Allow me at the outset. Sir, to offer you my sincere congratulations on your election as President of the forty-first session of the General AssAwhiv and to wish you all success in
presiding over its deliberations. I take this opportunity also to congratulate Bangladesh, a friendly country to which we are linked by the closest historical, social and political ties.
On behalf of my delegation, it gives me pleasure to thank your predecessor, Mr. Jaime de Pinies, for his valuable contribution to the work of the previous session. I also wish to express my deep appreciation to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his efforts to maintain co-operation and security in the world. We express our hope that he will continue in his noble task.
The proclamation by the United Nations General Assembly designating 1986 the International Year of Peace is indeed an occasion for the peoples of the world to pause and reflect on how to save the world from the dangers of destruction and annihilation posed by the nuclear terror overshadowing our lives.
The international community is today confronted by a crisis in which the arms race, and particularly nuclear rearmament, threatens the future and very existence of man and his very existence. One of the reasons for this crisis may be the inability of the international community to put behind it the accumulated bitterness and tragedy of modern history. The memory of wars, destruction and colonialism continues to sow in our breasts feelings of insecurity and of doubt about our ability to lay to rest the bitter experiences of the past. Fear and mutual distrust have led to an open-ended arms race, especially between the two super-Powers, whose combined military spending is approximately 70 per cent of total world expenditure. This is undoubtedly contrary to man's natural duty to develop the earth's resources and to preserve human civilization. Relations between nations are today characterized by excessive selfishness and acute conflict between various principles and ideologies on the one hand and political and economic self-interest on the other. Violence is often used as a means to satisfy such ambitions. It is no wonder that such a deterioration in international relations leads to failure and undermines man's confidence in a future of security, stability and peace.
The international community is aware of the extent of the current crisis in international relations. It is also aware of the horrors of any nuclear war, however limited. That awareness and realization have not, however, prompted the international community to seek effective solutions to the political and ideological differences existing in the current social and economic order so that an international order may be established for the maintenance of peace and the promotion of security and stability in the world.
The endemic crisis of confidence among major Powers is undoubtedly one of the main reasons for the failure of disarmament negotiations and of the attempt to establish an international order based on collective security.
That tendency in international relations has led to a frenzied race to impose policies of polarization and cold war in many parts of the world. It has engendered security fears in the third world, which has been subjected by some Powers to unlimited hegemony and influence and the control of all its energy resources and raw materials. Those Powers have deprived the peoples of the third world of their right to sovereignty over their national resources and the right to obtain a fair price for their goods. They have also incited regional strife and worsened conditions in hotbeds of tension in many parts of the third world, which have become open markets for the arms dealers.*
Such extremist  policies have created a new situation with two contradictory features: whereas the advanced countries devote most of their resources to the development of land and the building of civilization, they ate also using their potential and immense wealth for the manufacture of instruments of destruction and annihilation. Thus, construction and destruction have become the twin aspects of this conflict, which has diverted the course of international relations to such an extent that calls for international co-operation and collective security amount in most cases to little more than empty talk.
If the international community is to confront the challenge of the nuclear horror, it must mobilize all its capacity for joint collective co-operation and find solutions to pressing human problems instead of indulging in conflict and rivalry in international relations, which can lead only to collective destruction and complete annihilation.
Thus it can be said that the questions of security, peace and disarmament -particularly nuclear disarmament - concern not only the two super-Powers or the nuclear-weapon States, but closely affect the fate of all peoples. We hope that the accident that took place recently at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, as well as similar incidents, will convince States possessing nuclear weapons and installations that collective action on joint security measures for all States and peoples are necessary and, indeed, inevitable.
In this context we should like to underline the point made in the report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues, chaired by Mr. Olof Palme, the late Prime Minister of Sweden, that international peace must rest on a commitment to joint survival rather than on the threat of mutual destruction. The international arena is crowded with international disputes and regional hotbeds of tension awaiting prompt solutions. Undoubtedly, most if not
all of such regional disputes are due to international interactions and to a network of interests that are competing on the political, economic and strategic levels.
It is indeed regrettable that the United Nations, which has accomplished so much in the humanitarian, economic and social fields, has not been able to satisfy the longings of the peoples of the world to be saved from the menace of war, or to ensure that present and future generations can live in security, comfort and peace.
The principles of the Charter would be sufficient to guarantee prosperity, progress, security and equality to all peoples of the world, if only relations among States were based on the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Thus as the Secretary-General says in his annual report, we should not only believe in such principles, but also apply them in our international dealings and relations.
In that connection, it is with great sadness and pain that we have been watching the bitter war between Iraq and Iran. That war has now entered its seventh year and has inflicted much grief and destruction on those two neighboring countries. In spite of all initiatives and serious attempts to settle that dispute by the united Nations, the Gulf Co-operation Council, the Islamic Conference, the Non-Aligned Movement and individual and regional mediation efforts, Iran unfortunately has not yet responded to calls for peace.
We call for the cessation of hostilities, because we are concerned about the peace and security of those two neighboring countries and peoples and wish to save them from the further losses and total destruction which will be the inevitable result of an unending war. As a country that feels some responsibility as a neighbor living in the region ravaged by the war, we make a sincere and unbiased, appeal to Iran to respond to those calls for peace. Iran can look for solid support from the States of the Gulf region in restoring peace and security in the area.
FrocB this rostrum, we once again call upon the United Nations to continue its efforts to create the right conditions for a dialog that will end this destructive war. At the same tine we call upon the influential Powers in the world community to shoulder their responsibilities and make a real effort to arrive at a definitive solution to the Iraq-Iran dispute that will safeguard the legitimate rights of both parties.
Some believe that the Iraq-Iran war is of limited scope and thus does not warrant greater attention at the cost of other international questions, particularly since oil is flowing normally and Meeting the needs of world Markets. Some world Powers which hold this narrow view of the Iraq-Iran war and of security in the Gulf region concentrate their attention on oil, open Markets and the arms trade, ignoring the political lessons and historical trends in the region.
The unalterable facts of history show that the many civilizations that had existed in the Gulf region and the Arabian peninsula since time immemorial  were in a region separating the great civilizations of the East and the West. That central position led to economic prosperity, established Markets and active trade. This left its clear impact on political and social trends, which were in fact distinguished by political moderation and by co-operation with all other States in all fields of mutual interest.
Those two distinctive features of the region were not always found together; they varied according to the changing historical situation. When the currents of extremism upset stability and coexistence in the region, the voice of moderation subsided and died, leading to political and economic effects and interaction and to the emergence of the interests of foreign Powers; this was harmful to some.
That political fact proves that stability, peace and security in the region were always the main source of well-being and happiness for all who spoke in the solemn voice of moderation. He hope that this lesson of wisdom will resound in the ears and thoughts of those who are wagering on the continuation of the Iraq-Iran war and of those who are waiting^ in the hope of deriving personal gain from it. In this connection, we welcome the peace initiative put forward by Iraq on 2 August 1986 for the termination of the war, sc shat the people of the region might lead a normal life in security and stability.
The question of Palestine and the problem of the Middle East provide the clearest example of the failure of international co-operation, whether within the United Nations or outside it. A number of States have made individual contacts with the parties to the dispute and have put forward various initiatives for the peaceful settlement of the dispute in that region. Earlier ineffectual attempts of this kind culminated in the conclusion of a treaty between Egypt and Israel. But the aggressive policies of Israel have not ceased. Israel attacked Iraq's peaceful nuclear installations in 1981, invaded Lebanon in 1982, and massacred Palestinian refugees in Sabra and Shatila - a massacre whose painful memory haunts us again this month. Israel has also pursued a policy of forcible occupation of Arab lands and has established settlement on occupied lands. It has annexed the Syrian Golan Heights and has altered the historical landmarks of Holy Jerusalem. It has raided the Tunis offices of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and has pursued a daily policy of suppression, dispersion and terrorism in the occupied Arab lands. It regularly launches savage attacks on Lebanon and Palestinian refugee camps, the latest of which were last week's air raids against southern Lebanon.
Why have all these attempts and peace initiatives failed to bring peace to the Middle East?
He believe that most of these efforts and initiatives were based on unrealistic assumptions. They ignored the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and the entire question of Palestine, which is at the core of the dispute in the Middle East. In short, efforts to settle the Arab-Israeli dispute were misdirected. All initiatives and efforts - whatever their source and irrespective of the good intentions of their sponsor - will inevitably fail if they are not based on a just and comprehensive solution of the question of Palestine and of the Palestinian people.
Although that fact is obvious, sane States still lean towards the Israeli view of this cause, which is vital to the Arab nation. That view can provide nothing more than partial solutions guaranteeing neither stability nor peace and giving no momentum to the cause of genuine peace in the region. A comprehensive and lasting peace should be based on just principles, the main element of which is recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and to the establishment of their own independent State on their national soil, under the leadership of the PLO, their sole legitimate representative. The PLO should be a principal participant in any peaceful effort towards the practical, fair solution of this question. The convening of an international conference with the participation of all the interested parties and the permanent members of the Security Council would be a practical step towards the achievement of a just and lasting peace in the region.
The awakening of the indigenous majority in South Africa has attracted the attention of world public opinion. It has become crystal clear to the international community that the black majority, which has been struggling for many years against injustice and oppression, has risen in a massive revolt aimed at dismantling the racist regime.
Bitter experience has now shown the black population that proposed reforms offered now and again by the racist regime are merely political sops intended to contain local and world discontent. It has become clear to all that the problem in South Africa is not merely political; it is also a question of immoral practices which are loathed by all the world's peoples as being inconsistent with the principles of human equality and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Coexistence with such a regime is impossible; whatever other concessions may be made by the racist regime, the main principles of its detested system of apartheid will be retained. World attention should therefore be directed at formulating a clear plan of action that will compel the Pretoria regime to submit to the demands of justice and equality and dismantle its system of racial discrimination, which is a political and social regime incompatible with human dignity. The international community should take steps to reflect in practice its support for the legitimate struggle of the people of South Africa, for moral support has proven ineffective in compelling the Pretoria regime to abandon its system of racial discrimination.
The non-aligned summit Conference, held at Harare from 1 to 7 September this year, adopted unambiguous decisions on this subject. We call upon the international community to support the decisions of that Conference. We believe that the time has come for the Security Council - and particularly its permanent members - to shoulder its international responsibility and impose a comprehensive boycott and strict economic sanctions against South Africa in order to compel that racist regime to yield to the dictates of justice and equality.
The South African regime continues illegally to occupy the Territory of Namibia, in violation of General Assembly resolutions, in particular resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974. We regret that no progress has been made towards implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia, outlined in Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We reiterate our full support for the lawful struggle of the people of Namibia for freedom and independence, under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), its genuine, legitimate representative.
The Afghan people has languished under the yoke of foreign occupation since 1973, when it lost its freedom under an alien regime imposed by the force of arms. The people of Afghanistan have been compelled to live under an unacceptable system, which they have resisted by faith and by arms. We call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces in conformity with the will of the international community, as embodied in General Assembly resolutions. The Afghan people should be permitted to choose a political and social system compatible with its history and ancient heritage. We hope that the efforts of the Secretary-General will be successful, so that the Afghan people may regain its freedom and freely express its will, safe from policies of hegemony, polarization and threats.
As regards the question of Cyprus, we welcome the Secretary-General's attempts to narrow the differences between the two parties to the dispute, thus paving the way towards a just and lasting peaceful settlement.
With regard to tho question of Korea, we sympathize with the wish of the Korean people in both parts of Korea for reunification, and we welcome all constructive dialog to that effect.
The world economy is in acute crisis, which threatens the present and future of all the world's peoples. It might therefore be that economic matters should be placed high on the list of international priorities so that they may become a principal theme of contemporary international co-operation. It is strange indeed that this acute crisis in the world economy has not awakened the international community to its crushing burden, as international economic oo-operation recedes in spit* of the interdependence of the world economy and its increased universality. In other words, the universality and interdependence of economic affairs have not been accompanied by international co-operation to face up to the challenges of the current economic crisis. It is clear today that world economic relations have passed from the stage of problem to that of crisis. This threatens the existence of man, in exactly the same way as nuclear terror and strategic arms. This crisis makes it imperative to correct the course of current international relations, so that a new international economic order may be established.
This crisis has had a strong impact on the economies of the third world in the past three years. Rates of economic growth began to fall drastically, and the terms of trade deteriorated sharply; there was also a reduction in the prices of primary materials, commodities and oil. That, in turn, inflated the volume of external debts and the cost of servicing them. Confusion in the fields of currency, finance and exchange rates increased. The advanced, industrialized countries started to adopt protectionist economic policies and to impose strict barriers against the exports of the developing countries. That further undermined the economies of the third world.
These economic conditions have upset the economies of developing countries, because of the ominous consequences they will have unless the international community corrects the deviations in the course of economic relations by introducing drastic reforms in the current economic structure. The time has come for the advanced, industrialized countries to realize not only that the continued deterioration o£ economic conditions will undermine the political and social systems of the third world, but also that the advanced countries will not be immune from their adverse effects and negative developments. We hope that these facts will prompt the advanced and industrialized countries to open a new chapter of concrete economic negotiations with the developing nations, and to go beyond formal differences and concentrate on issues of substance.
Peace is a human quest. Nations and States have longed for and aspired to peace from ancient times, so that they might enjoy stability and security, particularly in areas shattered by conflict and war. The United Nations was established after the Second World War to save succeeding generations from the scourge of a new war.
Now that the twentieth century is almost at an end, peace has become, with all its political and social implications, a necessity - indeed, a pressing world necessity, which will shape the fate of man and his present and future existence. We therefore look forward to the future with hope and expectation. We want to dispel pessimism and give future generations confidence in the viability of collective action for the good of humanity, so that mature human dialog may bring happiness to man and save him from the threats of fear and instability and the unpredictability of the future.
I am pleased to state from this rostrum that the State of Bahrain, which believes in the noble goals of the United Nations Charter, is prepared to work hard and co-operate sincerely and constructively with all other States for the maintenance of peace and security in the world and the achievement of those noble goals of the Charter of our Organization.


It is an honor for roe, on behalf of the delegation of Sierra Leone, to extend to the President our congratulations on his election to preside over the United Nations General Assembly at its forty-first session. Assured, as we are, of the commitment of his great country, Bangladesh, to the noble ideals of this Organization, and given his own personal qualities as a statesman and diplomat of distinction, we have every confidence that he will guide the deliberations at the forty-first session to a successful conclusion.
We would also register our appreciation and gratitude to his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Jaime de Pinies of Spain, who successfully presided over the historic and truly memorable fortieth session.
As we commence the fifth decade of our Organization's existence we continue to face enduring threats to international peace and security. The continued accumulation of massive nuclear and conventional arsenals, the persistence of terrorism within States and across State frontiers, inter-State aggression with sophisticated weaponry and massive forces, and the continued polarization of the world into ideological and military blocs have consistently raised the specter of a dangerous world on the brink of catastrophe. Despite the endless speeches and the numerous resolutions of this Assembly, peace remains a dream and a faint hope to the peoples of Central America, parts of Africa, Kampuchea, Afghanistan and the Middle East. For many, parochial and selfish national interests remain the corner-stone of policy and international behavior contrary to the principles of our Organization, the pleas and supplications of concerned humanity and simple ethical rules of conduct.
Perhaps nowhere else today are those ethical principals more violated, nowhere else the conscience of humanity more called into question and nowhere else urgent action more demanded than in South Africa. The tragedy of South Africa continues to be perpetuated with painful consistency. Never in the course of political
history has a regime been so utterly callous and insensitive to the fundamental rights and needs of the majority of its citizens.
In view of the sensitivity and importance of this issue and the increasing urgency with which the international community must now deal with South Africa, permit me to deal a little extensively with the subject.
The evil character of the South African regime is vividly portrayed in the report of the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons on South Africa, which made the following observation about apartheid:
■As a contrivance of social engineering, it is awesome in its cruelty. It is achieved and sustained only through force, creating human misery and deprivation and blighting the lives of millions."
While much of the world is in agreement about the abhorrence of that regime, some controversy still exists about how to deal with it. Because of South Africa's proven aversion to reason over several decades of negotiations with it, the great majority of the international community is now firmly convinced that one of the few remaining options for ending apartheid and the atrocities it embodies is the imposition of effective comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against that regime.
It is regrettable, however, that after several years of intense efforts by the international community the struggle against apartheid is still in a state of ferment, not due so much to credible resistance by South Africa to international pressures as to the apparent existence of a conspiracy by a section of the international community which, for mostly cynical reasons, has directly or indirectly undermined those pressures.
Those collaborators with apartheid have spawned dozens of reasons for their reluctance to fulfill their obligation under the United Nations Charter and as members of the human race. We have been told, for example, that the imposition of comprehensive sanctions against South Africa is immoral assuch sanctions impose
 hardships on the lives of ordinary people, in particular black people, and that in any case sanctions could not bring about the desired political changes in southern Africa as they have historically been proven to be ineffective in these circumstances. At other times we are told that South Africa has already embarked upon a process of significant political change and that sanctions could only scuttle that process.
It would hardly have been worth the time and effort for me to attempt to rebut those fallacies had they been confined to the traditional fringes of society. In the circumstances it has to be pointed out that whatever adverse effects sanctions might have on the oppressed people of South Africa, such effects would pale into insignificance when compared to the immorality of apartheid. Therefore to choose for the South African people the immorality of apartheid over the so-called immorality of sanctions is not only logically absurd but morally indefensible. Predictably, the oppressed people of South Africa have shown their content for such faulty reasoning and hypocritical concern by overwhelmingly supporting the call for sanctions, the effects of which upon them could make very little difference to their already subhuman existence.
The effects of sanctions on South Africa can be gauged from the paranoia with which the South African Government is reacting to the issue and the elaborate machinery it is now assembling to circumvent them. Recently South Africa's Manpower Minister, Pieter du Plessis, gave Archbishop Desmond Tutu what he called a friendly warning that the Archbishop's calls for sanctions against South Africa bordered on "high treason". Not too long ago the head of the South African Reserve Bank, Dr. Gerhard Kock, after reporting a one billion dollar capital outflow from South Africa in the first half of this year, explained that perceived threats of intensified economic sanctions and news of continued social unrest were the main factors behind the outflow.
Those who try to justify apartheid by arguing that Africans in South Africa and Namibia are better off than their counterparts in other African countries succeed only in deluding themselves. The rest of us know that in Namibia, for instance, while the per capita income for whites is estimated at over $8,009, the average income for Africans, who constitute 92 per cent of the population, is only $188. A recent survey by the Carnegie Foundation revealed that the incidence of disease associated with malnutrition among rural blacks in South Africa is among the world's highest and that nearly half of the black population lives below the minimum subsistence level. In addition, the South African journalist Donald Woods, in a study for the Commonwealth secretariat, calculates that South African blacks are materially worse off than citizens in at least 12 other African countries. And all this is happening in one of the world's richest countries.
We also know that in July this year, after a South African court overturned part of the emergency decree imposed by the regime. Prime Minister Botha simply issued an executive order annulling the Court's ruling, making nonsense of any argument that South Africa offers a vision of judicial liberty unparalleled on the continent.
My delegation wishes to reiterate its conviction that the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa is now necessary. In doing so, I do not intend to underestimate the size of the resources required for such an undertaking in terms of fighting sanctions-breaking activities as well as ensuring that the front-line States are provided adequate assistance by the international community to enable them withstand South Africa's reprisals.
Namibia presents one of the most glaring examples of South Africa's violation of international law and our Organization's inability to uphold its own legal prescriptions. Aside from this, Namibia's independence is further delayed by unjustifiably linking it with the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. It must be clear to all by now that the presence of Cuban troops in Angola is entirely the sovereign decision of the Government of Angola, which is free to formulate and pursue its own independent foreign policy objectives and work out its own national destiny. The withdrawal of Cuban forces is a matter for the Governments of Angola and Cuba, and we believe that this process can only begin when Security Council resolution 435 (1978), on Namibia, is implemented and the threat to the internal and external security of Angola is eliminated. Meanwhile, the struggle for Namibian emancipation from colonialism and illegal occupation will go on under the sole and authentic leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and the support of concerned nations.
The question of Western Sahara and the continuing stalemate can only be brought to a final conclusion through negotiation. In the light of this, we wish to echo the call for the withdrawal of foreign troops and a referendum on the Territory, in order to give the people of Western Sahara the opportunity to work out their destiny. It is in this respect that we restate and reaffirm our support for General Assembly resolution 40/50, on Western Sahara, as offering the desired and appropriate process for a peaceful resolution of the problem.
The impasse that now exists in the Middle East peace process is a consequence of the aggression against the Palestinian people and the denial of their right to a homeland. That situation can persist only at the cost of the continued suffering of the Palestinian people under occupation and mistreatment and the risk of another outbreak of hostilities in the region. We consider any efforts based on a policy of extracting unreasonable concessions from the Palestinian people to contain no prospects of yielding enduring stability. Similarly, the policy of substituting unrepresentative Palestinians for the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole authentic representative of the Palestinian people, as negotiating partners is short-sighted and succeeds only in further clouding the prospects for peace in the region.
Along with the vast majority of the international community, we condemn the cruel Israeli practices in the occupied Palestinian territories and urge the occupying authorities to take an enlightened view of their need for security by recognizing that an oppressive and cruel neighbor never endears himself to anyone.
My delegation continues to oppose the presence of foreign troops in Kampuchea and regrets that previous appeals by this Assembly in numerous resolutions for the complete withdrawal of foreign forces from that country have not been heeded.
We pay a tribute to the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea for significantly furthering the peace process by presenting in March this year an eight-point peace plan for a political settlement of the Kampuchean problem. In reaffirming our solidarity with the people of Kampuchea in their struggle for self-determination, we urge that the other parties to the conflict participate in discussions cm the implementation of the eight-point peace plan, which has already won substantial support.
The solution to many of today's world problems and the enhancement of peace and security cannot be achieved with passionate slogans, pious and self-righteous speeches and tiresome resolutions, many of which have remained unimplemented. The people of South Africa, Namibia, Western Sahara, Afghanistan, Palestine, Kampuchea and the Koreas, the representatives of the last of which should be sitting here with us, are sick and tired of these. They need action, and, as we enter the fifth decade of our Organization's existence, we can enhance its credibility by the decisive measures we bring to bear on the crises that threaten peace, security and socio-economic progress. But what we see in our time is that certain States, in pursuit of their separate interests, are not doing much to ensure the success of our Organization and further the progress of the rest of the human community.
The problems of our Organization are further compounded by the fact that only a year after we reaffirmed our faith and continued support for it, the United Nations is facing a grave financial situation. The Secretary-General has reacted courageously and promptly to that crisis, a report on which was submitted, discussed and partially acted upon at the resumed session of the fortieth General Assembly in May this year. Such action appropriately sets the tone and the mode for the extensive and detailed discussion necessary for an accurate diagnosis and solution of the Organization's problems. My delegation acknowledges in an equally hopeful spirit, the report of the Group of 18 on the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations. The report requires careful study to ensure that the broadest possible consensus is reached on its reconsiderations.
Over 12 years ago the Assembly, disturbed by the growing disparities between the rich and the poor, proclaimed a new international economic order. The hesitations and prevarications which have since attended its implementation have undermined the efforts of our institution to reduce the widening gap. Many developing countries, including Sierra Leone, remain particularly vulnerable to unpredictable external economic forces. Our era is one that requires sustained reflection, a frank and hottest analysis and the combined efforts of all the human and technological resources at our disposal if we are to provide a solution to the unprecedented economic crisis that still besets our nations.
In spite of appreciable shifts in perception among the major industrialized countries, the socio-economic situation in Africa remains precarious and disturbing. The fact that many African Governments have revised their policies and reformulated strategies and programs should not invite complacency on the part of the international community. The present crisis is largely attributable to fundamental structural problems which can be rectified only by sustained, long-term, growth-oriented adjustment programs. This requires several years of coherent, sustained and well-co-ordinated action, appropriately initiated at the national level and receiving the ungrudging co-operation of the international community and particularly, the support of the major financial institutions. Indeed, the shortage of liquidity and inadequate financial resource flows to many developing countries have both contributed to disturbing levels of poverty and deprivation. We have no doubt that some of the traumatic incidents associated with famine and food shortages in Africa must be attributed essentially to the basic constraints of inadequate and ineffectual resource flows. For our part, my Government has adopted and is pursuing programs for rehabilitation and economic recovery, and in order to accelerate their implementation it has gone a long way, and has bent over backwards, to reach an accommodation and understanding with the International Monetary Fund (IMF). That is not an easy process. It runs the risk of instability for any Government that attempts to operate within a framework which is unacceptable to the majority of its people. In accommodating IMF conditions, one can undermine democracy. In that connection, we believe that the major industrialized countries should have the vision to offer greater, more reliable, constant and effective assistance without very harsh conditions whose implementation can cause severe hardship. The special session on the critical economic situation in Africa, which convened here in the spring, identified some areas for priority action, and we believe that tha international community must support our efforts to achieve meaningful, effective and sustainable development.
The funds required to support and implement the program of Action over the next five years are substantial, and Africa first and foremost, whit the international community in support, must renew its commitment to achieving economic recovery and development. In that connection, a positive and sympathetic approach by the international community to the persistent and pervasive question of external debt can have significant effects on prospects for future development.
Some of our partners in development, by canceling substantial debts accruing as a result of our implementing programs for infrastructure investment, have shown the way to others. Debt relief, judiciously and appropriately applied, eases economic and financial constraints, offers the recipient some respite and, properly handled, improves the prospects for recovery and rehabilitation. The United Nations has over the years stood the test of time, in spite of difficulties which sometimes challenge its usefulness, without a shadow of doubt, it has become the only medium through which peace and security can be assured. Although the complexities of international relations today make the Organization's task, sometimes insurmountable, the successes achieved, with the determination, skill and perseverance of the Secretary-General, staff and Member States, have outweighed the frustrations and disappointments.
No nation, no matter how small, can in splendid isolation be master of its fate, but equally, no nation, no matter how great, can compel all others to do its bidding nor convert them by vigorous persuasion to its own beliefs. All nations are interdependent in terms of politics, economics and strategy. The United Nations is a guarantor of that eternal truism.
Once again the delegation of Sierra Leone solemnly renews its faith in the noble ideals enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and its endeavors to pursue the objective of a peaceful, stable and progressive world.


 I wish first of all to join other heads of delegations who have preceded me to this rostrum in conveying to His Excellency Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury congratulations on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-first session. I take this opportunity also to wish him every success throughout his term as President of the General Assembly. His wisdom, great experience and moderation are the best guarantee of success in this forum.
I wish particularly to pay a tribute to the previous President of the General Assembly, His Excellency Mr. Jaime de Pinies, for his successful handling of the work of the Assembly at its fortieth session.
I express ray country's gratitude to the Secretary-General, His Excellency Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for the commendable efforts he has constantly made to achieve the purposes of our Organization - peace, security and well-being for all mankind - and to work towards more scrupulous compliance with and the implementation of its resolutions. We thank him too for the very special attention he has devoted to my country, Lebanon, which does him credit as a man of conscience.
My country has always been unswervingly committed to the Charter and the resolutions of the United Nations. Not for a single day, despite the crisis that has shaken it, has Lebanon failed to play its modest role as a Member of this Organization. We have an unshakable faith in the principles of the United Nations and view it as a supreme forum for saving mankind from the scourge of war - whether regional or world-wide - for improving the economic, social and cultural conditions in which people live, and for promoting the advent of a better world.
We thus believe that it is the duty of all Member States to lavish on the Organization all the material and moral assistance it requires, and to Support the Secretary-General in his efforts. The United Nations must survive for the sake of the future of mankind. If it is true that we bear a collective responsibility, it is no less true that it is a priority on the part of the two super-Powers to
promote concord among nations, to assure international peace and security and to end the crises and conflicts that are proliferating throughout the wot Id, These objectives necessarily involve adequate prevention, deterrence and repression of aggression, the granting of the right of self-determination to peoples, and the elimination of the injustices that threaten then, in the framework of greater respect for the dignity of the human person.
The agenda of this session is certainly not short of important topics for deliberation. But we insist that Lebanon not be forgotten; in return, we undertake as far as possible to help solve the thorniest problems. Delaying decisions is no solution; it can only add to the existing complexity of the problem and lead to the proliferation of resolutions.
Once again, the agonizing problem of Lebanon has come to the fore, as it has for 11 years without interruption, 11 years of deliberations in the course of which all Members have become familiar with all aspects of the problem, 11 years that make it unnecessary for me now to dwell in too much detail on what everyone now calls the "hornets' nest" of Lebanon. When it was a country standing tall, Lebanon never failed to respond in defense of a just cause. The walls of this Hall will remember this, and they still ring with the resounding appeals made from this rostrum. *
Lebanon's tribulations began in 1975; our scarred people's wounds, still gaping, attest to its martyrdom, as spoken of by the heads of delegation who have mounted this rostrum year after year. What can I add that is not already known? I wish only to recall a few basic facts.
Whether deliberately, out of ignorance, or trying coyly to hide their face, the media go on repeating that the war in Lebanon is a civil war.
Today, I wish to aver as a man of conscience whose words will be confirmed by history, that the war ravaging the land of Lebanon is in no wise a civil war: not in its scope, not in its intensity, not in its very essence. In Lebanon, brother has not taken up sword against brother. Despite its pluralism, Lebanon is a mosaic held together by the cement of nationalism. Once the predatory vultures stop tearing it apart, the war will end forthwith, the unity that has been fragmented will be restored in our ravaged country, and brother will embrace brother.
As I said, Lebanese society is a heterogeneous blend, but the Lebanese people - with all the groups that make it up - has deep roots in the land from which it draws its life-blood. Although it has been bowed by tribulation, nothing has been able, nor will it be able, to uproot that age-old cedar. First and foremost, Lebanon is a people, whose vital forces need security and quiet if their creative energy is to be released.
Lebanon is the Lebanese, thirsting for peace and reconciliation in their homeland, a united homeland from which tears and suffering are banished. A people which death has daily haunted for 11 long years without being able to vanquish it totally, without ever extinguishing the life that runs with passion and determination in its veins, is a people with Rany branches, but none the less belonging to a single trunk, rooted in the same land.
That is why I have just said that nothing could be further from the truth than talking of the events in Lebanon as a civil war, whatever the appearances my be. The problem of Lebanon is - to be quite objective - a tangled web of many skeins, of internal, regional and international factors. The war in Lebanon has three elements: first, internal dissension among the Lebanese comparable to that found quite naturally among numbers of the same family; secondly, the regional nature of a conflict which has been added to the Israeli-Arab dispute-, and, finally, the international dimension, because of the rivalry of the great Powers in the region, this it is true that the solution to each problem can be found by attacking the root causes of it, this is the equation that is found on taking up one by one the three component factors that I have juat mentioned.
First, at the internal level, there is now a dialog going on between the various Lebanese parties concerned, on the initiative of the President of the Lebanese Republic, Sheikh Amin Gemayel, and this has been welcomed by the Head of Government, Mr. Rashid Karami, and the mentors of his Government. Let us hope that it will lead to a lasting agreement among the Lebanese that is not constantly threatened by disruption, an agreement enshrining a true osmosis, not simply coexistence", concord, not merely a concordat; an agreement forging an authentic nation, not a pale reflection of one. That is why we are counting on this dialog to lead Lebanon bo calmer waters, pinning great hopes on the wisdom of its leaders and the heads of the various political factions. Internal witty is the bulwark against which the violent winds from outside have no effect.
Lebanon will gain four main advantages from this unity. These are: the definitive ending of the war, to the great satisfaction of Lebanese and non-Lebanese alike; ^he establishment of the lasting security to which the Lebanese aspire and which is as necessary to them as bread, air aid light; amendment of the Lebanese Constitution and legislation to ensure greater justice and equality of opportunity for all Lebanese, and the fulfillment of the dreams and aspirations of
the Lebanese within a more united Lebanon, with strengthened institutions - reforms made necessary by the attempts to divide us, which can only weaken our country and postpone its salvation; and national reconstruction and the restoration of everything that the war has destroyed throughout these long years of tragedy.
Then all those of goodwill will unite in this common endeavor, the people of Lebanon will speak in a single voice in favor of a sovereign, free and independent Lebanon, not a piece of straw being tossed about by the waves, not the fragile prey of hungry vultures, but a strong Lebanon, strong because of the force of its people, its mother Earth, its history and its civilization.
At the regional level, everyone is aware that in 1982 Israel invaded Lebanon, occupying part of its territory, in violation of the United Nations Charter and the most elementary rules and customs of international law. The Security Council adopted resolution 425 (1978), in which it called upon Israel to withdraw forthwith from all Lebanese territory occupied by it, called for the restoration of international peace and security and for assistance to the Government of Lebanon in regaining control of all its territory in order to make southern Lebanon a zone of peace and security and established the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), to be entrusted with a special mission.
On 6 June 1982 the Security Council adopted resolution 509 (1982), demanding that Israel withdraw unconditionally from Lebanon's internationally recognized borders. That did not prevent Israel from continuing to occupy a part of southern Lebanon, committing one act of aggression after another, with the assistance of armed forces trained and financed by it, and stopping UNIFIL from discharging the mission entrusted to it under resolution 425 (1978) and subsequent resolutions.
Israel must withdraw from all occupied Lebanese territory. Until it does so, the continued presence of UFIFIL is indispensable. Lebanon wants UNIFIL to remain
and asks that it be enabled without further delay to fulfill its mission more effectively. Although it is now eight and a half years since it was set up, it has, unfortunately, still proved powerless to ensure Israeli withdrawal, to prevent the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and to remove the aggressor from our territory.
Lebanon deplores the incidents of which UNIFIL has been the victim since its establishment, whoever the perpetrators may have been, and particularly these that took place at the end of August and the beginning of September last.
I reaffirm here that the people and Government of Lebanon are unanimous in their desire to improve the security of this Force. Lebanon is ready to contribute to all efforts in this connection. However, we call for a review by the Security Council of the role of UNIFIL. We share the concern of mentors of the Council from the troop-contributing countries and of the Secretary-General to ensure the security of the peace-keeping forces, which are the largest in the world.
Lebanon is prepared to send UNIFIL a reinforcement contingent to help in the implementation of resolution 425 (1978), which calls for Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of UNIFIL up to the international borders of Lebanon.
I take this opportunity to say how horrified Lebanon is at the attacks against UNIFIL, and I wish to pay one last tribute to the memory of the officers and men who have lost their lives. The heartfelt condolences of Lebanon go to the Governments of the victims and their families, and in particular the Governments of France and Ireland. Lebanon thanks all the States that have given financial or logistic support to these troops, especially Sweden, which has increased its participation by providing UNIFIL with a logistic unit. Not content with pursuing its occupation of Lebanese lands, Israel, feels duty-bound to violate the integrity of Lebanese air and sea space. If Israel does not withdraw and its acts of aggression continue, the future of the region will be uncertain, for the people of Lebanon is resolved to free its land and to vanquish the occupier by practicing legitimate resistance, which can only increase in view of the inhuman acts of aggression Israel has persisted in imposing on Lebanon.
We believe that liberating south Lebanon is a national duty and that resisting the occupier is a legitimate act under international law, whether written or customary. Every State that has ever experienced the bitterness of occupation has always resisted, adding to its history pages of fierce struggle, proudly written in the blood of its valiant resistance fighters. The General Assembly must know that the Lebanese leaders and heads of the popular factions have repeatedly stated that, once Israeli withdrawal has been achieved, Lebanon will never allow the pre-1982 situation to recur in the south.
We categorically reject the policy authorizing that country to undermine Lebanese sovereignty and independence because of its perceived need to ensure its own security. The Lebanese are not the depository of the.security of Israel, nor are they responsible for policing its borders. They are responsible only for the adoption of security measures within Lebanese borders and do not accept any agreement that would impinge upon the sovereignty of their country.
I can assure th^a Assembly that the implementation of resolution 425 (1978) -complete withdrawal of Israel and restoration of Lebanese sovereignty over the whole of Lebanese territory - is a basic element to the solution of the problem that gave rise to the war. I cannot fail to take this opportunity to appeal to the Arab nations. For some of them, Lebanon has become a focal point for their own problems and differences. Eleven years after the beginning of this deadly war their eyes have been opened to the fact that the tragedy being played out in our
country affects them too and that the conflagration which has engulfed Lebanon is now on their own doorstep. Yes, the Arab countries are indeed firmly resolved to root out this cancerous excrescence which has not spared them either. With their assistance we can rebuild our devastated country for the greater good of us all.
I come now to the international dimension of the Lebanese conflict. The war of Lebanon, and we have made this point before, results from the inability to agree on a just, comprehensive, lasting solution to the problem of the Middle East and the obstinacy in linking Lebanon with the crisis that besets the region as a whole. We have constantly called for a solution to be found to this problem as soon as possible and we have given unambiguous support to the convening of an international conference on this subject with the participation of all parties concerned.
Is it not therefore unfair that it is Lebanon, a small country so desirous of peace and tranquility that has been spared neither suffering nor tribulation, that is paying the cost of this inability to resolve these problems that go far beyond the context of its national borders?
We appeal to our friends throughout the world - in particular the United States and the Soviet Union - to help us to put an end to our trials without linking our problem to the problem of the Middle East as a whole. Furthermore, I am convinced that the solution to the problem of Lebanon is one of the key elements to the settlement of the Middle East conflict.
The crisis that has beset Lebanon for 11 years has brought in its wake an alarming political and social situation further compounded by the Israeli invasion of 1982 and the continued occupation of the south, as well as a distressing economic and financial situation that Lebanon alone is not able to put right. Our losses - in lives and material damage - are incalculable.
In order to rebuild what the war has destroyed, we need the contributions of the Arab countries, friendly countries and international organizations, as well as the united Nations and its specialized agencies, in keeping with the resolutions of the Arab summit, the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly. He urge that Lebanon be helped to effect its economic recovery and to improve the lot of its sons in distress or displaced and to help tend their wounds.
Frequently the mention of terrorism or certain terrorist acts brings with it the mention of Lebanon. Let me state from this rostrum that Lebanon knows the difference between resistance and terrorism. While resistance is legitimate when it is a question of restoring the rule of law on a territory freed from foreign occupation and within the context of regained sovereignty, the same cannot be said of terrorism, which we most vehemently reject and condemn.
Everybody here knows that Lebanon is one of the victims of terrorism and that it has been suffering from terrorism more than any other country. How many innocent lives have been cut down, how many citizens have been forced into exile, how many orphans or invalids have been victims of this war!*
*The President returned to the Chair.
Although, unfortunately, Lebanon has become for some a springboard to launch terrorist acts - because part of its territory is not under the control of the central Government - are we not entitled to think that if that Government were in a position to regain, inch by inch, control over its national territory and to restore public order there, that would in itself remove this scourge of modern times and the resulting shadow that looms over everyone, Lebanese and ncn-Lebanese alike? That is the task we are tackling, and it is here that the assistance of the international community is the most necessary, in order to enable Lebanon - through the implementation of this Organization's resolutions - to regain its security, territorial integrity and complete sovereignty, in its own interest and in the interest of everyone.
After that brief review of the facts, I wish to make some comments.
First, since its establishment, the United Nations - and I should like to say for the record that Lebanon was one of the founding Members - has had the responsibility of protecting the small States that do not have the resources to ensure their own defense, in a world where the law of the jungle is said to be the best law. And Lebanon, which is a small community, needs the confidence of others and looks to this Organization to fulfill the wishes of its people. That is why we hope that the United Nations will remain an effective Organization, monitoring compliance with the law and taking into consideration the aspirations of States to sovereignty and independence, with respect for humanitarian values. Only then will we be able to continue to view the Organization as the shield protecting us from injustice. Lebanon, as a Member of this Organization, certainly has obligations under the Charter; but it also has rights, which are the counterpart of those obligations and which it wants to see recognized and respected by the Organization and its Member States - primarily the right to independence, to sovereignty and to territorial integrity, which of necessity implies implementation of the resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly.
Secondly, Lebanon, it is true, is a small country with a small population, but it has made up for that by the other assets with which nature has, fortunately, endowed it and which are familiar to the historians. That country, small in size but large in civilization, was the lighthouse that projected its beam over the waters of the port - a beam that was weak but that was none the less visible from far off the coast, in the gathering gloom of the night. Will not Lebanon - this country that is small but has an intense cultural impact - be rescued by this body in its hour of adversity?
Thirdly, in fact, the whole region has borne the full brunt of the war in Lebanon, because peace in Lebanon cannot be dissociated from peace beyond its borders. Formerly, as everyone here well knows, Lebanon was like the white dove of peace. On more than one occasion, it held out the olive branch. It was a land of asylum for the needy. It zealously defended law and peace. That was the case formerly, as I have said, when it was a haven of peace - enough peace to fill the whole world. Unfortunately, when peace deserted my country, the tranquility of our neighbors left with it. That is why, unless we all make it our duty, without any further ado, to put out the flames consuming Lebanon, the fire may well spread to the whole region.
Fourthly, on the strength of what we have physically experienced, we here that the Lebanon of former days - strong, independent and united - the Lebanon before the storm in 1975, was perfectly capable, because of its special geographical situation and its leading historical role, of shouldering its responsibilities and even of assisting others. But the Lebanon of today, weakened and bled white, has become a burden to itself and to this body. if, then, we see to it that this peace that has fled Lebanon is brought back to it, this body too will regain peace too.
Lebanon is addressing itself not to the Assembly's emotions but to its conscience. Peace, and peace alone, can guarantee tranquility and the enjoyment of life to human beings, releasing their vital energy and promoting the development of the values they cherish, free from the fear of death and war - this horrible fate which wrests from them the state of grace that life represents. This tiny spot of light on the map of the world that Lebanon constitutes can become stronger in peacetime, until it is a luge flame spreading its beneficial glow to all around it.
Today, my country is rent asunder by the difficult choice between the law of the jungle and the supremacy of the rule of law. But Lebanon - if only for reasons of its special situation - cannot assert the strength of power which it no longer has. Its strength must therefore be sought in legitimacy.
Lebanon, a country of democratic tradition and openness to the world, made freedom a profession of faith, until it turned against us because of a cruel fate and a strange reversal of the scale of values, by which tolerance was confused with permissiveness and openness to others with anarchy - to the point that what had been its lifeblood became a weakness. It was then that the war of others burst on the Lebanese scene and settled there. It was then that some saw in Lebanon a choice land to which to export their conflicts, with their succession of misfortunes and destruction - and the tears of the widows and the orphans will never be able to wash away the blood of the innocent.
And each time, the aggressor cane bade to our devastated homeland, which it thought it had brought to its knees, only to discover in the ruins the seeds of new life, to discover that there was still in the hearts of the Lebanese people an obstinate desire to live in their Motherland where they have such deep roots.
Lebanon has had more than its share of suffering. It has endured the war of others and has suffered for others, with admirable courage, it has endured its sufferings with patience. Although it has sometimes had to bow before the tempest, it has risen up again and has remained defiant despite its sufferings. That is why it is high time that justice be done to this country, lest like Sanson it perish in the ruins of the fallen temple, bringing others down with it, in its own destruction.
Throughout its history. Let-anon has braved these violent attacks. Each time it has tended its wounds and risen up again, firm as a rock, resisting valiantly; while its people has tenaciously rebuilt the ruins with loving care and once again opened wide its doors to the outside world. The winds that are blowing may uproot the brambles and shake the buildings, but it can do nothing against the majestic cedar, so deeply rooted in its native soil that their destinies are inseparable. And my country lives up to its emblem it is immortal.
Lebanon must be the only country in the world with as many of its citizens scattered throughout the world as it has residing within its borders. Thus Lebanon shares the benefits of its creative genius with the whole world, and especially with all the countries that have given asylum to Lebanese.
Consequently it is not in vain that Lebanon addresses the conscience of the world, which well appreciates the powerful influence of that country when it was at peace.
In conclusion, when we recall that Lebanon was referred to in an epic dating back, to the ninth century B.C., engraved in cuneiform characters on tablets of
clay, when we re-read in the passage of Homers' Odyssey describing the grotto of the Siren Calypso: "The perfume of the cedar spread to each nook and cranny, filling it with scented air", we understand that we have a duty not to fail in our historic mission.
There are children in Lebanon who have never known anything but fear. The very least our duty to them requires is to teach them what peace means. Lebanon hopes to become again the white dove of peace, holding in its beak the olive branch, its brow encircled with a crown of cedar leaves, giving free reign to its love for freedom, sovereignty and independence, as well as its thirst for justice and beauty.
Our President, to in Gemayel, said last year to this Assembly:
"Lebanon has achieved the miracle of survival and it deserves to live in
dignity.
"... On behalf of Lebanon I declare that it will survive at the crossroads where history and geography have placed it, a living example of a country devoted to law, justice, liberty and the dignity of man." (A/40/PV. 42, p. 42)
The Prime Minister, Mr. Bashid Karami, said, at the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly:
"We have striven to make Lebanon a haven for freedom and humanity. This is our cherished legacy to be handed over intact to succeeding generations." (A/39/PV. 22, p. 46)
We salute this Organization, created to spread peace and security and to promote the advent of a world where life will be better. Our gratitude will go out to it when brave words are accompanied by deeds, when fine professions of faith prove to be more than mere words. That will indeed be a blessing for a nation enriched by its past, courageous in facing the dangers of the present, and looking to the future with hope.


May I begin, first of all, by congratulating the President of the forty-first session of the General Assembly upon his election and commend him for the prominent role his country plays in many international forums, such as the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation, to name just a few. All of us know full well what his country, Bangladesh, has done in these forums. They have amply benefited from the President's outstanding personal qualities of leadership, initiative and sense of compromise, and I can assure him that we have full confidence in his presidency.
My esteemed colleague Sir Geoffrey Howe, the Foreign Minister of the united Kingdom, has expressed the views of the 12 member States of the European Community on some major international problems before the General Assembly. A memorandum was circulated as a companion piece to his speech. The Nether lands fully subscribes to the views expressed on that occasion. European unity is a cornerstone of Netherlands foreign policy. European integration is of course not an inward-looking process. The ongoing construction of Europe obliges the Twelve concurrently to play their appropriate role in the international community. The Twelve accept the responsibilities in world affairs which their joint capabilities impose on them.
Since last year's session of the General Assembly the international atmosphere seems to have improved. The meeting of President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev last autumn opened up prospects for a better and a more rational relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and helped to bring about a certain easing of tensions between East and West. Hope for the future can be derived too from the successful outcome of the Stockholm Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe. Indeed, significant new avenues seem to have been opened as far as verification and inspection are concerned. Last year, we also saw democracy gaining further ground, notably in Latin America and in the Philippines. In international economic co-operation there is a certain promise of a realistic accommodation of interests, as just witnessed by the outcome of the Conference in Punta del Este in Uruguay.
The tragic nuclear accident in Chernobyl has increased our awareness of our shared responsibility. The consensus within the International Atomic Energy Agency on notification and assistance in case of nuclear accidents testifies to this.
These hopeful developments should not, however, make us overlook the fact that . in many parts of the world armed conflicts continue unabated with their heavy toll of human lives. In South Africa the abhorrent system of apartheid continues to breed violence. In many countries the scourge of terrorism is making itself felt increasingly. This vicious phenomenon, which strikes at innocent people, should be eradicated by the joint efforts of us all.
What is the context in which we have to place all these developments? The time we live in is characterized by rapid change. Technological innovation propels mankind into a new phase in its historical evolution. The information society that awaits us imposes new demands upon individuals and organizations. A premium is set on flexibility, adaptability, participation and initiative. The individual has an essential role to play in this process. The modern age does not stop at the doorstep of the United Nations. The Organization will have to change and adapt to these changing times too. The outside world, I think, is tired of rhetoric, ideological polarization and worn-out procedures. There seems to be a new tendency towards pragmatism and businesslike attitudes, without which, evidently, we cannot achieve our ideals.
Recent experience has demonstrated that when the Organization puts its mind to it, when it concentrates its efforts upon a concrete challenge and when the Member States take a constructive stand, it can function effectively and accomplish something. Let me give two examples, both of which concern Africa.
The establishment almost two years ago of the Office for Emergency Operations in Africa (OEQA) under the able leadership of Mr. Bradford Morse  has proved to be an adequate reaction of the United Nations system to the alarming famine in large parts of Africa at that time. In our view, the Office has performed well in co-ordinating, often under difficult circumstances, the emergency assistance flowing into Africa's drought-stricken countries from so many sources.
Furthermore, Member States have demonstrated their ability to co-operate in a constructive manner during the special session of the General Assembly devoted to the critical economic situation in Africa. That was a well-prepared and efficient session that produced a genuine consensus on concrete steps to put the African countries back on a track to sustained economic development. The United Nations proved that it can be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations, in the way foreseen in its Charter.
Values and ideas are essential to guide nations. Differences in ideologies and cultures are a fact of life, but polarization and mutual recrimination are not their inevitable corollary. If we are unable to engage in a serious dialog, the future of the United Nations would look grim indeed. What is required are concrete results through real negotiations.
We need genuine consensus, not the adoption of phraseology that papers over fundamental differences of opinion. Recent United Nations conferences on major international political issues have once more demonstrated how the unfortunate practice of false consensus has further developed over the years - and that is, of course, not the road to follow. I am convinced that there is sufficient convergence on quite a number of issues to enable our Organization to function as a forum where meaningful results can be achieved.
 Equally essential for the functioning of the United Nations is respect for its Charter. The concept of universality, which is fundamental to the Organization, requires the admission of countries like the Republic of Korea. The Charter also provides means for the peaceful settlement of conflicts. It is regrettable that quite a number of Member States seem reluctant to avail themselves of these tools and that so few States recognize the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. I submit that international adjudication should be more frequently utilized and that the Court should be called in more frequently. However, its prestige will, be threatened if it is misused for short-term political advantage.
As we all know, the Organization is faced with a severe financial crisis. Its causes go well beyond the question of arrears and withholdings of Member States. The financial crisis in itself reflects political dissent among the Members of the United Nations. NO doubt the present crisis, if left unresolved, would soon become an institutional one, jeopardizing the viability and integrity of the whole Organization. Apart from the urgent task of balancing the budget, the financial crisis requires long-term structural solutions. It is clear that to solve the present impasse Member States will have to fulfill their obligations under the Charter. In addition, rational management and program evaluation techniques will have to be applied. As Lloyd George once said:
"Don't be afraid to take a big step if one is indicated. You can't cross a chasm in two small jumps." The General Assembly should not shy away from taking such a big step.
The report of the Group of High-Level Intergovernmental Experts to Review the Efficiency of the Administrative and Financial Functioning of the United Nations -the so-called Group of 18 - provides, in our view, a highly appropriate basis for further decision-making by this Assembly. We strongly support the general thrust
of the recommendations contained in the report of the Group of 18. It is essential that this Assembly build upon that Group's valuable work. The agreement should be expanded to areas for which the Group was, regrettably, not able to formulate unanimous recommendations. I refer to the procedures and mechanisms for programming and budgeting, including a broadening of the mandate of the Committee for program and Co-ordination.
As far as the Secretariat is concerned, the Secretary-General bears primary responsibility as the Organization's chief administrative officer. He has ably assumed these responsibilities by consistently providing Member States with clear and revealing insight into the gravity of the crisis, and has not hesitated to take effective measures. In his annual report the Secretary-General has outlined the causes underlying the present crisis and their implications? he fully recognizes the need for improved management of the Secretariat at all levels, improved co-ordination and streamlining of various departments. We agree with his observations on the need for re-examination of the structure, staff and procedures aimed at bringing about a tighter, less costly Secretariat. We support his efforts and expect continued leadership in pursuance of more efficiency and streamlining of the Secretariat.
But streamlining and personnel cuts are not enough. Furthermore, such measures cannot be properly carried out in isolation; they should be accompanied by a reform of the intergovernmental machinery and its functioning. Over the years we have, as the Group of 18 correctly notes, built an overly complex structure which suffers from a lack of cohesion and makes co-ordination extremely difficult, if not impossible. The Netherlands is of the opinion that a long-term solution to the present crisis must be found in the achievement of a more compact, coherent and
effective program. We, the Member States, should give guidance for the rationalization of the Organization and set priorities on the basis of an agreed level and cot tent of the program budget. This is a major challenge for this Assembly.
On the subject of working methods, we feel that an overloading of agenda items should be avoided. In general, it does not seem wise to duplicate in the United Nations work done in specialized forums, such as the Inter national Monetary Fund (IMF) on debt and the World Bank in the field of long-term financing for structural change. Tackling clusters of important issues, one at a time, in the appropriate forums, might well prove to open up possibilities for step-by-step improvements. Through the Economic and Social Council and the Second Committee the United Nations seems particularly well placed to assure that the outcome of sectoral discussions are related to each other and perceived in their interrelationship. With this in mind, my Government will also actively contribute to a constructive European approach in the new round on liberalization of trade in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Whatever the problems and shortcomings of the United Nations may be, we certainly do not ewer lode the many achievements of the Organization and all its affiliates. For instance, I have in mind the important work that the United Nations is doing in setting standards and norms in the legal field. The same applies to its policy-making and supervisory functions on social and humanitarian scores. I think also that no one will doubt that the Organization has proved itself capable of doing fundamental and innovative work in the human-rights field, setting standards and monitoring their implementation.
It is appropriate in this context to point to the common declaration of the States members of the European Community last July in which they set out the basic
objectives of their human-rights policy. That declaration, which the Netherlands was privileged to initiate, underlines once more that respect for human rights is one of the cornerstones of European co-operation.
One of the most successful achievements of the United Nations system is its aid to developing countries, in all the major economic, social and cultural sectors the United Nations is active through its aid organs and specialized agencies.
My country will remain one of the strong supporters of the multilateral aid fabric of the United Nations. In this respect I should like to stress that the Government of the Netherlands has again committed itself to continue to provide 1.5 per cent of the Netherlands net national income for development co-operation, roughly equivalent to $2 billion a year.
Many of the specialized agencies and other United Nations bodies have been demonstrating for a long time that practical and beneficial activities are possible without the systematic introduction of extraneous political and ideological issues. To our regret, however, that is not always the case. Take fear instance the developments in the Committee on Information, where the deliberations are moving away from the consensus on the development of a new world information and communications order which had been achieved within the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). We deem it essential that that consensus be restored. All the same I should not hide from this Assembly the serious concern of the Netherlands Government about the lack of progress UNESCO displays in implementing the reforms decided upon in Sofia last auturcn. If UNESCO fails to carry out the Sofia decisions in a satisfactory way, I regret to say that the Nether lands might be forced ultimately to reconsider its position towards that organization.
The maintenance of international peace and security remains a primary task of the United Nations, as laid down in the Charter. It has been only moderately successful in this field and many problems remain unsolved year after year, as, for instance, a glance at southern Africa and the Middle East sadly underlines. The views of my Government on those conflicts are well known. As President of the European Political Co-operation during the first half of this year I was once more reminded how intricate and complex these issues are and how little progress was
actually achieved. But if one looks at the Middle East, an I right when, in spite of all the dark clouds, I detect a glimmer of hope in recent developments? Is it too daring to assume after all that 1987 could be the year of real peace negotiations in the Middle East and notably that the forces in favor of genuine dialog could gain further momentum?
As for South Africa, change is long overdue and the situation is deteriorating further. We must therefore continue to apply the necessary pressure on the Government of Pretoria to bring about the eradication of the unacceptable system of apartheid. Together with its European partners, the Kingdom of the Netherlands will continue its efforts towards promoting in South Africa a genuine dialog across lines of color, politics and religion, in order to achieve this the Netherlands is committed to a meaningful program of political action, consisting both of economic sanctions and of measures aimed at strengthening within South Africa the forces for peaceful change. In addition to the economic sanctions already decided upon, the Twelve have agreed that the presidency will continue to seek a consensus on a ban on the import of coal from South Africa.
But here also, at the United Nations, let us concert our actions. In our common total rejection of apartheid we should not let our indignation work to the detriment of our ability to find common ground for ways of bringing about a just society within which all South Africans will be able to enjoy their legitimate rights.
The bitter war between Iraq and Iran has just entered its seventh year. The international community should spare no effort to bring the parties to the negotiating table in order to put an end to that senseless war. However, even where peace has not been restored, the rules of humanitarian law must be strictly observed: no chemical weapons must be used, civilian life must be spared.
prisoners of war must be treated in accordance with the relevant conventions, the war oust not be extended to the territory of surrounding States and shipping in the Gulf must not be interfered with.
The continuing occupation of Afghanistan, which causes so much misery to the Afghan people, casts a dark shadow over global detente. The occupying Power bears a heavy responsibility not only towards the Afghan people but also towards the international community as a whole. An ever increasing majority in this Assembly also rejects the occupation of Kampuchea. As in the case of Afghanistan, the General Assembly has clearly indicated the principles on which a solution should be based.
As far as Central America is concerned, I feel that the Contadora countries deserve our sincere appreciation. Their unrelenting efforts, seconded by the Support Group, have not yet yielded the results hoped for. We believe that it is now up to the Central American countries to bridge their differences.
In Chile we have recently witnessed an intensification of repression. There, too, the restoration of democracy is long overdue and the initiation of a dialog with the democratic opposition is more than ever called for.
The world is not the safe place mankind dreamed about more than 40 years ago. Wars continue to be fought. The deterrence value of nuclear weapons has its mirror image in the immense powers of destruction of those systems. With another summit meeting between the United States and the Soviet Union in sight - as we hope - we expect that effective agreements on substantive and verifiable arms control which would drastically reduce nuclear arsenals will emerge. We believe that in parallel with such reductions nuclear testing could also be reduced. The conclusion of a comprehensive test-ban treaty remains as necessary as ever, and we remain committed to it. Let us therefore resume our work in Geneva on this issue without further delay. The successful outcome of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference a year ago reaffirmed and even enhanced the strength and vitality of that Treaty. It remains a cornerstone in our endeavors to uphold an effective non-proliferation regime, to the common good of all. It remains equally important that outer space should not become an area of competition between the super-Powers.
We attach great importance to the earliest possible conclusion of a total ban cn chemical weapons. It is encouraging that some progress was achieved in Geneva last summer and this should be built upon. The Netherlands is fully aware that a great deal remains to be done. My country made a modest contribution when it organized a workshop on the important issue of verification earlier this year. I hope that the ideas and concepts which sprang from that meeting will bear fruit.
Ours is an era of rapid change. That is as true for the Netherlands as for any place in the world. In its constitutional structure, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has recently undergone an important adjustment. The island of Aruba, which formed part of the Netherlands Antilles, became a separate entity within the Kingdom of the Netherlands as from 1 January 1986. That decision, which honored the expressed wish of the people of Aruba, was readied after close consultations within the framework of the Kingdom and after the approval of the respective parliaments. As a result, the Kingdom now consists of three equal partners. This development does not entail any alteration in the relations between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and other countries or international organizations and I am confident that this new structure will be a factor in promoting prosperity and stability in the region. As the General Assembly convenes for its forty-first session the international picture looks, as I mentioned in my introductory remarks, somewhat brighter than it did when we met last year. It is hoped that a summit meeting between the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union will pave the way for a further improvement in international relations. The United Nations has a role of its own to play in this process. It will, however, be able to play that role only if it manages to get its act together, to focus its efforts effectively on the search for concrete solutions. Recent examples have confirmed our conviction that the United Nations can be an effective actor in international affairs. We sincerely hope that the United Nations will be allowed to stand up, and will prove capable of standing up, to the challenges of what is to be our common future.