Just a few, days ago, Mexico, its land and its great people suffered one of the most devastating and extensive earthquakes, we can still see the heartrending pictures. Therefore, at the outset it is my duty to address to the delegation of that friendly country the sincere condolences of the delegation of Niger.
Your accession to the presidency of the General Assembly at this session. Sir, at a crucial and very significant moment in the destiny of our Organization and of the peoples comprising it, is a well-deserved tribute to you and to your outstanding qualities as a statesman and negotiator, as a talented diplomat whose style and spirit have so greatly enriched the work of this General Assembly. This unanimous tribute extends beyond you to your country, to your King and to your people. We pay tribute to Spain's undying devotion to the ideals of the United Nations, and appreciate its consistent and distinguished contribution to the solution of the problems faced by the world today.
In your distinguished post, you follow an outstanding son of a great nation, Ambassador Paul Lusaka, who, in a masterly, sophisticated and distinguished manner, presided over the work of the General Assembly at its thirty-ninth session. Africa is rightly proud of him.
Now, on behalf of my country I should like to express thanks and sincere congratulations to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for his dedication in carrying out his work. His keen awareness of the problems of the countries of the Sahel, his initiatives in the area of the maintenance of peace and the solution of problems affecting the community of nations earn him our deepest respect and our encouragement.
The international community is getting ready to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the united Nations. It is a very fitting commemoration, for indeed what better opportunity than this anniversary for reflection and taking stock? What better opportunity than this to recall and extol the foundations of the united Nations? What better time than this to propose to the community of nations a more noble image, a more human approach, a goal consonant with its unshakable faith in man? The Charter of the United Nations reflects an enlightened vision, a noble and realistic vision, of international relations. The ideals it embodies, the principles it sets forth, are still relevant today and deserve our full support.
Our support for the Charter stems from our devotion to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, our love for peace and security, our commitment to preserve a world balance; our ability to organize and maintain effective solidarity among all the nations of the world, and our sincere desire to build and strengthen economic and social progress for the entire human race.
As has been recalled by President Seni Kountche, our leader, we of Niger are a people that loves peace, peace in dignity, peace with respect for other people's values, peace which involves a reasonable and fair sharing of the fruits of co-operation among the peoples of the earth.
That explains our stubborn rejection of all injustice, domination and use of force. It explains why we share the impatience and frustrations felt by developing countries in the face of this crisis that is undermining the world economy and hindering our efforts to achieve happiness, calm and peace. Above all, it is what kindles our unshakable faith in the United Nations and our burning desire to see its work directed with more resolve and highest priority to a search for solutions to the conflicts affecting the world.
Here I am thinking of the imminent danger to world peace and security posed by the survival of apartheid and colonialism in southern Africa. South Africa's illegal occupation of the territory of Namibia, 25 years after the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, is undeniably a serious and continuing challenge to the authority and credibility of the United Nations.
After more than half a century of brutal and degrading colonialism, and following the Security Council's adoption of resolution 435 (1978), Africa hoped that Namibia would swiftly accede to international sovereignty. But today we are obliged to note that South Africa is still occupying Namibia, which means that there have been seven more years of indescribable suffering for the people of Namibia, and countless numbers of raids and acts of aggression against the front-line States:, seven years of hope and trust betrayed.
Within South Africa itself, the minority regime in power is constantly pursuing and strengthening its loathsome policy, which it calls a policy of the separate development of the races, to that end using a whole arsenal of laws and regulations. Everything is permitted for some; they can do what they want with the others. Yet nothing is permitted for the others in their own land.
The General Assembly and the Security Council have in turn stated and declared that apartheid is incompatible with the United Nations Charter, and the international community has declared it to be a crime against humanity.
Today it is accepted that only through the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the dismantling of the system of apartheid can a just and lasting peace be brought about in that ravaged part of our continent.
But if South Africa continues to disregard and insolently trample underfoot our collective desires, we have no choice but to continue the struggle in a dynamic, collective and responsible manner. And here I would pay a well deserved tribute to international public opinion and I would encourage it, for today it is doing a great deal for the cause of justice, human dignity and peace. Thanks to its support for the struggle of the peoples of southern Africa, South Africa's isolation is increasing with each passing day. Public opinion exposes its blind arrogance and its overweening conceit. Africa would urge public opinion to intensify its pressure and to militate even more for the adoption of economic sanctions and other appropriate measures against the racist and aggressive regime of Pretoria. That is the only language that this regime understands.
Its last barbaric incursion into the territory of Angola is further proof of its intransigence. We condemn that raid as a serious infringement of international rules and of the sovereignty and independence of of the people of Angola.
Other parts of the vast African continent have for years been areas of great tension. Dangerous and potentially explosive situations still persist in Chad, Western Sahara and the Horn of Africa.
In our view, these conflict situations constitute a major obstacle to the ideal of African unity, which is the deepest aspiration of the peoples of our continent. They are a distraction, because they sidetrack our people from the paramount tasks of development and social progress.
In Niger we believe that the settlement of all these conflicts inevitably calls for respect for the principles of international law, to which all of our peoples have subscribed in an act of sovereignty.
Hence, the independence and sovereignty of Chad must be respected. National reconciliation must be sought, maintained and encouraged by the people of Chad themselves without any outside interference.
The situation in Western Sahara is a matter of grave concern to Niger. There are ongoing efforts to promote the effective implementation of the right to self-determination.
Lastly, the return to peace in the Horn of Africa depends on the will of the countries of that region to respect one another and to abide in their relationships with the rules of good-neighborliness.
Africa, through the Organization of African Unity, is actively seeking solutions to all these conflicts. We are following with hope the efforts being made by the current Chairman of the Organization of African Unity, Mr. Diouf, President of the Republic of Senegal, to ensure peace, justice and democracy. These efforts ought to be strongly supported by the United Nations and by all countries that cherish peace and justice.
The situation in the Middle East is, like the problem of Namibia, another example of a challenge that we must face in order to restore our Organization's authority and credibility.
We would recall that Israel was created by our Organization, but it has been forgetting the lessons of history and trying to deny other peoples' right to exist. This attitude on the part of Israel is at the root of the indescribable
tragedy that has been experienced by the Palestinian people for decades. They have been driven out of the land of their ancestors, deprived of their rights and properties and unjustly forced into permanent exile.
The United Nations has a major responsibility to the Palestinian people. Admittedly, it has not abdicated all these responsibilities, but, unfortunately, its efforts have come up against Israel's arrogance and intransigence. Israel, flouting law and morality, continues to occupy Arab territories and to harass the Arab people of Palestine and to commit aggression with impunity against States in the region. The destruction a few days ago of the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Tunisian people, is indicative of the incalculable risks in that part of the world.
We continue to believe that a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Middle East and of Palestine necessarily involves a total Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, recognition of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination and its right to establish its own independent and sovereign State in its homeland, Palestine, and the full participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization in any peace process in the region.
Other parts of the world where the fate of international peace and security is at stake also require attention and urgent action on the part of the international community.
In the Gulf, where war continues between two brotherly countries, Iran and Iraq, the initiative for the restoration of peace must be supported and maintained by all, and we continue to work along those lines.
The continued occupations of Afghanistan and Kampuchea are matters of serious concern to many States. By an overwhelming majority the General Assembly has called for the withdrawal of foreign troops from those two countries, for respect for their independence and sovereignty and for the preservation of their non-aligned states.
In Central America, which is in the throes of serious upheaval and instability, Niger hopes that a negotiated settlement of the problems of the region with respect for the sovereign aspirations of each people can be achieved. In this spirit, we applaud and support the efforts of the Contadora group.
In speaking of conflicts, I should like also to mention the situation in the Korean peninsula, where the tension that arose with the division of Korea still exists. In this connection, Niger believes that the problem of the division of Korea is a political problem and that a solution must be sought by peaceful means in accordance with the aspirations of the Korean people.
We are glad that 24 October also marks the beginning of a week which the General Assembly has decided to devote to the question of disarmament throughout the world. This decision reflects the great awareness of the international community as it is faced with the implementation of the fundamental objective of the Charter, namely, to preserve future generations from the scourge of war. Forty years after that commitment was entered into, the risks of confrontation add to the fears of the peoples of the United Nations, which are witnessing an exponential increase in arras expenditures. These expenditures have quadrupled between 1945, when the United Nations was founded, and the end of the first Disarmament Decade. In 1983 global military expenditures rose to $750 billion. Specialists have estimated that in 1985 the amount will be some $1,000 billion. Yet it is broadly recognized that a considerable reduction in such expenditures would not only help to ease tension in the world but also help to restore the growth of the world economy and would help to increase assistance levels for the support of developing countries.
It was because of the current economic situation in the world that I referred, quite deliberately, to the parallel between the mind-boggling levels of military expenditures and the resources, pathetically small compared to the immensity of the needs, provided for development assistance for third-world countries. The economic problems facing the world are as serious and dangerous as the many conflict situations I have just described. The growing gap between the rich and the developing countries contains the seeds of instability and also crystallizes the threats to peace in the world.
The inability of the mechanisms for trade and co-operation to meet present needs has plunged the world into an unprecedented crisis affecting all international economic, trade, financial and monetary relations. In most countries this crisis has taken the form of rising inflation, serious recession and constantly worsening social tensions. For our developing countries, to these are added a worsening of the terms of trade, difficulties in access to the financial markets, increasingly burdensome debt servicing and a disruptive decrease in development assistance.
Therefore this is an urgent matter, particularly with regard to the agonizing debt problem: more than $170 billion for Africa alone. This problem is not only a question of contracts anymore. It is part of macro-political vision: too many demands on the part of lenders would inevitably engulf the borrowers and thus have unfavorable repercussions on the lenders. It is in the interest of all for some middle ground to be found.
However, the problems of the United Nations are also and above all the problems of Africa: namely, the inability of a continent that was the cradle of mankind to feed its own people on its own. This is a situation which results from the difficulties we have encountered in managing our agricultural system, in building the infrastructure needed to irrigate our arid zones, to open our regions to provide for a better distribution of our products, to establish a true African policy for complementarity and co-operation among our States, particularly in the struggle to combat desertification and in the essential area of water control. These difficulties are accompanied by others that are just as troublesome, involving education, health, and housing for our people, whom we wish to enable to manage their lives properly so that they can participate more actively and more honorably in the development of our continent and of the entire world. Many voices have been raised here to emphasize this tragic situation in Africa.
The General Assembly itself took up this matter at the thirty-ninth session and adopted resolution 39/29, the Declaration on the Critical Economic Situation in Africa. In this connection, there is perhaps nothing more serious or that requires action by the world community more urgently than this agonizing problem of hunger in Africa. Nothing that is said or written can really convey the dimensions of this tragedy and its impact on people. And here I should like to thank most sincerely, on behalf of President Seyni Kountche, the present Chairman of the Inter-state Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel, friendly countries, the agencies of the United Nations system, non-governmental organizations and people of good will throughout the world for the humanitarian assistance that they have given us in this difficult period for our continent.
For almost 17 years Africa has been gripped by an implacable drought that has led to a serious reduction in the availability of water and arable land, the destruction of vast areas of fauna and flora and the death through hunger and thirst of thousands of men, women and children.
This situation is a matter of acute concern to African Governments which, at the national, subregional and continental levels, have tried to take the first steps towards a solution.
At the national level, African leaders have undertaken to redefine agricultural strategies and to maintain, diversify and reconstitute vegetation, to ensure soil preservation, to develop water resources to ensure food security by promoting and developing food crops and livestock.
Efforts to harmonize these initiatives have been made at the subregional and continental levels. Thus, within the context of the Inter-State Committee to Combat Drought in the Sahel, eight countries have developed an agreed program of rehabilitation, giving priority to water control, combating desertification through reforestation, developing agriculture and livestock and building buffer stocks of grain.
At the continental level, lastly, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) had undertaken a thorough re-examination of ways and means of coping with this situation. This has led to the establishment of the special fund for emergency assistance in the struggle against drought and famine in Africa, and major contributions have already been pledged.
Obviously, it is no longer a question of counting exclusively on outside aid; above all, Africa must utilize its resources and its inner strength, the liberating weapon in a victorious struggle against hunger. Only a pragmatic strategy geared to fundamental needs and the political determination to carry out a thorough reorientation of economic systems through reviewing agrarian practices and policies can enable us to take the first steps towards a solution to the food problem.
Yet the African continent, to which most of the poorest countries of the world belong, cannot alone cope with this enormous and serious challenge of nature.
It is therefore more necessary than ever that international solidarity is more effectively directed to saving the lives of millions people in the short term and, in the long term, to enabling the African people to make themselves self-sufficient in food. Forceful, even exceptional measures will be needed to get a dynamic process of rehabilitation and consolidation under way. Those measures must be consonant with those that were taken to assist in the reconstruction of Europe after the Second world War.
President Seyni Kountche said from this very rostrum that "our world is today drifting away from a sense of measure, of sharing, of generosity". And he added:
"There is a danger that by 1990 800 million human beings will live in a state of absolute poverty, in other words, below the level of any rational definition of human dignity. Thousands of men, women and children throughout the world die every day of hunger, if not of diseases that could have been avoided if they had been better fed. Entire nations in the southern hemisphere are not able fully to exercise their sovereignty because, with their pathetic incomes, which are often completely unrelated to their true resources and the tremendous efforts made by their people, they are stagnating."
At this time of political and economic crisis, as we commemorate 40 years of common endeavor, we should ask ourselves: is this the world we pledged to build?


I should like to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the office of President of the General Assembly. We are happy that on the United Nations fortieth birthday the Assembly will be guided by a man of your exceptional skill and experience in international affairs and in the working of this Organization. It is a further source of satisfaction that the President of the Assembly should be a representative of the country with which Ireland has close and friendly relations and which is shortly to join us as a partner in the European Communities.
Forty years ago the representatives of 51 nations met in San Francisco to sign the United Nations Charter. Their object was clear: to create a new organization which would prevent mankind from repeating the tragic errors that twice in a generation had plunged the world into war. There could be, and there still is more important task. We who meet here today, the representatives of 159 States, are the heirs to the first signatories, the custodians of a Charter which embodies the noblest aspirations of mankind. It is we, 'die current membership of the Organization, who now bear the responsibility for achieving the aims and purposes of the Charter and for making the system created 40 years ago work.
The circumstances in which we try to achieve those ends are far removed frost those of 1945. The same global war that gave birth to the United Nations gave birth also to a new international order markedly different from that of the first half of the century and undoubtedly far different from that envisaged by those who framed the Charter. When we look at the United Nations today, and when we try to measure its performance against the hopes of its founders and the expectations of our peoples, it is necessary to bear in mind the momentous changes which have been wrought in international life since the San Francisco Conference. Some of them have been brought about by the United Nations itself. All of them have had a dramatic impact on the shape of the Organization and on its fundamental task of deterring aggression and stopping wars.
The colonial empires which covered much of the globe in the first half of the century have been replaced by an international system of over 160 sovereign States * representing almost all the peoples of the Earth. Long-established and powerful States have had to adjust to a reduction in their power and influence and, it must be said, new states have had to come to terms with the limits of sovereignty in an interdependent world. For the United Nations the principal consequence of those developments has been its growth from a wartime alliance of like-minded countries, intent on keeping the peace, to a universal Organization which reflects within itself the tensions, conflicts and antagonisms of international life. The associated fragmentation of common interest and consensus has had a profound effect on the ability of our Organization to harmonize its actions towards common ends.
More significantly, perhaps, the prewar order of several major Powers has given way to an international order dominated by the adversarial relationship between the two super-Powers. How to manage that relationship is perhaps the supreme challenge of our age. It is, of course, a matter predominantly for the United States and the Soviet Union themselves, but the quality of the relationship and how it is handled affect us all. They affect especially the operation of the United Nations. For the major rift in international affairs, the East-West split, runs right through the Organization, limiting its ability to tackle the most pressing problems of our time and restricting the scope for imaginative and far-reaching solutions. In particular, the rift runs through the Security Council, the body most directly charged with the preservation of international peace, and inevitably complicates its efforts to that end.
The pattern of world politics has also been radically altered by developments in weapons technology. We cannot forget that the same year which saw the birth of this Organization saw, too, the first wartime use of the atomic bomb. We live in the shadow of that terrible event. Nuclear weapons have introduced a new and complex element into the calculus of international power. The unprecedented threat they pose to all humankind has changed utterly the way we think about peace and war. To construct an ethical and political framework capable of withstanding the strains of rapid scientific and technological change is one of the most urgent tasks of our generation.
The past four decades have also witnessed a growing consciousness of the imbalances in the international economy. Despite the truly remarkable advances in a number of developing countries, wealth and economic power continue to be concentrated in the developed northern part of the world, while the more populous south must grapple with the problems of impoverishment, widespread hunger and mounting debt.
It seems to me that the four themes I have touched on - the need for a multilateral approach to international problems} the management of relations between East and West; the question of disarmament; and the problem of development - constitute the major challenges facing international statesmanship today. Before taking up the important regional issues which feature on our agenda, I should like to outline the views of my Government on these broader issues which affect us all.
On its fortieth anniversary it is clear that the United Nations is passing through a period of pubic doubt and skepticism. Indeed, I feel that there is a growing and corrosive cynicism, not just in our public but among those involved in the management of international affairs, about the ability of international organizations to tackle the most difficult problems of our time. It is possible to see why this has happened. Since the early 1970s the United Nations has appeared increasingly marginal in its central task of preventing aggression and resolving conflict. The arms race continues. Mistrust and fear pervade the relations between States. Old conflicts continue and new ones have broken out. Issues such as those of Afghanistan, Kampuchea, the Iran-Iraq war, apartheid, Namibia, are listed on our agenda year after year, annual reminders of our unwillingness or inability to make the system work. There is a grave disproportion between the quantity of work engaged in - all the frenetic activity in the Hall and in the corridors - and the quality of the results achieved. Sometimes it seems that we measure success more in terms of meetings held, documents issued and resolutions adopted than in the number of lives saved or disputes settled or conflicts avoided. In the perception of our public, rhetoric and posturing have all too often taken the place of serious negotiations and diplomacy; narrow national interest has supplanted a broader collective vision.
If this pictures seems somewhat sombre in this anniversary year, it must be set beside the Organization's great achievements over the past four decades: its contribution to the process of decolonization; its efforts to protect and promote human rights world-wide; the contribution of the United Nations and its specialized agencies to development, to the eradication of disease and hunger, to education; the United Nations achievements in the field of disarmament, in particular the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; and the crucial part the United Nations peace-making and peace-keeping machinery has played in helping to resolve or mitigate several conflicts that threatened to escalate to the international level. When we point to the deficiencies in the operation of the United Nations we must point also to these enduring achievements, without which the world would be a less safe and a less humane place.
Yet we cannot ignore what the Secretary-General has described as the crisis in the multilateral approach to international relations. Mr. Perez de Cuellar has, in his four annual reports, outlined in detail the dimensions of the crisis and the consequences for humanity if it is not overcome.
What needs to be done to restore confidence in the constructive possibilities of the United Nations?
First, I believe we need to establish a sense of realism about what the United Nations can do. The Organization is an imperfect institution operating in a complex and uncertain world. It is an illusion to think that disputes and antagonisms can be eradicated totally from international life. They will persist as long as the nation State exists. What is needed in an international framework sufficiently strong and in which States have sufficient confidence to ensure that antagonisms are managed and conflicts avoided. The primary task of the United-Nations must be to ensure that the pressures and divisions which are intrinsic to an international system of nation States do not lead to war. We should not despair because humanity is divided, but we should see to it that the divide does not widen to engulf us.
Secondly, States must come to recognize that they have common interests which transcend national differences and which can be served better by co-operative effort than by individual action. There is an evident need for States to use the mechanisms and procedures of the United Nations as an alternative to the threat or use of force to resolve their differences. This, it seems to me, lies at the core of the malaise which afflicts the United Nations today. In this connection it is well to recall that it was a lack of confidence in co-operative action that hastened the end of the first effort at collective security in this century. We must not let it happen again. A necessary condition for the success of the United Nations is a determination and willingness on the part of its membership to co-operate in making the United Nations system work.
Thirdly, there is the question of leadership. The Charter proclaims the sovereign equality of all Members, but we would be misguided if we believed that each of us had an equal capacity to influence events. It is clear that if it is to succeed the United Nations must deal with the realities of power in international life. That is why the major Powers have been given special rights under the Charter, including the right of veto in the Security Council. The corollary of this is that those same Powers, which do have the ability to influence events, must take the lead in making the system relevant and effective. I believe that if those States were to assume their responsibilities in addressing contemporary international ills they would find a ready and positive response among the broad membership of the Organization.
In this connection the prospects for international peace and security have been enhanced by recent developments in East-West relations. Two years ago, in the wake of the suspension of the talks on strategic arms reduction and intermediate nuclear forces and in the prevailing climate of challenge and confrontation between the super-Powers, many in this Assembly spoke of the urgent need for a resumption of dialog between the United States and the Soviet Union. Today that dialog is under way. The arms talks in Geneva have been resumed, and the leaders of both super-Powers are shortly to meet at the first United States/Soviet summit for many years. We are encouraged by these developments, even if the way ahead is still uncertain and unclear. We believe that both sides approach the talks with a seriousness and commitment commensurate with the great issues at stake. The challenge for them now is to translate their renewed dialog into enduring agreement.
An improvement in the super-Power relationship cannot fail to have a profound and beneficial effect on the overall state of East-West relations. But we recognize that the efforts to improve the overall relationship between East and West is not solely a matter for the Edited States and the Soviet Union. For its part, Ireland is committed to multilateral efforts to bring about genuine detente. This year we have celebrated one such effort in marking the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). The process initiated by that Conference represents a central element in the development of more secure and humane relations in Europe. It provides a framework for dialog and co-operation on matters of vital importance to all the States of Europe and North America, including respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Although some of the participating States have not lived up to their commitments, we none the less believe that the CSCE process is indispensable and offers a great opportunity for continued progress.
Central to the efforts to reduce tension between East and West is progress on arms control and disarmament. In recent months we have been reminded of the appalling consequences of the use of the atomic bomb 40 years ago. Today, in our quest for a more stable and secure international order, we are still faced with the threat which nuclear weapons pose to the future of mankind.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty represents one response to this threat. By bringing together 127 States out of the current United Nations membership in an undertaking not to acquire nuclear-weapon capability, the Treaty has made a significant contribution to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. However, as yet the nuclear-weapon States have failed to respond in kind by working towards radical reductions of their nuclear arsenals. I renew my appeal to the States concerned to take the first step towards nuclear disarmament by working for the early conclusion of a comprehensive test-ban treaty, and I urge them to undertake a commitment to halt tests at the earliest possible date. In this connection I welcome the successful conclusion of the Third Review Conference of the Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty last week in Geneva and the agreement readied there on a consensus final declaration calling on the nuclear-weapon States to negotiate without delay on the elaboration and conclusion of a comprehensive test-ban treaty.
One of the major challenges facing the international community as we approach the 21st century is the exploitation of outer space for the benefit of mankind. The potential for the peaceful use of outer space has already been demonstrated, for example in the field of communications satellites, which make a significant
contribution to the verification of arms-control agreements. However, my Government would be profoundly concerned at any prospect of outer space becoming the arena for a new and highly dangerous arms race, and we believe that there is a need for reliable assurance that it will not be embarked upon. If this is not given, the continued advances in space-related technologies and space weapons could lead to greater international insecurity and to increased risks for all. My Government is therefore greatly encouraged by the decision of the super-Powers to tackle these important issues, together with those of nuclear weapons, in their bilateral talks. Similarly, we welcome the substantive work at the Conference on Disarmament on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. It is our hope that both sets of negotiations will lead to the early conclusion of agreements designed to guarantee the immunity of satellites from attack and also to prevent the use of outer space for purposes contrary to the existing arms-control regime, in particular the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
There in a manifest urgency also in connection with the conclusion of a convention banning the use of chemical weapons. The recent battlefield use of these weapons, which has been justifiably condemned by world opinion, confirms the necessity for a genuine pursuit of an agreement by all parties to the negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament.
If political and military security are indispensable to a just and civilized international order, so too are economic security and freedom from want. I am convinced that there can be no real stability until we face up to the problems of uneven development and the unequal distribution of wealth and resources on our shared planet. Some indication, of the dimensions of the problem can be gained from the statistics of deprivation: over 2 billion people live on incomes of less than $500 a year; 500 million people are suffering from hunger and malnutrition; 5 million children die each year from the six most common childhood diseases, which could be prevented at low financial cost; and each year the developing countries must pay almost $70 billion to the industrialized world in interest payments.
The figures almost crush our understanding, but faced with them few can question the need to reactivate the process of negotiation between developed and developing countries in the appropriate forums on the interrelated issues of trade, money, debt and aid.
What can be done?
First, I believe that we must recognize that in a world of economic interdependence our problems can best be resolved by greater multilateral co-operation. Recovery and growth in the world economy can be sustained only if they include the weaker countries as well as the economically powerful.
Secondly, and related, we must resist protectionist tendencies in world trade. Developed and developing countries have a joint interest in maintaining a free and open trading system. In this context I hope that the new General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) round will advance the multilateral trading system and contribute to an increase in world trade. Steps also need to be taken to improve the functioning of the international monetary system.
Thirdly, we must tackle the problem of debt. An increase in world trade and in the export earnings of developing countries would greatly help. So too would a reduction in interest rates in the developed world. But beyond these there is an urgent need to examine the possibilities of debt rescheduling, increased investment and long-term finance.
Fourthly, there is a continuing need for increased multilateral and bilateral aid to overcome structural difficulties and help relieve immediate needs. Multilateral bodies in particular must be ensured sufficient resources to carry out their tasks.
Fifthly, we need to ensure that the efforts of development bodies and aid agencies are co-ordinated so that overlapping activities are eradicated and the most effective use made of scarce resources.
The imperative of a renewed and sustained effort to achieve long-term development has been demonstrated clearly and tragically by the famine in Africa. Although the situation in the worst-affected areas appears less acute than one year ago, the crisis is far from over. The international response to the disaster from States, international organizations, aid bodies and, indeed, individuals has been impressive and has helped save millions of lives. But the needs are still immense. Over 30 million people are affected by the drought; 10 million are displaced persons living in destitute conditions without food, water, health facilities or sanitation. Despite the international response there remains a huge gap between the aid pledged and the immediate needs. Ireland has contributed to the international aid effort bilaterally and through its membership in the European Communities. We shall continue to support efforts to relieve the immediate needs of the stricken countries, to promote a global and co-ordinated strategy against the drought and desertification, and to resume medium and long-term growth and development in the African countries.
A sustained and serious attempt to resolve the global problems I have outlined is prerequisite for a more just and stable international order. But we cannot forget that most of the bloodshed and suffering of the past 40 years has resulted from local and regional conflicts, from civil strife, and from gross abuses of human rights. It is sobering to recall that since our Organization was founded more than 16 million people have died in over 100 major conflicts. Almost without exception these have taken place in the third world - in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. A number of these conflict continue today.
In South Africa there has been in the past year an explosion of political violence. Hundreds have been killed in clashes between demonstrators and the police and in violence in townships across the country. The South African Government has sought to control the situation by the declaration of a state of emergency - a term that is shorthand for the application of a range of repressive and brutal measures which only add to the turmoil they seek to calm. It is true that there have been suggestions of reform. That in itself is something. But nowhere is there a clear and unequivocal commitment by the South African Government to abandon apartheid and to enter into a serious political dialog involving leaders of the black community.
Forty years after the founding of the United Nations we should recall that apartheid has been the subject of debate for 33 of those years, with little tangible progress to show for it. For 23 of those years, Nelson Mandela has languished in a South African prison.
Ireland believes that the time is ripe to move from words international action. Already, with the aim of increasing the pressure for change on the South African Government, we have, in concert with our European partners, agreed to implement a series of measures elaborated at Luxembourg on 10 September.
Beyond this, however, we believe that only collective action by the international community as a whole will eventually succeed in persuading those who hold power in South Africa to make the commitment to abandon apartheid. Ireland therefore favors the imposition by the Security Council of carefully chosen, graduated and mandatory sanctions against South Africa - to be fully implemented by all.
Our goal must be the abolition of apartheid. It is imperative to end a system which is an direct contradiction to every accepted notion of justice, equality and the worth of the human person. We urge the South African Government, in its own interests if nothing else, to accept that fact.
Elsewhere in the region, South Africa continues to defy international law and opinion by its occupation of Namibia and its aggressive and destabilizing activities against neighboring States. The setting up of an unrepresentative internal administration in Namibia, already condemned by the Security Council, appears to be yet another ploy designed to complicate Namibia's transition to independence. We insist that South Africa implement Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We insist, too, that South Africa end its aggressive actions against its neighbors. We condemn unreservedly the South African raid into Botswana and the activities of its forces in Angola.
Political instability, economic injustice and human rights abuses continue also in Central America. Ireland is convinced that the approach embodied in the Contadora process continues to offer the best hope of a solution to the manifold problems of that region. We therefore regret that, despite the vigorous efforts of the Contadora Group over the past year the Central American countries have been unable to agree among themselves on the terms of an Act for Peace and Co-operation. The search for agreement deserves and needs all our support. For this reason I believe that the establishment of a Contadora support group by Latin American nations is a positive and encouraging development. For this reason, too, Ireland has been a consistent advocate of the strengthening of political and economic links between the European Community and the Central American countries. The cost to Central America of a breakdown in the Contadora process would be very great indeed. The long-suffering peoples of the region must be given the opportunity to develop their societies in peace and freedom without external intervention.
So too must the people of Afghanistan. The continuing conflict there, the suffering of the Afghan people, the plight of the refugees and the burden of neighboring countries bear testimony to the heavy toll of the Soviet intervention. Ireland welcomes the mediation efforts of the Secretary-General's representative and believes that any solution to the Afghanistan conflict must be based on the principles set out in successive United Nations resolutions.
My country remains deeply concerned at the continuing failure to bring an end to the conflicts in the Middle East - both because of the suffering and misery which the peoples of that troubled region have had to endure and because of the grave threats which the conflicts there pose to wider international security.
In the Gulf the war between Iran and Iraq is now entering its sixth year. We have, together with our partners in the Ten, called on both parties to refrain from bombing civilian targets. We have unequivocally condemned the use of chemical weapons. And we have emphasized that the Geneva Convention and other rules of international law must be fully and unconditionally respected. But beyond these efforts, which are intended to reduce the scale and intensity of the conflict, there is a clear and overriding need to bring the war to an end. Ireland will continue to support initiatives such as the Secretary-General's which offer hope of an end to this long and tragic conflict.
In Lebanon the bloodshed and loss of life continue in a country deeply divided by religious and communal antagonisms. There is an urgent need to break the cycle of violence and to permit the forces of national reconciliation to emerge. Ireland has appealed to the Lebanese Government and other forces in the country to exercise restraint and to return to the search for peaceful solutions. There is an equal need for restraint by forces outside the country. Israel must complete its withdrawal in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council. A prerequisite for peace in Lebanon is respect by all for Lebanon's territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence.
Elsewhere in the region there is some cause for optimism. The Foreign Minister of Luxembourg has already set out in detail the position of the 10 members of the European Communities on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Ireland is encouraged by the peace process initiated earlier this year by King Hussein and Yasser Arafat and we have welcomed the Jordanian-Palestinian agreement as a constructive step forward. The formulation of these proposals required courage and imagination; they demand a courageous and imaginative response from all sides. We look forward now to concrete progress which will permit a fair and lasting peace between the Arab states and Israel and a just solution to the Palestinian problem.
But if a fair and lasting solution to this long-standing conflict is to be found I believe that Israel must desist now from actions which could complicate the search for peace and compromise an eventual solution. In this connection, the continued gradual de facto absorption by Israel of the West Bank and Gaza is a matter of real concern and constitutes a growing obstacle to a just solution which would permit the Palestinian people to exercise their right to self-determination.
The efforts of the United Nations to promote a peaceful resolution of the conflicts in the Middle East have for many years been buttressed by the work of the United Nations peace-keeping forces and observer missions in the region. In south Lebanon the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) has made an important contribution to providing a more stable environment in which longer-term solutions to the problems of the area might be worked out. However, my Government are concerned that UNIFIL, to which Ireland has contributed since its inception, has not been permitted fully to implement its mandate. He call cm all the parties concerned in the conflict to give their full co-operation to the Force to enable it to carry out the tasks assigned to it. If that co-operation continues to be withheld it must seriously call into question the viability of the operation. In this connection, my Government looks forward to the report which the Secretary-General will shortly present to the Security Council on the future of the Force and we shall study his observations and recommendations with the greatest interest.
I think it is appropriate that in this anniversary year we honor the service of all who from many lands have contributed so nobly and so selflessly to the work of the United Nations peace-keeping over the past 40 years. Ireland celebrates this year not only the thirtieth anniversary of our membership of the United Nations but the twenty-fifth anniversary of the dispatch of Irish troops on the United Nations peace-keeping mission in the Congo. We are proud to have been
involved in almost all United Nations peace-keeping operations since that time. The establishment of the United Nations peace-keeping arm is one of the most encouraging developments in our efforts to construct a safer and more stable world. As the world's capacity for destruction increases the need for continued and sustained support - political and financial - for the United Nations as peace-keeper becomes even more pressing. It is the duty of all of us to ensure that the remarkable achievement which the establishment of the peace-keeping function represents in the first 40 years of the United Nations can be strengthened and renewed for the tasks which lie ahead.
Before I conclude I should like to inform the Assembly of the position in Northern Ireland. The background to the problem of Northern Ireland does not require detailed rehearsal here. Within the narrow confines of the north-eastern corner of Ireland there today exist, side-by-side, two communities with separate and conflicting identities and loyalties. Although no single action or event can be adduced to account for these differences and although their origins and causes lie in the deeper recesses of history, the present form of the conflict derives, in large measure, from the character of the enforced political division of Ireland in 1920.
During the period of Northern Ireland's separate existence the Irish identity of the minority nationalist community there has essentially been disregarded. Although it is a majority within Northern Ireland itself, the unionist community for its part has always felt its British heritage under threat on account of its status as a minority within the island of Ireland as a whole. As a consequence it has tended to shape the political, civil, judicial and security institutions of Northern Ireland entirely according to its own ethos and in a way which has effectively excluded nationalists from full participation in them. This exclusion is all the more tragic given the strong commitment most nationalists have displayed to peaceful democratic and constitutional methods of seeking redress. As a result, nationalists have become progressively alienated from the political and administrative framework of Northern Ireland and they have had little to show for their adherence to democratic politics.
Although the situation has become critical under the cloud of the violence of recent years, hitherto none of the efforts to find and sustain a way out of this political impasse has succeeded. However, an attempt is now being made to approach the problem from a new perspective, an attempt which I believe offers the possibility of progress.
Last year, I reported to the General Assembly on the exploratory dialog which had begun between the Irish and British Governments in the aftermath of the publication of the report of the New Ireland Forum. In November 1984 the Taoiseach. Dr. Garret FitzGerald, and the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, met at Chequers in Britain and agreed that:
"... the identities of both the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland should be respected and reflected in the structures and processes of Northern Ireland in ways acceptable to both communities".
This agreement reflected the major requirements for a solution put forward by the Forum in its report six months previously.
Clearly, this is the only foundation on which progress can be built and sustained. Progress cannot be made by giving one community a victory at the expense of the other or by threatening in any way the rights of nationalists or of unionists. Instead, progress towards lasting peace and stability requires that the identities, loyalties and outlooks of both communities be accommodated on an equal footing. I, as a member of the Government of Ireland, believe that Irish nationalists have, for our part, made clear through the Forum report our acceptance of unionist rights.
The negotiations between the two Governments have continued on the basis of this common diagnosis of the problem. As can be imagined, examining ways of putting flesh on the bones of this agreed view of the problem and devising political structures which would, in practice, protect and promote both identities equally, is a lengthy and arduous process. It is also a process which demands difficult decisions from both Governments. It will soon be time for both Governments to take a final decision to proceed on the basis of the overall package that comes before them.
Both unionists and nationalists are naturally concerned about the degree of public uncertainty arising from the confidential nature of these talks. I have great sympathy with their dilemma. In recent weeks we have heard irresponsible voices raised by extremists in both of those communities but most stridently on the unionist side which have sought to exploit these fears and uncertainties and to stir the people up to violence and hatred.
Northern nationalists know where I stand. I would now like to use this important occasion to repeat what I have already said to the unionist people of Northern Ireland with all the sincerity and authority at my command. The Irish Government has no designs on their rights. We accept and acknowledge their Britishness. We respect and will respect their reasons for opposing Irish unity. We mean them no ill-will; quite the contrary.
Our hope and commitment are to work for the creation of lasting peace and stability and, for the first time, for real harmony, dialog and co-operation between our tradition and theirs. Those who seek to tell them otherwise do so either from ignorance or from sheer malevolence. We say to them, "Please do not heed them".
Should both our Governments decide to commit themselves to working a new form of political structure in Northern Ireland, no one should underestimate the challenge we will face from those on both sides of the divide who will seek to wreck all hope for the people of both communities through violence and through terror. In that context, international support for the determination of the Irish and British Governments to maintain any new system would be a valuable encouragement to us in what could be a very difficult period. In this connection, I know that we can rely on the helpful and constructive interest of the United Nations and its membership.


I should like first to congratulate the President on his election. I see it as a tribute not only to him personally but also to his country which holds a distinguished place in international co-operation. Everyone knows how much Spain means to France. In the very near future, our peoples will be together in the European Community. I am pleased that a common future now stands before them.
I should also like, before beginning my address proper, to add my expressions of sympathy to those already voiced by numerous speakers before me regarding the tragic events that have just occurred in Mexico.
The international community quickly demonstrated its solidarity, and my country joined in this widespread movement. I should also like to express here the respect that France has for the courage and dignity shown by the Government and people of Mexico in the face of their terrible ordeal. The catastrophe there reminds us that the happiness of men is uncertain and their destiny precarious. May they by their actions avoid compounding the suffering caused by nature.
This session of the General Assembly marks the fortieth anniversary of our Organization. It is the age of maturity, a time for reflection and for taking stock.
Speaking on behalf of France, a Founding Member of the United Nations and permanent member of the Security Council, I should like to refer to the three main ideals of this Organization which are the reason for its existence, namely, security, freedom and development.
With respect to security, the power of the atom is the dominating factor.
Peace through deterrence has so far prevented East-West conflicts from taking the form of direct confrontations between nuclear Powers. Maintenance of the balance of forces - nuclear as well as conventional - is of vital importance. This armed peace must be maintained for the future at a verifiable level of arms at the lowest possible level.	"	,
The Soviet-American talks in Geneva on nuclear arms and space should lead the two countries directly concerned to proceed to deep cuts in their most destabilizing offensive weapons while maintaining strategic equilibrium.
France welcomed the resumption of contacts between East and West and is particularly pleased that the General-Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev, is to visit Paris shortly.
New technologies have led some people to think that we could be turning a page of the nuclear era in 10 or 20 years, at the end of some ill-defined transitional period. This idea, which is attractive at first sight, merely reopens an old debate which has nurtured an illusion in mankind - the illusion that security can be achieved through invulnerability. Have we realized the extent to which a would-be aggressor could turn this risky situation to his own account?
At the Geneva Conference on Disarmament in June 1984, and then again this year, France made two proposals: first, that the two super-Powers limit the military uses of space at the same time as they reduce their offensive nuclear systems; and, secondly, that multilateral negotiations strengthen the international administration of the organization of space for peaceful uses.
The use of devices in space to see, listen and communicate contributes to security; satellites already constitute guarantees for peace and could fill this function even better if the international satellite monitoring agency my country proposed more than seven years ago were established. But, on the other hand, let us acknowledge that the deployment of new types of anti-missile or anti-satellite weapons on earth or in space would lead to a new race, with its risk of destabilizing effects. We see that possession of anti-missile and anti-satellite operational devices by one of the two super-Powers is viewed as justification for the other's efforts. It is high time that the two super-Powers agreed not to continue in this direction, they should distinguish very well between research, testing and development.
During the same time, the Conference on Disarmament should in our view set forth the rules limiting anti-satellite systems. It should also establish real confidence-building measures for space, strengthen the existing system of notification of launches of objects into space, and, lastly, extend to the satellites of other countries the bilateral commitments already made by the United States and the Soviet Union concerning the immunity of their observation satellites.
Those proposals are intended to be constructive and realistic. They take into account both the destabilizing nature of certain military activities in space and the difficulty of verifying the dismantling of systems already in place.
Let us therefore define the true nature of the challenge in space so as to avert the risk of a new arms race. But, in so doing, let us not forget the main objective: the reduction of the offensive nuclear weapons systems of the two most heavily armed countries.
As far as my country is concerned, the President of the French Republic defined in this very body two years ago the conditions in which France would be ready to participate in this undertaking. Our willingness on this score has not changed; it has not diminished.
It is in the context of such a process that France judges it necessary to raise again the question of nuclear testing designed to modernize its defensive force. I know that many delegations consider this a painful problem for which a solution is long overdue. We respect their concern, but in the case of issues like this we cannot settle for fine words or an imprecise assessment. So let us examine the facts.
To date, France has carried out less than one-tenth of the total number of nuclear tests carried out by the Soviets and the Americans. As of 1974 it ceased tests in the atmosphere. It takes every precaution in carrying out its tests, and this was confirmed, in particular, by the team of international experts that went to the site last year. No other nuclear Power did this before and none has done it since. Only recently, in Mururoa, the President of the Republic renewed the invitation he had extended to the countries of the South Pacific to see for themselves, at the actual site, the harmless nature of French nuclear tests.
Though not bound by any negotiated agreement, France has reduced the power of its tests below the threshold of 150 kilotons, a figure that the Soviet Union and the United States have presented to this Assembly for the past 10 years as a step deserving of the highest praise. At every opportunity, France demonstrates its goodwill, but it will never compromise its security interests; nor will it renounce the legitimate exercise of its sovereignty, whatever the cost to it. Continuation of the tests is in fact necessary to maintain the credibility of its forces. The limitation of tests could only be understood and be meaningful in the context of an eventual deescalation by the most heavily armed Powers.
But the debate on international security is not limited to the problems of nuclear disarmament.
The Stockholm Conference on Confidence- and Security-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe is to cur mind very important. Thirty-five States are participating and are seeking to define concrete measures to establish confidence among all.
In addition to threats of conventional conflicts, the specter of the use of chemical weapons has also resurfaced recently. I should like to repeat strongly ray country's condemnation of any violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, wherever it takes place. France supports and will continue to support the efforts of the international community and, in the first place, those of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to proceed without delay to an impartial establishment of the facts where allegations of the use of these weapons have been made. France has not hesitated to speak out in favor of the work of the Conference on Disarmament toward negotiating a convention banning the manufacture of chemical weapons and providing for the destruction of existing stockpiles under international supervision.
More generally, the deterioration of the security conditions in the world is a check to development when it does not wipe it out altogether. That is why we repeat that disarmament and development must be linked. The President of the French Republic made this point in 1983 from this very rostrum. France is ready to serve as host to an international conference on this subject in Paris.
The recent work of the preparatory committee of the United Nations conference on the relationship between disarmament and development has confirmed during the course of the summer the readiness of everyone. X am therefore pleased to state again here France's offer.
I come now to the second part of my statement.
France will speak out against all attacks on liberty, on the physical and moral integrity of the individual and the dignity of the human person, and will act indefatigably wherever these values are threatened.
We recently celebrated at Helsinki the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
That anniversary reminds us of the great ambitions we had at that time: to formulate for the old continent rules other than those imposed by threat, force or ideology, building not only between States but also between their citizens, new and peaceful relations based on the sovereignty and equality of each State and on the right of peoples to self-determination, with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Let us look back at the record of the past 10 years. It is mixed. Certainly, Europe has escaped the wars that are devastating so many other parts of the world, and its borders have been respected, and that is the main thing. But economic co-operation, cultural exchanges and contacts between people have not developed as they should. Human rights are still all too often, sometimes seriously, violated or ignored. Much still remains to be done, therefore.
Governments must win the confidence of their citizens. Let us earn that confidence by guaranteeing them the exercise of all their freedoms, without which there can be no genuine democracy.
Let us reunite families. Let us allow people to move and ideas to circulate without hindrance. Let us guarantee free exchanges. Let us agree to live in the diversity of our cultures.
How can I fail to mention under this heading one of the tragedies of our time - apartheid? The origin of the conflicts that are convulsing South African society is to be sought in that system, which is based on an odious doctrine and shameful practices.
Responses to our many appeals have been announced by Pretoria; they are not enough. Only by the speedy and total elimination of apartheid will there be salvation for South Africa.
The opening of genuine dialog between all the communities and recognition of the same civil and political rights for all South Africans constitute the only possible and acceptable basis for change. The current repression and violence can only lead to an impasse.
Faced with the deteriorating situation, France felt the time had come to take concrete initiatives. As early as May 1985 the Prime Minister announced the Government's intention to take measures against Pretoria if significant progress was not made within a reasonable period of time. Because of the worsening situation resulting from the imposition of a state of emergency, France recalled its Ambassador and decided on the immediate suspension of any new investment in South Africa. It then won adoption in the Security Council of resolution 569 (1985) , which recommends that States take voluntary measures against South Africa in order to induce its Government to engage in dialog. Since yesterday all the members of the European Community are taking actions to that end.
Since we took action other countries have joined us. That is what is most important. The freedom and dignity of a people are at stake.
The intransigence of the South African Government over Namibia is not acceptable either. After the withdrawal of South African troops from Angola in April 1985 there was some ground for hope. But the establishment of a so-called interim government in Windhoek, the action of South African military forces in Angola last May and again a few days ago and the raid on the capital of Botswana have shattered those hopes and helped to block negotiations. Despite those setbacks and difficulties, the international community must continue tirelessly to repeat that only Security Council resolution 435 (1978) constitutes an acceptable basis for a definitive settlement to the question of Namibia.
Toe many conflicts are causing bloodshed in the world, bringing suffering and death in their wake. In the Middle East the United Nations is endeavoring to secure respect for the principles enshrined in its Charter.
France supports all initiatives that will help lead to progress towards a solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict through dialog and negotiation. It approves the initiative of the King of Jordan last 11 February, in agreement with the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and will continue to provide assistance and support, just as it will encourage the Head of the Government of Israel in that regard.
My Government, as it has demonstrated on many occasions, is ready to support the efforts of those who sincerely desire to work for peace, which can be based only on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). In order to be lasting, that peace must take into account two principles that are indivisible: the right of Israel to exist in security and the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, with all that that implies.
As for Lebanon, which has been so sorely tried, it, too, has the right to peace and its inhabitants have the right to security, whatever the community to which they belong. France has continually asserted that the solution to the crisis in Lebanon must be based on the respect for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of that country. That in turn presupposes a genuine national reconciliation among all the Lebanese, My Government is working ceaselessly to that end, giving assistance and support to the lawful authorities of the country.
I wish also to mention here the fate of individuals, French and others, held hostage in Lebanon. The French Government condemns categorically that odious blackmail, and solemnly appeals to all those who may be able to help secure their release.
I turn to the conflict between Iran and Iraq. The international community has often expressed its extreme concern about that endless and bloody confrontation.
It is essential that there finally be a cease-fire and that the relevant Security Council resolutions, which have lost none of their value and relevance, be accepted at last by the two belligerents and implemented in their entirety.
In order to speed up the start of the necessary negotiations, France encourages and supports international initiatives - in the first place, naturally, the action taken by our Organization.
In Afghanistan, foreign intervention has been sustaining the war for almost six years. Far from abating, the fighting is spreading and growing in intensity, exacerbating the trials of a courageous people. There as elsewhere, justice is consistent with good sense. An answer is to be found only in a political solution that will secure simultaneously the withdrawal of foreign forces, the free self-determination of the population and the stability of the region.
We know that those are the principles that guide the good offices of our Secretary-General. France supports them, without overlooking the fact that their success depends first on the intentions of the occupying Power, which alone is in a position to remove one of the major causes of international tension. Did the head of the Soviet delegation, when he spoke the day before yesterday open the door to hope?
With regard to the distressing and dangerous situation in Cambodia, France reiterates its condemnation of the occupation of that country by foreign forces. It deplores the exacerbation of suffering inflicted on civilian populations by the recent military operations on the Khmer-Thai border. It stresses the urgency of a peaceful solution based on the withdrawal of foreign troops and the national reconciliation of the Khmer people.
The division of the Korean people - a tragedy that has been with us for 40 years - still continues. In the last few months a few encouraging signs have appeared. Recently, separated families were able to meet again for a few hours. I see in that reason for hope.
At this point I should like to mention the hope that is emerging from the changes in an entire continent: I refer to South America. Happily, democracy continues to be consolidated there. France welcomes that, especially as a difficult economic situation and the burden of considerable foreign debt have imposed difficult economic policies on Governments.
In Central America, clearly the conflicts cannot be resolved by military means. The countries of that region should be encouraged to find quickly among themselves the path to negotiation. The Contadora group therefore has our support and backing.
I now come to France's third priority in external policy - development. The overriding need for solidarity between the industrialized and the developing countries derives from the conviction - which has been repeated many times by the French Head of State - that the future of the North and the South is linked and that there can be no lasting growth for the developed countries if the developing countries are excluded. For the past two years the international community has accomplished a great deal towards helping these countries - first of all, during crisis situations.
Who could deny that Governments and public opinion responded rapidly and generously to the extreme hardships of the African countries? I should like to praise the initiatives taken by the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, in particular the organization last March of a donors' conference in Geneva and the creation of the United Nations Office for Emergency Operations in Africa.
This aid drive is without precedent. Almost 7 million metric tons of grain have been collected for Africa - a considerable figure commensurate with the tragedy that is taking place. The European Community and France made a substantial contribution to that effort, as the representative of the presidency has indicated from this rostrum. But the main problem is to avoid a recurrence of such a situation, thereby ensuring a resumption of the development process on a permanent basis.
It is essential to maintain the flow of official development assistance. For its part, France will contribute more than 0.55 per cent of its gross national product in 1985, a figure close to its 1988 target of 0.7 per cent.
The poorest countries deserve priority attention, for without an increased flow of financial resources it will be difficult, if not impossible, for them to face a particularly unfavorable international economic climate. The establishment of the Special Fund for Africa under the auspices of the World Bank - to which France has made a decisive contribution - constitutes an important step in that direction.
It is also with the hope of eradicating famine that France has proposed to our industrial partners a "plan for Africa", which provides among other things for increased agricultural development and a co-ordinated program to combat desertification. We are pleased that that plan has been adopted and that work currently being carried out by experts will make it possible to implement it soon.
Finally, I should like to confirm here the French President's intention to convene an international conference on forest protection in Paris next February. That conference could, in conjunction with other international organizations concerned - primarily the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) - propose concrete answers to the concerns of countries which see their forests disappearing and with them often all forms of life.
Those efforts were a response to the most critical situations. For the rest, this past year has seen a relative improvement in the situation of the third world.
But I should like to make two remarks on this subject. First of all, this progress is related to the economic improvement in the developed countries. The relative decline in real interest rates and the value of the dollar have accentuated this trend. But these phenomena, while positive, are primarily and essentially cyclical and short-term, and therefore remain precarious. Let us hope that the decisions taken here in New York last Sunday by the finance ministers of the five most industrialized countries will help to consolidate this trend.
The second point is that we must guard against excessive optimism. Admittedly, the problem of international debt has been brought under control for the time being, thanks to the joint action of the Paris Club, banks and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and especially the extremely austere and courageous adjustment policies adopted by the debtor countries and their peoples. But let us be careful.
The improvement in external accounts has come about at the cost of lowered income for populations - a situation that cannot continue for long.
Debt-servicing, principal and interest, still absorb often considerable amounts, if not all, of annual export earnings.
The fragile nature of this improvement is therefore blatantly obvious. An entire continent of which I have already spoken, Africa, remains on the sidelines of this progress and continues to become increasingly impoverished. The same danger will beset the other continents; and unless we manage steadily to channel capital from the developed to the developing countries, whose financing needs remain structural, the situation will be aggravated.
Here, we cannot be satisfied with the trend of these past few years which have seen a slow-down in direct investment, a reduction in bank credits and repayments to multilateral financial institutions of amounts greater than withdrawals. All this has led to an inversion of North-South capital flows. The developing countries are now paying more to those in the North than they receive from them.
It is essential to improve the existing mechanisms for debt management by providing developing countries with adjusted financing. This is the objective of France's repeated appeals to increase World Bank capital, issue additional special drawing rights, and more generally increase official development assistance.
It is also to be feared that in the months to come the slow-down in the American economy - inadequately compensated for by the growth in Europe and Japan -may have serious consequences for the developing countries; or that rising protectionist pressures in the North will stifle developing countries by limiting their export possibilities and therefore their ability to repay debts.
Certainly, as I said a moment ago, increased dialog among the main industrialized countries is leading to an improved international climate. That dialog should be stepped up in all existing forums and on all occasions. The time has come for a comprehensive and serious consideration of this subject.
Let us take another example - monetary affairs. France, on several occasions in particular when the President of the Republic addressed this Assembly two years ago - has called for an international monetary conference that would seek to define new guidelines, thereby making monetary fluctuations more stable. Industrialized countries and groups of developing countries, in particular the non-aligned countries, advocate a comparable move. It is only through such discussions that we can make the progress the world needs so urgently.

France for its part is ready for dialog and action. In the monetary, financial and commercial fields, its determination remains firm.
At one time the North-South dialog inspired much hope, in particular within our Organization. However, global negotiations never took place, and meetings between experts in international forums have yielded very few concrete results. Today, approaches based on sectoral strategies, integrating emergency aid and giving priority to rural development and training, are being launched and developed. My country approves these approaches, which meet today's needs. But it remains essential that we formulate without delay reforms that will bring about deep and lasting changes in relations between States for the benefit of peoples, their individual liberties and their rights.
In reviewing the principal tasks incumbent upon the United Nations I have been forced to recognize that the present state of the world is far from satisfactory. More than ever, we need the United Nations, the forum pat excellence for meetings and discussion. During the fortieth anniversary we shall have a special opportunity to underscore the need to make negotiation prevail in conflicts and solidarity triumph over selfishness.
This unfortunately gloomy picture does, however, have its bright spots and more encouraging prospects. I wish to conclude on a positive note by mentioning an undertaking on which my country sets great store. I refer to the construction of Europe.
Forty years ago Europe was a devastated battlefield. What has it become today? It is a community without precedent in history, a force for peace and equilibrium in the world, a community that has learned its lesson from its past and that practices, among its members and vis-&-vis the rest of the world, the peaceful settlement of disputes and solidarity with the very poor.
Our colleague from Luxembourg has reviewed the main lines of our action. A few words will suffice to recapitulate: the coming expansion of membership to include Spain and Portugal; the renewal of the Lome Convention with 66 countries in Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific; the establishment of direct relations with the countries members of the Contadora Group and also the work now in progress to improve institutions and technological capacities with the Eureka project and to move towards a Europe of citizens, a political Europe. Indeed, European construction will be one of the great ventures of the second half of this century.
In conclusion, let me say that France wishes, together with others, to pursue its work for peace. It has heeded the message that has come to us from the depths of history. To those who are distressed by the future of the world, it hopes that we may respond together in the name of the principles that, 40 years ago, were the. cornerstone of our action.