Permit me, at the very outset to convey to the President the pleasure of the Ethiopian delegation at his election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-first session. We believe that his skill, experience, dedication and wisdom will ensure the successful conclusion of this session.
May I also take this opportunity to extend my hear felt appreciation to the outgoing President, Mr. Jaime de Pinies, for the able leadership he provided to the General Assembly at its fortieth session.
I should like to express our happiness at seeing the Secretary-General, His Excellency Javier Ptfrez de Cuellar, back at the helm of this Organization, which he has so ably led for the past five years. His invaluable service to the Organization and his determined efforts in the interest of international peace and security as well as his vision and realism, as demonstrated particularly in his recent report on the work of the Organization, have earned him the respect and admiration of the international community.
The current session of the General Assembly is taking place in rather unusual circumstances and in a less comforting international climate. We say it is unusual because in the last four decades there have been very few sessions of the General Assembly at which the United Nations has taken such an inward look with a view to overcoming the political challenges and the resulting financial crises facing it. He say it is less comforting because the world is still beset by a host of political, economic and social problems that have defied solution for a long time now.
If this session of the General Assembly is to be one of introspection, then let us all be clear about the causes of the problems afflicting our Organization. The United Nations has been accused of being administratively inefficient and financially wasteful. While acknowledging the fact that there is still more that could be done in order to streamline the administration and economize on its finances, we have to be clear as to what kind of crisis the Organization is facing.
The Ethiopian delegation is convinced that the crisis is not financial; we believe it is essentially political, as was stated by our Secretary-General in his latest report on the work of the United Nations. Indeed, it is a political crisis caused by lingering sentiments and outmoded perceptions inimical to the democratization of international relations, to the recognition of, and respect for, the sovereign equality of nations and to a constructive accommodation of inevitable changes in international relations. These obviously arise from apprehensions in some circles that the multilateral approach to problems and acceptance of changing situations will rob them of their positions of power and unfair privileges. These circles promote and rationalize their perceptions under the convenient guise of protecting the United Nations from "the irresponsible diktat of a mechanical majority".
Such an attitude, I submit, represents a threat to the sovereignty and the national interests of the developing countries, furthermore, it represents an erosion of faith in the cardinal principles enunciated in the Charter and a negation of the inexorable historical tide of change which, in the last forty years has altered not only the system of international relations, but also the united Nations itself.
Let us therefore resolve here and now to repel this dangerous onslaught against the United Nations in particular and against multilateralism in general. As a first step, we call upon all States to fulfill the obligations they have assumed under the Charter as regards the full and prompt payment of the assessed contributions to the budget of the Organization.
Today, not only are we endeavoring to protect the integrity and enhance the effectiveness of the united Nations, but we are indeed, through the instrumentality of this Organization, engaged in a determined search for solutions to the numerous problems of today's world. One such problem that calls for urgent and effective action is the situation in southern Africa.
The United Nations plan for Namibia's independence, to which the South African regime had initially given its agreement and the sponsors of which are the major Western Powers, remains unimplemented - eight long years after its adoption. Much as the Pretoria regime had never seriously entertained the idea of leaving Namibia, it would be foolhardy to expect that regime to evict itself from Namibia when the most powerful nations in the West give it the assurance, loud and clear, that its refusal to implement the provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) entails no retaliatory enforcement measures.
Ethiopia, even at this stage, believes that the United Nations plan is the only internationally acceptable plan for the peaceful transition of Namibia to genuine independence. It equally believes that unless and until global, comprehensive and mandatory sanctions are imposed against South Africa, that country's regime will have very few, If any, compelling reasons to heed the will of the international community. Those that oppose this peaceful course of action must eventually bear the responsibility for the death, destruction and suffering the inevitable intensification of the armed struggle in Namibia would involve.
What I have said about their responsibility also holds true with regard to the situation within South Africa itself. As was clearly stated by the World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, held last June in Paris, global, comprehensive and mandatory sanctions offer the only peaceful path for the elimination of the evil system of apartheid. In this regard, we are encouraged by events unfolding all over the world and in particular the Western world. While taking note of the measures taken by some Western Governments further to isolate the Pretoria regime, we cannot but state our conviction that more forceful and meaningful measures must be taken. The conclusions of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group and the complete failure of the ill-fated mission of the British Foreign Secretary to South Africa have deprived those opposed to sanctions of all pretexts for their self-serving position and delaying tactics.
At the same time as it imposes sanctions, the international community is also duty-bound to assist and protect the front-line States, which have contributed more than their share, perhaps, to the liberation struggle in southern Africa.
For our part, we say that apartheid must be dismantled, not reformed, and on its ruins must be established a free and multiracial South Africa, for whose birth its heroic sons and daughters sacrifice themselves daily with the utmost courage
and determination. For their cause, for their struggle and for the noble objectives of freedom and equality, the support and commitment of the people and Government of socialist Ethiopia will continue to grow stronger until freedom for all South Africans and independence for all Namibians, as well as peace and security for the front-line States, become a reality.
Turning to the situation in the Middle East, we witness another problem: a continuing appalling human tragedy and the endless suffering of the Palestinian people. In our view, the complex nature of the problem demands a comprehensive approach within the framework of an international peace conference, with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
Further, we believe that the attainment of a just and lasting peace in the region depends on the restoration of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to establish a Palestinian State, the return of Israel to its pre-1967 borders and respect for the right of all the States of the region to live in peace within recognized boundaries.
Another matter of serious concern is the grave situation currently obtaining in Central America. At the heart of the problem lies the policy of intervention, which is manifested by support for counter-revolutionary elements against the Sandinista revolution and the national sovereignty of the people of Nicaragua. While deploring the refusal of the United States to abide by the decision of the International Court of Justice, we reaffirm our support for and solidarity with the heroic people of Nicaragua.
We also offer our solidarity to the people of Cyprus and Lebanon, whose sovereignty and territorial integrity are under constant threat. As regards the problem of Cyprus in particular, socialist Ethiopia believes that the convening of
an international conference could provide a viable forum in the search for a lasting solution based on respect for the unity, territorial integrity, independence and non-aligned status of Cyprus, as stipulated in the relevant United Nations resolutions.
Ethiopia also believes that the international community should support the efforts to bring about the peaceful reunification of the Korean people, for the purpose of which the Democratic People's Republic of Korea has advanced constructive and useful proposals.
In addition to these problem areas, I cannot but refer to the Iran-Iraq war and the situations regarding Western Sahara, Kampuchea and Afghanistan, inasmuch as the position of my Government on all these issues has already been expressed from this very rostrum, I shall refrain from stating it once again. Nevertheless, as a hinterland State of the Indian Ocean, my country's concern at the current situation in and around the Indian Ocean must be reiterated, and in this regard we should like to underline the imperative need to convene the International Conference on the Indian Ocean before 1988, as decided upon at the fortieth session of the General Assembly.
As regards the situation in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia believes that only through scrupulous adherence to the fundamental principles of respect for the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States, the inviolability of their boundaries and non-interference in their internal affairs can mutual trust and confidence be created and a lasting peace established in the region.
Despite externally inspired, externally organized, externally equipped and armed and externally directed acts of aggression and provocation against the historical unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ethiopia, my Government has for a long time adhered to, and will in the future continue to respect, these
basic principles of inter-State relations. I should like to take this opportunity to call upon all those concerned to do likewise and join Ethiopia in a guest for genuine peace and development for the peoples of the subregion.
Every year at the General Assembly and in different international and regional forums we talk of peace. In public or in private, today peace has become.a household word and increasing concern is expressed about it. Indeed, the last session of the General Assembly designated 1986 International Year of Peace. All these, of course, are expressions of the best intent, manifesting an endless guest for peace.
Yet, in present circumstances and at this point in world history one can hardly speak of real peace, for the ever increasing arms race is threatening the very survival of humanity and its civilization. The last 40 years have witnessed the production and deployment of new nuclear-weapon systems with more deadly destructive power and capable of destroying the world many times over. Moreover, we now witness new attempts to extend the frontiers of the arms race into outer space. Ethiopia strongly believes that the security of nations is to be found not in nuclear armament but in general and complete disarmament.
We have, therefore, to focus attention on two priority areas, one of which is the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. The renunciation of the threat and use of nuclear weapons through a convention would contribute to removing anxiety, fear and suspicion from the tense world situation and to restoring mutual confidence, trust and understanding.
The other priority issue is the immediate conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty, which we are convinced will also go a long way to putting a brake on the spiraling arms race. My delegation pays a deserved tribute to the Government of the Soviet Union for the very positive commitments it has made and the measures it has taken in that regard. World peace and human progress demand that a halt be put to all underground nuclear tests and to the dangerous and costly Star Wars Program. In that connection, we commend the six-nation five-continent group for its constructive and timely proposals in the field of arms control and disarmament.
Nuclear security is but a mirage that recedes with each step taken in the futile search for it. Furthermore, the world can ill afford to sustain the arms race, at a staggering cost of $900 billion a year, while hundreds of millions of people live on the margins of human existence. This fact, of course, underlines the interrelationship between disarmament and development - an issue whose importance cannot be over-emphasized and for whose discussion the proposed international conference must be held without any further delay.
Unless and until the process of genuine disarmament commences, which should bei soon, and vital resources are released for the purposes of development, the deplorable economic and social conditions of much of humanity will of themselves pose a grave threat to world peace, no less than that posed by nuclear weapons. It is to be regretted, however, that that grim prospect is not given the urgent attention it deserves by some circles in the developed world. While it is true
that, in the final analysis, development depends on the efforts of each individual country, it is equally true that it requires a favorable climate of adequate financial and technical assistance, as well as an effective system of international co-operation. That fact can easily be seen with reference to the critical economic situation in Africa.
Africa inherited from its colonial past an economy marked by structural imbalances. Over the years, the situation has been aggravated by the world economic environment, which is characterized by a decline in the flow of external resources and sharply declining prices of primary commodities, with a consequent reduction of export earnings. The accumulation of external debt, with onerous debt service payments, and recurrent drought and creeping desertification have all become severe impediments to Africa's developmental efforts*
The structural imbalances, pervasive low level of productivity and aggravating external factors have interacted for so long as to place Africa in such a weakened position that the dramatic effects of the recent drought are but a manifestation of the fragile nature of the underlying socio-economic structure. The drought merely accentuated Africa's more pervasive structural problems.
While we in Africa appreciate the very positive response of the international community during the critical emergency years between 1982 and 1985, a lasting solution to the problem of Africa calls for the international community's commitment to assist the continent beyond the emergency phase* We believe that it was this realization that led to the convening of the thirteenth special session of the General Assembly, which, one must admit, helped further to sensitize the world community to the grave situation prevailing in Africa. What remains to be done is to implement the measures called for in the United Nations Program of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development 1986-1990. In addition to the African economic situation, the debt crisis is another example of a problem that cries out for international co-operation and assistance. The rapidly escalating debt burden of Africa and the debt-servicing obligations, for instance, have imposed major debilitating effects on the African economies. In all respects, Africa's debt burden, which more than doubled between 1974 and 19B4 and accounts for almost half its gross domestic product, is heavier and more onerous than that of other debtor regions. Unless bold and imaginative measures are also taken in this regard, the economies of both the debtor and creditor countries will be gravely affected.
At the global level, too, the need for international co-operation for development can hardly be over-emphasized. Much as stagnation in the industrialized countries negatively affects development in the South, growth in the developing world will definitely have a positive impact on employment and the export trade in the North. So development assistance, in short, should be viewed as mutually beneficial to both the donor and the recipient countries. Unfortunately, the current international economic system, characterized as it is by inequity and injustice, cannot possibly afford us the opportunities for development. It is little wonder, therefore, that we should still persevere in our efforts to establish the new international economic order and, to that end, to call for renewed efforts to reactivate the process of global negotiations.
Developed countries must recognize that problems of development are the problems not of the poor alone, but of the rich as well. As failure to realize that fact would be disastrous to all, co-operation between North and South must be revitalized and the major imbalances in the world economy, including the related issues of money, finance, trade and development, must be immediately attended to. Finally, let me stress once again that the current international situation leaves much to be desired. Not only is peace threatened, but avenues for development are increasingly blocked. The very future of the United Nations itseLf is by no means certain. To save the United Nations - indeed, the world - from impending danger, we have to come up with new initiatives to solve old problems and with novel approaches to cope with new challenges. While we must all be realistic in facing up to the present challenges of peace and development, our realism should not be based on expediency, opportunism or despair; ours must be a realism motivated by ideals. Ethiopia takes this opportunity to reaffirm once again its readiness to make the necessary contribution to the noble quest for peace, progress and justice, and, as a victim of the breakdown of international morality and legality in the 1930s, reiterates its unshakable faith, confidence and trust in our united Nations.


On behalf of the delegation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, I should like to congratulate Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury on his election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the General Assembly. I am confident that he will lead the work of the Assembly to a successful conclusion. I must also express appreciation of the work of Mr. Jaime de Pinies, President of the fortieth session.
We are grateful to the Secretary-General for his efforts to ensure the survival of the United Nations and the enhancement of its role.
Recently the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya commemorated the sixteenth anniversary of the expulsion of the last fascist from the Jamahiriya, thus setting the seal on the termination of an era in Libyan history characterized by racist, colonialist domination.
As our people celebrated this anniversary over the years, they renewed their pledge to resist this odious type of policy which prevailed during the last century and which some Powers are trying to impose in this century. For 41 years the United Nations has been trying to find a way to eliminate this scourge which has prevailed and is still prevailing in the world.
While history records that this Organization, the United Nations, has achieved some victories in decolonization in some parts of the world, which resulted in the accession of some territories to independence, it will also record that in some cases this independence was incomplete, while in others it is still threatened. Their independence is being jeopardized by a policy of hegemony, aggression, and the withholding and plunder of resources.
The United Nations, throughout its history and during the present year, has seen how the independence of its Member States can be unprotected.
Let us look at the economic war threatening the poor, small States. Let us see how some of the States Members of this Organization are not only negotiating with other States, but rather with private institutions; and how some Members of our Organization are not only bargaining over how to repay their debts or manage their institutions, but are bargaining over the pawning of their wealth and natural resources.
The experience of the special session of the General Assembly on the grave economic situation in one of the continents of the world was a source of disappointment, not only for the Member States but also for the peoples, which believed for 41 years that they had established a collective system to protect their security and safety.
During this year, the International Year of Peace, the United States of America committed a blatant act of aggression against the Jamahiriya, a State Member of the United Nations.
There is no dichotomy between our people's celebration the other day of the anniversary of the expulsion of fascism from our soil and the fact that our delegation is making its statement today before the General Assembly. Fascism in the Mediterranean used to believe that the northern coasts of Africa are an extension of its European coasts. Fascism in the United States of America still believes that, the coasts of the Mediterranean, in the South, the North, the East and the West are an extension of American hegemony over international politics.
The United States, through its policy of aggression, is attempting to subjugate the littoral States of the Mediterranean and force them to adopt a policy that accords with its own political approach.
Let us cast a clear look at the state of affairs. On 16 April of this year, the United States, with the assistance of the United Kingdom, sent its warplanes to Benghazi and Tripoli to launch raids against innocent civilians in the Jamahiriya. These raids were designed inter alia to murder the leader of the Jamahiriya.
The peoples of the world did not stand idly by before this brutal act of aggression.
I am sure that those who signed the San Francisco Charter signed it on behalf of these people. Z am certain that our President here is aware of the denunciation and condemnation engendered by the brutal and wanton act of aggression against the Jamahiriya.
This is a matter that should not be passed over in silence. This international Assembly must view it from all angles.
On the one hand, this aggression still persists since the present American Administration has decided to adopt the approach of attempting to combat the progressive policy of the Jamahiriya. The Administration is still waging media and psychological warfare, not only with the view of misleading American public opinion but of misleading international public opinion. This includes the peoples and nations and Governments of the world.
During the last few days the extent of the disinformation practiced by the Administration has been proven. In this regard we can clearly conclude that all the allegations leveled by the American Administration against the Jamahiriya fall within this disinformation campaign. And the alleged reason for its aggression against the Jamahiriya falls within this misleading false campaign. On the other hand, the bombing of cities and the murder of innocent civilians is neither a beginning nor an end to aggression. The United States Administration, since 1973, has taken measures designed to undermine the sovereignty of the Jamahiriya, to prevent it from exercising its sovereignty through the adoption of international and internal positions, respect for which is provided for in the Charter. These measures took the form of restrictions on trade and on the transfer of technology, which was upgraded to an economic boycott, and then ended in the unjust freezing of properties and assets. Then this took the form of military acts of provocation off the Libyan shore, using the threat of force and even resorting to the actual use of force. The brutal criminal act of aggression on 16 April did not come to an end. The Administration is still undertaking its maneuvers and acts of provocation off Libya's shores and is still taking financial and economic measures and pursuing its policy of disinformation against the Jamahiriya.
Thus, this approach, adopted by the American Administration as official policy against a State Member of the United Nations, constitutes a blatant and continuous act of aggression which runs counter to the Charter, adopted by the international community as its own constitution since the elimination of the last Fascist attest to dominate international politics. The world stands today confronted by this desire on the part of a major Power to exercise hegemony and domination. The world is called upon to act to put an end to this policy.
The brutal act of aggression by American fascism is not new, be it in the Mediterranean or in other regions. The American Navy shelled civilians in Beirut, and the same infernal war machine of the American militarists attempted to violate the sovereignty of Iran, and successive American Administrations accepted the death of Americans themselves in Viet Nam, and the United States of America invaded Grenada and besieged Cuba. And this brutal Administration supports the Contras in Angola and Nicaragua and is still supporting the Zionists in occupied Palestine and the racists in South Africa.
The international community represented in the United Nations cannot condone these repeated premeditated practices on the part of the ^ministration. These practices assume a more serious character when engaged in by a major Power, one of the five States permanent members of the Security Council. The Charter entrusted these States with the maintenance of international peace and security, which it emphasizes be undertaken through word and deed. The United States has contravened the Charter in both word and deed. It was the United States that bombed cities and murdered innocent civilians. It was the United States that exercised the right of veto to prevent the Security Council from condemning its acts of aggression. Forty-one years after its adoption the Charter has been violated through the use of bombers and the right of veto in an unprecedented arrogant Fascist manner.
Without going into the legal bases which govern affairs in the world, the fact that the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the Non-Aligned Movement and the Organization of the Islamic Conference condemned the brutal act of aggression by the United States against the Jamahiriya is sufficient proof that the peoples of the world - some of whose representatives signed the Charter - consider the practices of the United States acts of aggression against a Member State of those organizations and of the United Nations and grounds not only for denunciation and condemnation but, rather, as a grave development jeopardizing international peace and security. There will never be a lack of honorable voices within the international community and American society itself which brand these acts of aggression as cowardly, base and hideous.
To return to my original subject, our people recently celebrated the sixteenth anniversary of the elimination of the last manifestations of fascism. This means that we will continue to resist any manifestation of fascism, whether it is practiced against us or targeted against others. If this is the reason for neo-fascism to commit aggression against us, then we will stand up to that aggression and repel it.
At the appropriate time and place the delegation of the Jamahiriya will discuss the items on the agenda. My delegation will concentrate, in particular, on the questions of Palestine, South Africa and the international economic situation.
The Assembly will see for itself that the confrontation between the United States and the Jamahiriya has no basis and that the allegations of the United States Administration have proved to be false. Rather, the confrontation is based on the fact that we resist the racism of the Zionists in occupied Palestine, the usurpation of the rights of its peoples, the racism of the Government of Pretoria and its oppression of the indigenous population and the unjust economic situation which led to the impoverishment and starvation of the peoples of the third world in the interest of the industrialized developed world.
The Assembly is already aware that the United States Administration supports the Zionists in occupied Palestine and provides them with the means not only of continuing their usurpation of the rights of the peoples of Palestine, but of seeking persistently to dominate the entire region and subject some of the rulers to their domination, making them their quislings and lackeys.
The Assembly will see that the United States Administration resists the subjugation of the Pretoria regime and seeks to strengthen it, and that it pursues an economic policy aimed at preventing the peoples of the world from controlling the sources of their natural wealth and at creating an economic imbalance which would lead to the control of its monopolies over the international division of labor. This is the touchstone and the real confrontation. As for the allegations of the American Administration, they simply do not hold water.
My delegation will debate State terrorism. As for that State which turns the Mediterranean basin - a basin for peace - into a lake for its maneuvers, acts of provocation and the hegemony of its fleet, the Assembly will see, as everybody has seen, the falseness of the allegations which it has leveled against our people.
We stand at the side of the liberation movements of the world, but we are against attacking civilians. It is impossible for a people that has lived for 30 years as a victim of fascism, which it has resisted, and which has suffered the aggression of a major Power, to be an instrument of terrorism. The American Administration fabricated its pretext to justify its aggression and ray delegation will have its say regarding this matter.
In the final analysis, there is only one thing to say: the General Assembly, while celebrating the International Year of Peace, which is the culmination of 41 years of its history, must transform itself into a public trial of the perfidy of the United States Administration. There will be no reason to glorify the Charter or praise its articles without a practical implementation thereof. There is no raison d'etre for international Organizations if they do not stand in defence of the rights of their members. The Charter calls for the maintenance of international peace and security, respect for the principle of the equal rights of peoples and the prohibition of the use or threat of force. We are confident that under Mr. Choudiury's presidency of this session of the Assembly we can find the way leading to respect for the Charter and the implementation of its articles.


 On behalf of the Brazilian Government it is my privilege to congratulate you. Sir, upon your election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the General Assembly. I am certain that I interpret the trust of all delegations present here in your wise and inspired leadership, on the basis of which our work will attain the desired success.
Let me also pay tribute to Ambassador Jaime de Pinies for the competent and skillful manner in which he presided over the last session of the General Assembly, the session which marked the fortieth anniversary of our Organization.
For 41 years Brazil has had the privilege of opening the general debate of the United Nations General Assembly.
At the fortieth session last September it was the President of my country, Jose Sarney, who gave the opening address. He began by paying homage to this tribune:
"This tribune instills respect and dignity. It is the loftiest in the community of nations. Here both the mighty and the weak are diminished".
In my capacity as Minister for External Relations of Brazil, I come to this podium of the United Nations with emotion and reverence. This is the highest forum
 of mankind. As such it must be resolutely preserved. I spare no words, therefore, in praising it. Its occasional setbacks do not detract from its intrinsic value as an instrument for dialog and peace. Its shortcomings, far from rendering it invalid, rather enhance the imperative need to strengthen it.
Brazil knows of no alternative to the United Nations. If the Organization did not exist, human talent and ingenuity would have to conceive it, create it - in short, reinvent it. It certainly does not lack adequate institutional means, a precise legal framework, or clearly defined and lucid objectives. Truly, what is most missing in the Organization, to translate all its immense potential into the most profitable co-operation between peoples for their common good, is a sincere political universal will to sustain it without faltering in the consistent and dedicated affirmation of the noble purposes consecrated in the San Francisco Charter.
Just when international society is becoming practically universal, it would be contradictory, as well as foolhardy, to condemn the United Nations to extinction or to inertia, thus depriving the world of its basic tools for democratic dialog and fruitful understanding.
For Brazil, strengthening the United Nations is the best way to ensure peace, security and international co-operation.
During his recent State visit to the United States of America, President Jose Sarney referred to Brazil as a factor for stability and peace, for conciliation and equilibrium in all dimensions of world order. "He are a country that contributes", he said, "a country that does not disrupt - a country that brings not problems but solutions". I have come to the United Nations to convey, with certainty and conviction, the responsible and constructive message of a new Brazil, a Brazil that is celebrating its return to democracy, and, with renewed vigour, with decisiveness and assurance, is undergoing significant changes.
The balance sheet of the 18 months of the new Brazilian Republic is. impressive; we have consolidated our political institutions, removing the last traces of authoritarianism, and making room for a progressive and irreversible democracy, a full, open, modern and united society.
We have corrected inflationary distortions that for decades have afflicted our people - and did so without a recession, but on the contrary, with rapid and firm resumption of economic growth. We have begun to settle our chief debt - the social debt, the historical debt the country owes to its own people, by actively seeking to reduce disparities in income and to wipe out poverty.
Just like the nation we have set ourselves to build, we want to have a politically democratic international order, economically prosperous and sharing, socially just. We want liberty, development, equity.
 It does not appear, however, that these aspirations are even close to being fulfilled. On the contrary, on the political level, the trend towards rebipolarization undermines the international machinery for collective and democratic understanding. Confrontation is replacing dialog, power is prevailing over consensus. The threat of force, and even the use of force, are replacing the tools for negotiation in dealing with disputes - as if power, per se, were efficient in settling conflicts. Where force is present today impasse is more frequent than victory or defeat. Force, besides being illegal, has proved itself to be non-functional.
The historian who in the last century foretold that the twentieth century would be the century of terrible simplification was right. The vast complexity of international relations is imprisoned in trivial schematizations that divide countries according to the easy logic of dichotomies, separating them into different and necessarily opposed camps, seeking to obliterate the spontaneous multi-polarity of the world of today.
Reality itself is richer and more contradictory, and has resisted the authoritarianism of binary concepts. But Manichean dualism can be-perverse and end up imposing itself upon reality. To deal with a local dispute, brought about by local causes, on the basis of preconceptions and interests embodied in the confrontation between exogenous Powers, can unleash forces that will end up transposing a minor dispute into the major conflict. Although fallacious in their premises, these concepts can be catastrophic in their consequences. What was false as a principle in application becomes painfully true - and all the more serious.
The international economic system is conducted by anachronistic automatisms which are in conflict with the interests of a good portion of the international community - primarily the developing countries. In the field of trade, rules to prevail which first and foremost reflect the interests of the roost powerful industrial nations - and even these rules are frequently violated. In the financial and monetary fields, the world economy is subject to the impact of measures taken unilaterally that can decisively affect the developing countries without their having any rights - neither the right to speak, nor the right to argue, nor the right to compensation.
As regards equity, the hoped-for reduction of the deep gap between rich and poor countries, we are witnessing the almost total paralyzation of international economic co-operation. The initiatives taken by the developing countries run into the inertia and even the hostility of the developed countries. On the other hand, there is an accentuation of trade protectionism on the part of these countries, an iniquitous practice made even more so by being incorrectly compared with the legitimate measures that developing countries need to adopt in order to protect their infant national production. There is an unmistakable difference between one kind of behavior and the other: one preserves the concentration of wealth, sustaining non-competitive activities? the other seeks to guarantee the survival of the poorest countries in an unjust and unbalanced international system that even obliges them to accumulate ever larger surpluses for the payment of their foreign financial commitments.
And worse, a new model of protectionism is emerging. The action of barring inconvenient imports is now being complemented by the strategy of creating obstacles to the very installation of production processes in the developing countries, even when primarily intended to meet the demand of the internal market. This "preventive" protectionism is particularly evident in sectors which involve the use of more advanced technologies. The climate of international relations does not, therefore, look very favorable for developing countries such as Brazil, However, this does not discourage us from persevering in our quest for the objectives we set for ourselves at home, nor does it lessen our willingness to participate in any endeavor leading to a truly more free, prosperous and just international society - such as the society we firmly propose to establish in our own country.
I cannot fail to mention here the Ministerial Meeting of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), in Punta del Este, in which I have just participated. At that meeting I stressed the firmness of positions and the constructive attitude of the developing countries.
Brazil trusts that the consensus eventually reached may serve as a starting-point for fruitful and profitable negotiations for the international community as a whole, leading to a more just and effective economic order.
Latin America is heroically struggling to extricate itself from an economic crisis at the precise moment at which its democratic vocation is solidly reasserting itself.
Despite the progress that some Latin American countries, such.as Brazil, have succeeded in making at the economic and social levels, the general picture of our continent still presents serious difficulties - recession, unemployment and heavy foreign indebtedness. I am reminded of the famous words of Simon Bolivar, to whom our continent owes so much:
"Slavery is the daughter of darkness; an ignorant population is the blind tool of its own destruction." The Liberator would agree today that the blind population in the deep night of poverty can just as easily become the tool of revolt and destabilization.The present juncture calls for statesmanlike vision. Just as was the case after the Second World War, it is now necessary and of the utmost urgency to take concrete action to launch an authentic new international economic order.
We also stand in need of short-term measures. Latin America cannot continue being a net exporter of capital; it cannot continue paying high interest rates and spreads in renegotiating its foreign debts; it can no longer have access to international markets blocked for its products; nor can it continue to suffer from restrictions on the transfer of technology.*
The keen awareness of the economic problems of Latin America led to the establishment of the Cartagena consensus, through which we issued an invitation to the creditor nations for dialog and understanding.
It is essential that the crisis of Latin American indebtedness be analyzed and understood from its political aspect. It is essential that the Governments of the creditor countries understand that an exceptional situation exists, a situation that cannot be automatically corrected by the simple play of the market forces. It is essential to understand that there is a need to contain and correct patent distortions and inequalities in the international economic system.
President Sarney has declared again and again that Brazil will not pay its foreign debt with the hunger and poverty of its people, nor at the cost of democracy or economic growth. In reaffirming this resolute stand of the Government of Brazil, I do so in the name of a country determined to fulfill its international financial commitments but equally determined to secure a better quality of life for its people, who have already made so many sacrifices.
It was with this superior objective in mind that in February of this year Brazil adopted a broad program for economic reform, to crush inflation, stimulate investments, reward production and labor and penalize speculation. The new program, the highly successful Piano Cruzado, or Cruzado Plan, is today the symbol of new hope for Brazilians, embodying a new mentality, a new force to give impetus to our growth.
There is no longer any terra incognita on this planet; but new frontiers are being opened up in areas that are crucial for humanity: those of technology.
The developing world cannot be kept as an outsider in this new revolution, lest the already enormous chasm that separates our world from the developed world be consolidated and broadened. The technological revolution must be channeled towards the bridging of these two worlds, so that it will benefit both. The effects of this revolution are exponential and qualitative in character. If they are misdirected, they can not only cause an irreversible rift between rich and poor but also inevitably lead to an abyss separating those who possess and control knowledge from those to whom no access to knowledge is permitted.
We do not wish, nor can we accept, the technological revolution's following the same road as the Industrial Revolution, relegating the majority of countries to the role of mere providers of inputs of limited aggregate value. Nor do we wish to be reduced to the role of mere buyers of the surplus and the obsolete.
We will not resign ourselves to being the passive spectators of a new international division of labor, bisecting the world into distinct universes, one containing the post-industrial societies, where activities of information and service predominate, true nerve centres that would govern the planet, and the other for backward, subservient societies.
Neither do we fail to see the implications of the accelerated development of new technologies for military purposes in the rich countries. We are aware of the impact of the civilian applications of these new technologies, whose research and development are endlessly financed by defense budgets. We are not blind to the repercussions that these subsidies to technology have on the entire economic structure of the developed countries, nor do we fail to perceive their negative effect on the competitive capacity of the economies of the developing countries.
In Latin America, in particular, the economic and technological lag is spurring the conscience of our peoples. In Brazil we are firmly, irreversibly committed to the cause of the economic integration of Latin America. Por a long time this integration has been called for, but only now do we have adequate conditions for the emergence of an authentic political will to further it. Integration opens up horizons for the formation of a common Latin American space, conducive to the development of the countries of the region and capable of invigorating them as they confront the adversities of the international economic situation. Brazil, together with Argentina and Uruguay, recently took meaningful steps towards this integration, in agreements that set forth, unequivocally, the mature and intelligent decision of peoples thoroughly convinced of the advantages of their uniting. An ambitious decision, but realistic as well, in which renewed faith in the convergence of our destinies is coupled with complete awareness of the difficulties integration can bring, we, however, do not flinch from taking up this historic challenge, which we know is daunting, but its very magnitude is the measure of our common willingness to co-operate and to progress - our fraternal aspiration to grow, and to do so together.
The continuing existence of regional crises that threaten peace and security is another important aspect on the international scene.
A notable instance is what is happening in southern Africa. I am reminded of the words of President Sarney, in Praia, when he paid a gratifying visit to Cape Verde last Mays
"The complex problems of South Africa can never be solved from the perspective of East-West tensions nor from any other strategic viewpoint of the great Powers. ... The solution to the crisis in that region lies first of all in the disappearance of apartheid and, subsequently, in the solid implantation of a structure of peaceful interaction between the States of the region, enabling all of them to dedicate themselves to the struggle for the implementation of their. national development plans."
The inconceivable recalcitrance of the Pretoria Government in maintaining the regime of apartheid intact and in blocking the process of the independence of Namibia in persistent violation of the Security Council's decision continues to provoke serious tensions and conflicts in southern Africa.
An illustrious Brazilian statesman of the past century, Joaguim Nabuco, fighting against the slavery that stigmatized us at that time, said all those years ago:
"the laws of every country are subject to certain fundamental principles, which are the basis of civilized societies, and the violation of which in any one of those societies amounts to an offense against all the others".
"No State can thus place itself outside the civilized community of the world", asserted that famous abolitionist. This is exactly the case of the abominable regime of discrimination still in effect in South Africa as we approach the third millennium.
The international community is on the threshold of decisions that can no longer be postponed if Pretoria's attempt to perpetuate its nefarious regime is to be rendered unfeasible. Brazil will continue to strive to create conditions for the settlement of that question - an undeniable priority in the light of the explosive situation in South Africa and the critical situation of the front-line countries, which are subjected to every kind of illegal and unjustifiable aggression. Those valiant and long-suffering nations have our steadfast support.
In the Middle East, the cycle of violence continues unabated. Brazil reiterates its consternation at the attacks being carried out in Lebanon, a country with which we have traditional ties and whose full right to self-determination we would wish to see respected.
The bases for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East must of necessity include the return of the Arab territories occupied since 1967, respect for the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and independence in their own territory, and the need for all the States of the region, including Israel, to live in peace within internationally recognized borders.
Brazil is also following with concern the development of the conflict between '.van and Iraq. We deeply regret that those two countries have not as yet resolved their differences peacefully and we renew our appeal for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
Chronic crises and conflicts are also to be found in other parts of the world. Such is the case in Afghanistan and Kampuchea, where the right to
self-determination and the principle of non-intervention are being violated. Violence in those regions will not cease so long as foreign occupation continues and the free expression of the will of the people is curbed.
Another issue which preoccupies Brazil and the other Latin American countries is that of the Malvinas Islands. Since 1833, we have clearly and unswervingly supported the sovereign rights .1 the Argentine Republic to that territory and have insisted on the need for a peaceful and negotiated solution to the dispute. It is essential that a dialog be re-established between the parties involved.
In Central America, exacerbated economic and social problems of a structural nature continue to add to the persistent climate of tension heightened by ideological confrontation. Brazil remains firmly convinced that a lasting solution to the conflict can be achieved only by respecting the principles of non-intervention and of the self-determination of peoples in an atmosphere of dialog and mutual understanding. As a result of that conviction, my country has sought to co-operate in reaching an understanding through its participation in the Contadora peace process Support Group.
When we met in San Francisco to draw up the Charter of the United Nations, we were concerned chiefly with finding a definition for the kind of world we would be bequeathing to future generations. Shortly thereafter, an apocalyptic event radically changed the very premises on which the negotiations for a new international order were based.
The explosion of the first atomic bomb at Hiroshima revealed mankind to be in possession of a weapon capable of destroying the human species as well as the whole world in which we live. Since then, the problem of nuclear weapons has only worsened. Each day, the risk of. a global - global and final - conflict increases.
The process action and reaction, that has taken the lethal and spiraling arms race to ever higher levels is indeed frightening. The prospect that an arms race is to be unleashed in space also causes us deep apprehension.
Brazil maintains a firm and determined policy of opposition to the proliferation of nuclear arms, whether vertical or horizontal. We have actively participated in all efforts towards disarmament carried out by United Nations forums.
My country signed and ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the purpose of which is to make Latin America the first militarily denuclearized zone in territory inhabited by man.
The Treaty of Tlatelolco has not as yet achieved its objective, for it is not adhered to by all the States of the region, nor by one of the extra-continental Powers which has territories under its administration within the area of the Treaty. Furthermore, recent events indicate that for the Treaty to become a truly effective instrument to guarantee the security of the Latin American nations, an efficient verification system to monitor the introduction of nuclear arms is required.
Despite these limitations, Brazil has repeatedly affirmed its unwavering policy of abiding strictly by the terms of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, eschewing any activity involving the acquisition of nuclear arms.
That policy, followed continuously and without vacillation, has had the broad support of the Brazilian people. The complete military denuclearization of Latin America is among the priority goals of the foreign policy of my Government, which is firmly committed, as are the Governments of other countries of the region, to avoiding the development and introduction of nuclear arms on the continent.
The nuclear arms race is not merely a threat to our future; it arouses terror and has already killed, causing death through insecurity, fear, poverty and hunger. In the words of the great Brazilian poet Carlos Drummond de Andrade:
"By the thought alone that it is coming to kill
The bomb will kill;
The bomb is indigence unifying millions of indigences."
Despite numerous protests and numerous warnings, in numerous forums - "The bomb attends all conferences and sits alongside all" - we must ask whether mankind will overcome the threat to its own destruction. A comforting message of optimism may perhaps be found in the final verses of the same expressive poem by the poet Drummond:
"The bomb, confused beast, allows man
Time to save himself.
The bomb will not destroy life
Man (X dearly trust) will extinguish the bomb."
Let us be confident. In the polished words of Thomas Jefferson, we are, after all, moved by
"the conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nations to the
multiplication of the human race, and not to its destruction."
Three other subjects merit special consideration.
First, I wish to reiterate the importance that the Brazilian democracy attributes to the rights of the human person - to the absolute and full, unimpeded exercise of those rights. Significant international instruments, such as the international Covenants on human rights and the United Nations Convention against torture, are being incorporated into the Brazilian legal order, adding new guarantees for the perfect protection of those fundamental rights in our country.
Z cannot fail to refer also to a momentous theme, the subject of drugs, to express the deep concern with which Brazil regards it. In our view, the problem has three essential aspects: the prevention of the improper use of drugs, the suppression of illicit drug traffic and the rehabilitation of chronic users. The problem will not be definitively resolved if those three facets are not taken equally into account. We also consider international co-operation to be essential in combating drug abuse, provided, naturally, that the sovereign rights of nations are safeguarded. Brazil participated actively in the Special Inter-American Conference on Traffic in Narcotic Drugs, held in Rio de Janeiro in April of this year under the auspices of the Organization of American States. We shall likewise give our most dedicated co-operation in the work of the international conference on drugs to be held in Vienna in 1987.
The third theme is terrorism. From this rostrum I wish to express our most vehement, energetic and indignant rejection at its proliferation. The international community cannot continue to tolerate the practice of acts of terrorism and must unite without delay to eradicate their causes and eliminate their effects.
I repeat, with emphasis, what I affirmed at the beginning of my address: strengthening the United Nations is the best way to guarantee international peace and security,, In keeping with this view, my country has actively contributed to stimulating the implementation of measures to revitalize the United Nations. In the opinion of the Brazilian Government, the recommendations of the so-called Group of 18 are a first and promising step in that direction.
We support an increasingly active role for the Secretary-General in the search for solutions to controversies. We support the Organization's examining all disputes and conflicts. We advocate flexibility in working methods, particularly in the Security Council, so that the major issues relating to peace and security can be treated substantively and constructively. We believe that it is necessary to counteract the tendency to bypass this forum in dealing with fundamental problems of peace which are of interest to the entire international community. These problems affect all and to all falls the responsibility for their solution.
It was precisely on the basis of this conception of the United Nations that on 29 May I proposed, through the Secretary-General, on behalf of the Brazilian Government, the inclusion of the item "Zone of peace and co-operation of the south Atlantic" in the agenda for this session. This initiative results from the statement of President Jose Sarney before this General Assembly in September of 1985, when he said:
"Brazil will make every effort within its power to ensure that the south Atlantic is preserved as an area of peace, shielded from the arms race, the presence of nuclear arms and any form of confrontation originating in other regions."
We are appreciative of the acknowledgment by the General Assembly *>f the pertinence of this item by including it in its current agenda. The initiative on the zone of peace and co-operation of the south Atlantic projects the need for an important collective effort, on behalf of which Brazil seeks to be merely a spokesman.
 What is involved is the guaranteeing of peace, security and development in a vast area of the globe, comprising countries of two continents united in their common determination to overcome obstacles standing in the way of the attainment of the progress and well-being of their peoples.
On the one hand, the objective is to avert the serious threats to regional an<d( world security whether represented by the situation in southern Africa or by the transfer to the south Atlantic of East-West tensions and confrontations, accompanied by the geographic proliferation of nuclear arms and the resulting intensification of the nuclear arms race. On the other hand, there is the aim to promote broad possibilities of co-operation to benefit the economic and social development of the peoples of the region.
The declaration of the south Atlantic as a zone of peace and co-operation would be a concrete measure in a vast program which the community of nations has itself defined as being of the highest priority in this forum: the conversion of irrational impulses towards confrontation into constructive work of international peaceful co-operation. It would constitute, moreover, the logical, complementary sequence of previous efforts of the Latin American and African countries, embodied in the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the Declaration on the denuclearization of Africa and the Lome Declaration and Program of Action relating to security, disarmament and development in Africa. Such a declaration would be a meaningful contribution to the promotion of universal peace based on equal rights and justice for all, which are supreme objectives of the United Nations.
Brazilian foreign policy is not based on illusions, nor does it engage in rhetorical effusions. On the contrary, it translates permanent and legitimate concepts, aspirations and interests. We are a new country but not an immature country. We are a country with its own identity, which we value and respect, as we respect and value the identities of other nations. Our statements are clear, frank and direct expressions of the deeply rooted values of Brazilian society. When we speak of peace we do not consider that we are talking for the sake of talking. We do not hesitate to be insistent, even repetitious. I shall therefore allow myself to reaffirm here words spoken in this very forum by an illustrious predecessor of mine in the post of Foreign Minister, Joao Augusto de Araujo Castro:
"We live within a system made up of reciprocal causes and effects. Just as peace is indivisible - because peace involves an element of independence and its consolidation requires the co-operation of sovereign unities - so the economic and social development of mankind, which is the condition and expression of peace, should be indivisible."
From this rostrum, at the last regular session of the General Assembly, President Sarney said:
"The instrument that worked our transition from authoritarianism to democracy was our capacity to reconcile and understand, without violence or traumas." (A/40/PV.4, p. 4-5)»
To explain that peaceful transition, certain authors who are not Brazilian assert that Brazilians are a "cordial" people, averse to violent solutions as though by historical predestination. This is an inaccurate over-simplification the merits of which I do not wish to discuss.It is true that we are naturally inclined towards conciliation, based on tolerance and a staunch respect for differences. But if in moments of crisis there arises amongst us a favorable consensus towards understanding and negotiation, it is simply because we are keenly aware that the paths of violence, in addition to being ethically condemnable, are irrational and of short duration.
It is sad for the human species that at times it is "more difficult to make peace than to make war", as Clemenceau said. This is the challenge which both sustains and stimulates the arduous work of the United Nations. In the course of its 41 years of existence, this Organization has striven, despite all obstacles, to carry out the essential task of building and preserving world peace, promoting dialog, understanding and harmony among peoples.
On behalf of the Brazilian people and Government, I reiterate my country's commitment to this noble cause from which we cannot turn away.


I should like to congratulate Mr. Choudhury on his election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the General Assembly. I have particular pleasure in doing so since deep-rooted ties of friendship and solidarity have always linked our two nations. Beyond that, I pay a tribute here to a colleague and personal friend of many years with whom we have collaborated in the best spirit. I am confident that he will guide the deliberations of the General Assembly with distinction and skill.
May I also pay a well deserved tribute to the President of the fortieth session, Ambassador Jaime de Piniss, she presided ever a session that was an important landmark in the life of the United Nations, as well as the special session on the critical economic situation in Africa. His experience in this Organization has contributed greatly to the work of the General Assembly.
I would not wish to fail on this occasion to pay a warm tribute to our Secretary-General, whose admirable efforts in the service of the United Nations on many challenging issues have earned him the widest confidence and support. We are extremely happy to see him in good health at a time when the Organization must count on his judgment and guidance.
I new turn to the international situation. The world continues to be burdened with fundamental political and economic problems which await solutions in the interest of the preservation of world peace and stability. Last year, during the fortieth session, we had the opportunity to make a collective assessment of the international situation. The then approaching summit meeting between the United States and the Soviet Onion, as well as the negotiations in Geneva between the two Powers, were the primary factors creating expectations in the international community.
Encouraging signs did emerge for East-West relations during the meeting between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev. We consider this summit an important step in the efforts to develop a realistic and comprehensive dialog that could greatly contribute to better understanding and mutually beneficial co-operation between East and West.
We particularly welcome the recent announcement made by the United States and the Soviet Union that the leaders of the two countries will be meeting on 11 and 12 October. We hope the meeting will contribute to the creation of a favorable atmosphere which will enable them to effectively address all issues that have a bearing on the maintenance and improvement of international peace and security.
We hope that the meeting will promote swift progress on these issues. The continuation of the talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, with the aim of achieving concrete results, especially in the field of arms control and disarmament, is of vital importance. We hope both sides will, with determination, intensify their efforts to achieve a lower and more balanced level of armaments, through substantial reductions in their nuclear weapons. We believe also in the need for reductions in conventional forces and for the total elimination of chemical and biological weapons. By the same token, the aim should be to maintain the security of all the countries of the world and defusing tensions which might lead to conflicts.
Turkey has always opted for solving international conflicts through dialog and negotiations. Turkish geo-political realities and historic experience have led to the belief that dialog and negotiations are the only acceptable means of dealing with international disputes.
We welcome the agreement recently reached at the Conference on disarmament in Europe as an important achievement in East-West relations. We believe that it will promote greater security in Europe by lessening the risk of war.
All the Members of this Organization have committed themselves under the Charter to encourage respect for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. This provision of the Charter is directly related to the purpose of establishing a more humanitarian international order.
Contrary to this basic principle of the united Nations, persistent violations of human rights and policies based on racism and racial discrimination have unfortunately continued to cause wide spread misery and suffering.
Since the last session of the General Assembly the world has witnessed a rapid worsening of the situation and escalation of tension and violence in South Africa because of the oppressive policies of the Pretoria Government. Moreover, the acts of aggression perpetrated by South Africa against neighboring States constitute a growing threat to the peace and the security of the region.
On every occasion Turkey expressed its serious concern for the aggravation of the situation in South Africa. Turkey continues to support and implement the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council regarding measures designed to put an end to the apartheid policy of Pretoria.
The continuation of the South African occupation of Namibia as an affront to the principles of self-determination is another deplorable aspect of the problems in South Africa.
My Government believes that it is only through a judicious combination of a firm stand by the united Nations and effective international pressure on the Government of South Africa that resolution 435 (1978) can be implemented. In this context, my Government subscribes to the main thrust of the final declaration and the program of action adopted by the International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, held in Vienna last July. As a founding member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, Turkey will continue to give support to the legitimate struggle of the people of Namibia. We also support th efforts of the
Secretary-General to serve the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions. If South Africa persists in its intransigence, more effective measures and sanctions will be needed.
The increasing wave of terror is rapidly becoming a serious threat to every society. We have persistently called for effective international co-operation against terrorism in all its forms. The adoption of resolution 30/61 by the General Assembly last year, which unequivocally conPenned, as criminal, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism wherever and by whomever committed, and urged all States to co-operate in the prevention and combating of terrorism, was an important step in this direction.
The most significant feature of that session of the General Assembly was the unanimity achieved in condemning international terrorism and in calling for effective measures to combat it. Turkey is certainly a country which feels great satisfaction over this development since it has been demolishing the scourge of terrorism from this rostrum for more than a decade. For many years our pleas and warnings were not heeded. But the recent tragic events and the proliferation of terrorist acts finally lead to the awareness that no country is immune from terrorism and that only effective international co-operation can curb it.
In this connection no less effort should be devoted to the fight against drug abuse and illicit drug trafficking. The reports of the United Nations bodies active in the field of drugs, as well as national drug enforcement agencies all over the world, draw attention to the unprecedented increase in these activities. We consider drug trafficking as the natural ally of international terrorism.
We are, nevertheless, encouraged by the world community's growing awareness of this deadly menace and we note with satisfaction the renewed desire expressed by Governments to address this problem through concerted efforts. In this respect, we hope that the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, which is scheduled to take place in June next year, will create a unique opportunity for establishing a more effective international framework for concerted action, ready to address all aspects of the drug problem.
The new convention on illicit drug trafficking is also a positive initiative by countries which have recently become aware of the seriousness of drug trafficking. We look forward to the drafting of a comprehensive convention covering all aspects of trafficking, particularly its close link with international terrorism.
My Government attaches great importance to the world-wide respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Moreover, we insist on the strict observance of bilateral and international agreements guaranteeing the rights of national minorities. For the past two years, the Turkish Government has called for bilateral negotiations to resolve, within a humanitarian approach, the grave situation faced by the Turkish Muslim minority in Bulgaria. The international community is fully aware of the plight of the 1.5 million people concerned. We continue to believe that this question can be effectively addressed and resolved through dialog between Turkey and Bulgaria. The Turkish Government is determined to pursue this humanitarian question.
Since last year, despite some encouraging initiatives, the situation in the Middle East has not taken a turn for the better. It continues to pose a serious threat to the peace and security of the region and the world. Some opportunities which seemed to exist last year for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East have apparently diminished. The fundamental problem, however, is still there to be addressed with common sense and vision if the tension vAich plagues the region is ever to be defused. We continue to believe that a just and lasting comprehensive settlement in the Middle East depends on recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people and withdrawal by Israel from Arab territories under its occupation since 1967, including Jerusalem. We also believe that the problem will not disappear until all its interrelated elements are taken up and resolved in a manner that takes into account the legitimate rights and interests of all the parties involved.
We have followed with interest the recent efforts to reactivate the peace process, and we certainly hope that they will be successful and that a formula acceptable to all parties concerned will finally be found.
We are deeply disturbed and concerned at the situation in Lebanon, which has continued to be the scene of violent incidents. We maintain the hope that the Lebanese people will find the path leading to national reconciliation, without which there can be no serious remedy for the problems that they have been facing for so long.
An important dimension of the situation in the Middle East is clearly that of inter-Arab relationships. We earnestly hope that greater cohesion will prevail.
During the past year the war between Iran and Iraq has escalated and caused further devastation and human suffering. We are deeply distressed by that tragic war between our two neighbors and friends. We continue to maintain strict neutrality, as well as a dialog with both sides, and remain available for any assistance we can provide towards a peaceful solution.
The situation in Afghanistan continues to be a major cause of tension in international relations. Agony has been inflicted on that Islamic nation. A peaceful solution in Afghanistan would not only bring peace to that nation but
also be beneficial to regional stability and have a favorable impact on the general course of international relations. The elements of a comprehensive solution have long been identified and developed into political instruments through the laudable efforts of the Secretary-General and his Special Representative. The Geneva negotiations on Afghanistan have become a testing ground for the chances of a transition from military confrontation to political realism. This process has reached a crucial point, which necessitates firm steps being taken towards an overall agreement.
In South—E*at Asia, the plight of the Kampuchean people is another focal point of world public opinion. The key to a just and lasting political settlement in Kampuchea is the exercise by the Kampuchean people of its inalienable right to self-determination. We consider the eight-point proposal for a political settlement of the problem of Kampuchea made by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea on 17 March 1986 and supported by the Association of South-East Asian Nations to be a positive step.
I wish to stress again the significance we continue to attach to the endeavors towards an effective dialog on the Korean peninsula. We believe that this is the only way to remove the mistrust that exists between the two sides and gradually move towards the creation of an atmosphere in which solutions can be sought to all inter-Korean questions. We hope the two sides will continue to work for such a process and develop the conditions which can lead to their representation in the United Nations.
Despite the efforts made by the Contadora Group and its Support Group to bring about an equitable and lasting solution to the problems in Central America, the ongoing tension in that region is yet another source of concern to the international community. The final version of the Contadora Act, prepared by the joint endeavors of the Contadora Group and its Support Group, is, in our view, of great significance in the search for a negotiated solution.
We continue to support the mission of good offices with regard to Cyprus of the United Nations Secretary-General and appreciate his recent efforts. We note with satisfaction the prompt acceptance by the Turkish Cypriot side of the draft framework agreement submitted on 29 March 1986 by Mr.Perez de Cuellar after intensive contacts over several months with both sides. We regret, however, that the Greek Cypriot side has turn down that document, which represents the cumulative outcome of a process that started more than two years ago, in August 1984, in Vienna.
The draft framework agreement contains the principles and parameters which should guide the negotiations between the two sides in Cyprus. That framework is the result of two years of effort by the Secretary-General to reconcile the views of the two parties. It did not come as a surprise to either party since it was discussed with them in a detailed manner before it was formally presented by the Secretary-General. It is normal that neither of the parties is entirely happy with it, but the Turkish Cypriot side has accepted it in a spirit of conciliation and compromise and without any illusions as to the difficulties which will emerge during the negotiations. It has accepted it because the draft agreement reflects a reasonable balance between opposing views and delicately interconnected problems.
The Turkish Cypriot side has proved its goodwill and its desire for the final resolution of the Cyprus problem. The Greek Cypriot side should seize this opportunity. It should realize that, in view of the evolution of the Cyprus problem, acceptance of the draft framework agreement is a sine qua non of meaningful negotiation.
On the international economic scene, during the past year we have witnessed a deceleration of the limited economic recovery seen in 1983 and 1984. Increases in
world output and world trade remained disappointingly low, resulting in the introduction of further protectionist measures. More recently, there has been some improvement in short-term prospects. Nevertheless, the need for effective global adjustments stands as the major challenge for the world economy.
The new policy measures in the monetary field adopted by the major developed countries, as well as the recent decline in oil prices, can be cited as favorable developments, for energy-importing countries in particular. On the other hand, the worrying structural problems in the world economy which came to light towards the end of the 1970s for the most part still need to be resolved.
The present imbalances in trade and payments are unprecedented. Rising debt burdens in the developing countries, large domestic and external imbalances in the industrial economies, high unemployment and persistent protectionism in international trade continue to burden the world economy.
Most hard hit by those factors are the developing countries, whose prospects of growth and stability remain bleak in the face of acute economic problems. Since the beginning of the 1980s a number of developing countries have begun the process of applying difficult structural adjustment policies to promote growth, employment and the integration of their domestic economies into the world economy. However, those efforts alone are not sufficient to produce the desired results while the external economic environment continues to exert a negative influence.
The practice of protectionism by the industrialized countries has been a matter of serious concern for the developing nations. It is evident that the successful implementation of growth-oriented adjustment policies, and progress towards the solution of the debt problem depend crucially on the ability of the developing countries to increase their exports.
The export-oriented economic strategy we initiated in Turkey in 1980, together
with prudent demand management and continuous structural reform, have led to a successful performance and demonstrated Turkey's determination to implement an effective adjustment program. Thanks to these policies, we have been able to achieve growth of store than 7 per cent this year and to lower considerably the level of inflation. We have liberalized our economy and removed restrictions on imports. However, the major obstacles we have continued to encounter in these efforts have been the increasing restrictions imposed and the protectionist policies adopted by most of the industrialized countries.
He have repeatedly stressed that protectionism is a major threat to the world economy. The proliferation of various types of barriers over the past few years has led to serious Questions about the free trade system. Considering the current sombre situation in international trade, the recent consensus reached by trade Ministers, meeting at Punta del Este, on launching new multilateral trade negotiations is promising. The guidelines for the new round of talks offer the hope of speeding up the process of trade liberalization, we consider as very encouraging commitments to tackle problems in the areas of agriculture, textiles and clothing, to halt all protective measures and to phase out restrictions. We are confident that in determining new trade patterns in those sectors more emphasis will be given to the operation of comparative advantages.
In our view, under the present circumstances, the system of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) remains the most appropriate framework to cope with the severe bottlenecks in world trade. In that respect, our primary task in the upcoming negotiations should be to restore the credibility and authority of GATT in order to open up the main centers of world markets to the goods of both developing and developed countries. We hope these negotiations will help develop a more open, viable and durable multilateral trading system which will promote growth and stability in the world economy.
This year, in May, the international community united its efforts in a demonstration of concerted international co-operation in response to the urgent and critical economic situation that confronts the African continent. For the first time a special session of the General Assembly was devoted to the critical economic situation of one region of the world. The adoption by consensus at that special session of the United Nations program of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development, 1986-1990, can be viewed as a tangible and important indication about the future of international co-operation in the context of the United Nations.
We shall continue to implement the assistance program we have initiated for the countries of the Sahel and to contribute to the efforts of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The framework outlined in the United Nations program of Action will guide our efforts in this field.
I wish to comment briefly on the financial crisis in which the United Nations finds itself. It is unfortunate that the United Nations has had to face such a severe financial crisis in its fortieth year. It is clear that the prolongation of the crisis holds the danger of impairing the work of the Organization in many areas. This is certainly one of the most urgent and important matters to be addressed by the General Assembly at this session. We appreciate the work of the Group of High-level Intergovernmental Experts which was charged with the task of reviewing the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the Organization. The recommendations found in the Group's report need careful consideration, but it may be confidently said that many of the recommendations are sensible, reasonable and measured.
In conclusion, I wish and hope that the deliberations of the General Assembly at its forty-first session will be fruitful and will contribute to peace and to the welfare of the world community.