchea# Afghanistan and Cyprus. The people of those countries have gone through another year of oppression# violence and intimidation but their spirits remain high# hopeful that justice must soon come their way. We again urge the withdrawal of all foreign forces and a return to respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of those countries. While wars are raging in several parts of the world, new ones must be prevented from erupting elsewhere. For that reason it is a matter of urgency that preventive measures be adopted to defuse tensions in areas like the Korean peninsula. We urge the Governments of both South and North Korea to resume dialogue with a view to resolving their differences by negotiation in order to achieve a peaceful reunification. Pending a just and durable settlement, we support the call for admission of both Koreas to the United Nations and meanwhile urge them to coexist peacefully.
The recent peace accord in Central America is a bold initiative by the countries concerned. They should be given every support to help the accord to work. We were pleased to be part of the consensus resolution adopted in this Assembly two days ago.
Underlying much of the instability in the world is the unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity. The heavy load of foreign debt now borne by developing countries is being aggravated by the protectionist policies which appear increasingly to be the trend in industrialized countries. The situation has worsened over the past few years, yet those countries with the power and the resources to change the basis of the disparity, refuse or are reluctant to take effective action. The seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which was launched with so much optimism recently, seems also to have collided with the unwillingness of some developed countries to open their markets. A way must be found to remove the frustration and vicious circle of poverty and depression from the majority of the world's peoples.
The final traces of colonialism are still to be laid to rest in many corners of the world. In our region, while the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands has moved towards self-determination, the same cannot be said for New Caledonia. That neighbour of ours in the South Pacific has just gone through a referendum which was boycotted by most of the Kanak people. In spite of the advice and pleadings to abandon the referendum and establish dialogue with the representatives of the indigenous people so that they too can be part of the political process, France insisted on carrying on. It is sad to see deeper bitterness and racial polarization developing. Our assessment is that a volatile situation exists in this close neighbour and we trust and pray that the principal parties involved will exercise good sense and restraint and work towards finding an acceptable solution to their problems. We trust that the wishes of the indigenous people will remain of priority concern to the French Government.
The steady progress being made by other Territories still classified as Non-Self-Governing, under the careful surveillance of the decolonization Committee, is encouraging. Many of these Territories ate in the Pacific. Although it should not need repeating, the people of the Territories concerned must be the ones to decide their future form of government? this should not be chosen for them, nor forced upon them, by over-zealous decolonizers.
Since the forty-first session of the General Assembly, the South Pacific Nuclear-Free-Zone Treaty has come into effect. This has extended the nuclear-free zone beyond the area covered by the earlier Treaties of Tlatelolco and Antarctica and the three together cover nearly one third of the entire earth's surface. We are happy to note that of the nuclear Powers, both the Soviet Union and China have signed the relevant Protocols. Naturally, we are disappointed that the United States, the United Kingdom and France have not seen fit to do so.
We renew our plea to the Government of France to discontinue its nuclear testing at Mururoa. We urge France, which is a major Power as well as a permanent member of the Security Council, to heed the concern of the Pacific countries and thereby remove one of the main obstacles to the further promotion and enhancing of the friendly ties and co-operation existing between France and the Pacific countries.
The work and recommendations of the Group of 18 has had a salutary effect on the cost and effectiveness of the United Nations bureaucracy. The Secretary-General must be commended for the seriousness and single-mindedness with which he has instituted streamlining and effected economies in administrative structures. Clearly, over the past year what we have seen emerge is a much leaner and, we hope, healthier Secretariat. Yet the tasks before it are certainly no less difficult and complex, so the challenges facing them are daunting. My delegation pays a tribute to the Secretary-General and all his staff for the extraordinary efforts they have made in the service of mankind. This past year has seen enormous pressures falling upon the Secretary-General and his top aides and we congratulate them on their vigour and energy and on their abiding commitment to the ideals of the united family of nations.


We	pay	a
tribute to the memory of Ernesto Guevara today, the twentieth anniversary of the sacrifice of his life.
The Bible tells us that Cain killed Abel in the first confrontation between members of the human species. Envy and pride took possession of Cain and made him commit this crime. "Am I my brother's keeper?" - that is the way Cain replied to the question put to him at the time.
The United Nations came into being at the end of the Second World War with the purpose of avoiding further wars, so that Cains should not kill millions of other Abels, so that all of us on earth would have the duty to be our brothers' keepers.
But there have been new wars in various parts of the planet. Millions of us human beings in the developing countries have been and continue to be the victims of such wars. There have been dozens of interventions since 1945 against us, the peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Millions of men, women and children have been the victims of these policies.
The North, which is trampling underfoot and crushing the South, continues to impose the kind of relationship which suits it best; it staunchly defends an unjust international order, including unequal trade, external debt, protectionist measures, the total closing of markets, and pressures on Governments and organs of multilateral co-operation, disrespect and disregard for the Charter and the bodies of the United Nations and for the international legal order. All that leaves the peoples of the developing countries utterly defenseless.
In the midst of such suffering, we welcome and applaud the progress made between the Soviet Union and the United States towards taking steps to ensure disarmament, including the prohibition and then the elimination of nuclear and chemical weapons.
As a member of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, however, we are concerned about wars between brother peoples. We join in the international clamor for the cessation of the war between Iran and Iraq, and we stress the danger of the presence and build-up of foreign military forces in the Gulf.
Also as a non-aligned country, we ask ourselves what we are doing and what we can do to prevent the death each year of between 20 million and 25 million children under the age of five from malnutrition and disease - deaths which could easily be prevented, according to the Brandt report. According to the latest statistics- those of 1986 - 14.1 million children aged five died from disease and malnutrition.
Of these, 250,000 were from the industrialized countries - 1.7 per cent of the total - while 13,850,000 were from the developing countries - 98.3 per cent of the total. Who defends this carnage that has caused the death of more than 1 billion children since the end of the Second World War? Who will put an end once and for all to the murderous policy of apartheid, racism and the daily killings of the inhabitants of South Africa? Who will put an end to oppression in Chile, Paraguay and Haiti? Who is concerned about this? Either the countries of the North and the international community can take concrete action to meet the just demands of those peoples, or they will continue to be faced with the fait accompli of change, popular movements and revolution.
The peoples will not wait for permission to struggle, to fight and to triumph. The peoples will give an impetus to their own processes of change, and then there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth by those that never wished to listen to the peoples and were the accomplices of the oppressors.
That is the situation of my country, Nicaragua, where, having intervened militarily and assassinated Sandino, the United States installed the Somoza dictatorship. Against that dictatorship set up by the United States, promoted and defended by the United States, armed and financed by the United States, we Nicaraguans fought to win the freedom which had been denied us.
At that time the United States was not concerned about freedom in Nicaragua.
At that time the United States did not care about the human rights of Nicaraguans. In those days the United States did not care about the lack of justice. The United States was not concerned then about the thousands of prisoners who were thrown into gaol - including myself, who spent seven years in such gaols. No concern was voiced by the leaders of the United States about the gaols in which we Nicaraguans were suffering or about the killings and tortures that were inflicted on us Nicaraguans.  Without asking permission of the United States, and against its policy and will, we overthrew the Somoza dictatorship not only to win our freedom, but also in the hope of establishing a new type of relationship with the United States, one of mutual respect, not relations between slave and master, as had been the case in the Somoza period, but relations between people, between nations, between States. That is what we wanted - that is what we want - respectful relations with the United States. Moreover, we wanted, and want, friendly relations with the United States. But the response of the United States has been to try to wrest from us our hard-won freedom and send Somoza's former guards back to Nicaragua to rule there.
For six years and nine months the United States has been trying to sweep away the Nicaraguan revolution, violating ethic and moral principles, international laws and, indeed, the laws of the United States itself.
The President of the United States is to blame for over 45,714 human victims in our country and the $2,821 billion loss in our gross domestic product, as a result of the United States policy in Nicaragua. The United States has bled the Nicaraguan people dry and badly damaged the Nicaraguan economy. This policy on the part of the United States has not benefited the people of Nicaragua at all but has come up against the courage, resoluteness, valor and heroism of this people.
The policy of setting up a mercenary army was intended to destroy the legitimately constituted Government in Nicaragua, but it has already failed. The United States has reduced its mercenary army in Nicaragua to 6,500 mercenaries, whereas it wanted to have 30,000 by now. Now all it has is 16,000 refugees in Honduras - people who found themselves obliged to leave for Honduras - and a similar number in Costa Rica, and there are 6,500 mercenaries - freedom fighters, as President Reagan calls them - but they are getting fewer in number all the time, because they are dying in combat or accepting the policy of amnesty which has been in effect since January 1985 for anyone wishing to embrace it.
The United States policy has failed and President Reagan is running out of time because his second term of office is coming to a close. He has only a few months left now before he has to leave the presidency of the United States# and it was these objective elements# particularly the failure of United States policy in Nicaragua, that led to the Esquipulas Agreement, because# quite frankly, what would have happened if the United States had achieved its objective of destroying the Nicaraguan revolution in a few months# as it suggested to the Governments of Honduras and Costa Rica when it wanted to set up camps there? If it had destroyed the Nicaraguan revolution, as it destroyed the people of Grenada, nothing more would have happened in Central America.
Some people find their ears hurt when the truth is spoken and they are incapable of listening, but that is their business.
It seems to me that the culprits are annoyed. They have committed aggression against us and they have killed our people, but now they are upset when the truth is told to them. It is thanks to this reality, the capacity of the Nicaraguan people for resistance, that: the policy and the mercenary forces of the United States have been defeated; that is what made it possible to sign the Esquipulas II agreements. It is thanks also to the perseverance of the Contadora Group and its Support Group which, in a firm Latin American endeavor, have opposed the interventionist policy of the United States.
The Esquipulas II Agreement is a transcendental instrument dictated by the common sense of the Latin American leaders, and it is the fruit of the action of the Contadora Group and the Support Group.
Nicaragua has taken a number of steps in response to the signing of these agreements, so that on 5 November next, the date which marks the end of the 90-day period for the commencement of the implementation process, there will be better conditions for progress to be made in that process - because the end of the 90-day period is not the end of negotiations but rather a point of departure in the negotiation process.
The General Assembly yesterday gave its unanimous support to the leaders of Central America who signed the Esquipulas Agreement. Nicaragua thanks the Assembly for this act of solidarity in the name of peace of the General Assembly. We hope that the Government of the United States will comply with that United Nations resolution, and not by just saying it agrees with Esquipulas II; it is our hope that it will respect the Agreement by observing the terms contained in the Agreement of Esquipulas II. So far, the United States Government has given no indication of willingness to respect that Agreement.
That was made clear when President Reagan spoke from this very rostrum earlier in this session of the Assembly, when his tone was one of disrespect for the
Esquipulas II Agreement and disrespect for the leaders of Central America. In the speech he made yesterday before the Organization of American States (OAS),
President Reagan once again showed disrespect for the Central American Presidents and for the Agreement. He endorsed a kind of conduct which has been condemned by the highest court of justice of all. President Reagan's speech yesterday was a violation of the charter of the Organization of American States and the Charter of the United Nations.
President Reagan went to the Organization of American States, as he comes to the United Nations, posing as a great judge of the peoples of the world. Who gave him such power? Who gave the President of the United States such representative status?
Let me now take up two aspects he mentioned in his statement yesterday before the Organization of American States. Here I have the Esquipulas Agreement, and here are the signatures of the five Central American Presidents:
President Oscar Arias Sanchez, President Jose Napoleon Duarte,
President Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo, President Jose Azcona Hoyos, and myself. Our Eive signatures are right here; President Reagan's is not. If President Reagan wishes to interfere in our negotiating process, let him sign the Esquipulas (Agreement. Then he will be fully entitled to talk about the Agreement as he did before the Organization of American States. We should be delighted if the President of the United States were to subscribe to this Agreement; then we should feel he had the right to discuss these matters, for his signature would be on this Agreement. But to start discussing these things and to make allegations, and to try to impose his will in respect of an Agreement he has not signed - that shows disrespect for those of us who have signed the Agreement, because we are the Leaders of independent sovereign countries. We are not a colony or a neo-colony of :he United States; if we were, the President could feel entitled to come along and
say that the Agreement needs such-and-such corrections. That is all wrong. The worst thing is that it seems he has not even read the Agreement. I am sure President Reagan has not even read the Agreement.
I am saying this because he said that he was going to ask for $US 270 million for the mercenaries and that, depending on how the Agreement was carried out, he would pass the money on to the mercenaries.
Paragraph 5 of the Esquipulas II Agreement states that:
"The Governments of the five Central American States shall request Governments of the region and Governments from outside the region which are providing either overt or covert military, logistical, financial or propaganda support, in the form of men, weapons, munitions and equipment, to irregular forces or insurrectionist movements to terminate such aid; this is vital if a stable and lasting peace is to be attained in the region." (A/42/521, p. 6) That is quite clear, then.
"The above does not cover aid for the repatriation or, failing that, the relocation and necessary assistance with reintegration into normal life of former members of such groups or forces."
When the President goes before the Organization of American States (OAS) and says he is going to ask for $270 million, and also says he supports the agreements, he is being utterly inconsistent. The agreements clearly state that President Reagan should not provide new funds for the mercenary forces; if he wanted to approve new funds, it would have to be for the relocation or repatriation of people who, for example, accept the amnesty, who lay down their arms and go along with the peace process. That money would have to be given to the United Nations, to the Organization of American States (OAS), or to organizations of the International Verification and Follow-up Commission, so that they could make certain the money was truly spent on relocation and repatriation.
President Reagan says he supports the Esquipulas Agreement and then he makes a proposal which goes contrary to the agreement.
President Reagan also referred to the question of armaments, military manpower, foreign military advisers, and so on. He said the agreement does not take this into account. But on page 7 the Agreement clearly states:
"Negotiations on security, verification and the control and limitation of weapons:
"The Governments of the five Central American States, with the Contadora Group acting as mediator, shall continue negotiating on the points outstanding in the draft Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central America with regard to security, verification and control." (A/42/521, p. 7)
Here, too, we are clearly talking about a willingness to have ail foreign military advisers leave the region - the willingness of the Central American Governments to undertake not to carry out maneuvers with foreign military advisers, not to set up foreign military bases on our respective territories, and our commitment to convert the Central American region into a zone of peace, free from any foreign military presence.
These elements are taken into account in Esguipulas II. President Reagan is wrong to say that they are not. It bothers us that the President of the United States should take such a flippant and disrespectful attitude to this Agreement without being familiar with it, without having read and studied the text carefully. We are really bothered by this, because this is the President of an economic and military power of world standing who is, judging by his remarks, taking this rather lightly. This position of the President of the United States is not contributing to peace, and I think it discredits him further. It bothers us, I say, because it demonstrates a clear decision to press ahead with his policy against all odds. Consequently we are obliged to think that his words are the prelude to the continuation and escalation of a policy which does not rule out the use of United States troops.
Logically, Nicaragua rejects the statement of President Reagan before the OAS. The Government of the United States should not forget that the Nicaraguan people has never turned and run, calling for help. There were several invasions in the last century, but we, the Nicaraguan people, responded to those invasions by fighting and struggling to defend peace. Policies based on force have yielded no results. That must be made quite clear, because when the United States Congress approved the $100 million for the mercenaries, as a consequence of that policy based on force, the very next day the La Prensa was closed in Nicaragua, and a bishop was expelled a few days later, one who advocated and supported the United States policy of intervention.
The United States policy of force was what drove us to set up a state of emergency in our country. It hardened the situation in our country, if anything. Had it not been for the agreements of Esquipulas II, Nicaragua would not have been able to take the steps it has taken. It is thanks to it that no censorship is applied to the press, which is circulating freely in ray country. The Catholic radio is broadcasting; a national dialog has been set up; we have decreed a cease-fire and formed a National Commission of Reconciliation, and we have taken other steps.
Wei Nicaraguans can reach an understanding fairly among ourselves. But we believe that, just as a dialog has begun between the Government of El Salvador and the rebels there, the time has come for a dialog to begin between the Government of the United States and Nicaragua. Although there is no symmetry between El Salvador and Nicaragua, there is a precedent:	before Esquipulas II, the
Government of El Salvador had engaged in a dialog with the Salvadorian guerrillas. And there is another precedent:	before Esquipulas II, the Nicaraguan
Government had engaged in a dialog with the Government of the United States, at Manzanillo. Those are the precedents, and they correspond to the different realities of the two situations.
We have nothing to gain from talking with the leaders of the counter-revolution, and we shall not engage in a dialog with them. If there is a real desire to take up this matter seriously, the dialog must be between the Government of the United States and the Government of Nicaragua, for at the rate they are going the mercenaries are likely to disappear, thanks also to the fighting spirit of our people and the Nicaraguan Government's amnesty Program. Thus, we can see that the problem is not really the mercenaries because they may disappear, but the United States will continue its policy of aggression against Nicaragua; when it has no mercenaries, it will use its own troops.
The problem is the behavior of the United States Government and its attitude towards the Nicaraguan revolution. That attitude was clear in Reagan's pre-election platform, before the mercenaries existed. In that political platform. President Reagan advocated the destruction of the Nicaraguan revolution - and there were then no mercenaries. Thus, the issue is not one of engaging in dialog with the leaders of the mercenaries.
Yet there is indeed a dialog on the ground between the mercenaries who are there, in Nicaragua, and who are taking a beating from our forces, which gives them an opportunity to accept the amnesty. A dialog is therefore already occurring on the ground, in order to promote acceptance of the amnesty. What is the point of talking to the leadership of the contra mercenaries? There is no point, because the entire policy is promoted by the United States Government. As I said, the mercenaries could disappear, but the United States Government would carry on using other methods. If the United States does not alter its policy towards Nicaragua, there could be a military blockade against us; there could be "surgical" strikes; there could be a military invasion. Thus, resumed dialog would be the logical thing. I say "resumed" because there is a precedent: there already has been a dialog between us and the Government of the United States. We received Secretary of State Shultz in Managua, where I spoke with him, and there have been other meetings, at Manzanillo, Mexico - meetings which the United States broke off abruptly.
If we have already had a dialog, why do we not sit down again and have another?
Here in this United Nations forum, I hereby issue an invitation to the President of the United States:	Thirty-five	days from 5 November, the United
States and Nicaragua should begin an unconditional bilateral dialog with a view to signing agreements providing security for both States and making possible the normalization of their bilateral relations.
Why should this take place 35 days from 5 November? The fifth of November is when the implementation of the agreements will begin, and there follows a 30-day period, at the end of which the International Verification and Follow-up Commission is to meet, with the participation of the United Nations, the Organization of American States (QAS) , the Contadora Group, the Support Group and the Central American countries, to analyze progress in the implementation of the agreements, we therefore think it appropriate that the Government of the United States have an opportunity to observe - not interfere with - the implementation of the agreements, ind await the analysis by the International Verification and Follow-up Commission, i dialog could then begin five days later, after the United States has considered .hat analysis. We could take up the dialog where we left it off.
I hope the President of the United States will not act as his delegation acted today. When President Reagan addressed the Assembly, the delegation of Nicaragua listened to him. We are not afraid of words; we are not afraid of political and ideological debate. A year ago I myself sat in this Hall and listened to President Reagan.
I hope that President Reagan will not respond to this proposal for bilateral dialog in the same way his delegation responded here in the General Assembly Hall today. President Reagan should not hasten to say no to that proposal; let him reflect. Let him ask himself why United States citizens such as Benjamin Linder and Brian Wilson have shed their own blood to prevent more bloodshed in Nicaragua. Let President Reagan ask himself why the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the leaders of evangelical churches have issued several messages calling on him to end his policy. Let the President of the United States ask himself why Roy Bourgeois, a Catholic priest, has spent several months in a high-security prison in Louisiana. Other Catholic priests too are being gaoled for civil opposition to the United States Government's policy of death against Nicaragua.
President Reagan should not hasten to say no. Before consulting those who give him hot-headed ideas, such as military options, including outright invasion, let him remember that Rambo exists only in the movies.
In Viet Nam the result was the death of thousands of Vietnamese and also of more than 40,000 young Americans who were sent over there to die in Viet Nam, young United States citizens who would today be scientists, educators, technicians, clergy, athletes, farmers or doctors.
The peoples do not want Rambos; the peoples want men of peace.
Before responding to my proposal for a bilateral dialog, we hope that President Reagan will not rush into saying anything. Let him think, and may God enlighten him and help him choose the road to peace and stop harming the people of Nicaragua.