 In extending to you, sir, the greetings of the Government and people of Peru, I have to say how pleased we are that a representative of the third world is presiding over this session of the General Assembly, at a time when the international atmosphere is rife with signs of regression. I am convinced that, imbued with the valiant tradition of autonomy to which Bangladesh has been faithful since its dramatic attainment of independence, you will be able to guide the deliberations of this forum in the best and most just way.
I should also like to express my country's appreciation of the firm yet gentle guidance given to this Assembly during its historic fortieth session by the experienced Spanish diplomat, Ambassador Jaime de Pinies.
I do not believe that the fact of being a compatriot and, more than a colleague, a disciple, of our Secretary-General should inhibit me from associating Peru with the warm tributes paid to him by all the Members of the United Nations for his far-reaching, sustained efforts on behalf of international peace, security and development. For five years now a good part of our common hopes have been reposed in him and he has discharged that enormous responsibility not only with wisdom and intelligence but also with noteworthy distinction, in circumstances that have frequently been adverse.
From the balance sheet of statements made by some hundred Heads of State on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations at the last General Assembly, a shared vision of disturbing trends at the international level emerges. On that occasion President Alan Garcia of Peru speaking from this same rostrum, drew the international community's attention to the existence of problems of exceptional seriousness, such as the foreign debt, the arms race, drugs trafficking and terrorism, which threaten the survival of states and undermine the very basis of world coexistence, and which are certainly a reflection of the present unjust international order, of the deterioration of the system of multilateral co-operation and its growing replacement by power politics.
The year gone by reveals the worsening of such problems, and the consequent need to insist that they be dealt with and to issue a call for action. Peru sees a new turn of events in which confrontation between the blocs of world power has ceased to be exclusively strategic and military, but increasingly technological in nature and directly and more deeply related to the economic system of world domination.
The big nations, because of the demands of that confrontation, encourage expenditures and large deficits in their own economies, which, in the last analysis, need to be financed by any means possible, thus increasing the cost of money and making the economic system that they control function as a giant suction mechanism.
In this new model of domination, based on an unproductive creditor mentality through rates of interest, the way in which loans are allocated and the predominance of a national currency as the basis of international liquidity are at the root of the burgeoning debt and of the absurd situation in which the developing world is financing the struggle between the big Powers for international power at the cost of the poverty of our peoples.
NS/at	A/41/PV.5
17
(Mr. Wagner Tizon, Peru)
Given this situation, the Peruvian Government took a historic decision, the validity of which has asserted itself increasingly on the international field, where no one doubts that it is not right to satisfy transnational capital with the sacrifice of our peoples and that it is irrational to enter into new loans only to pay prior interest and debts.
The Peruvian Government has established the principle that, as we are paid for our exports and labour, thus shall we pay our debt without sacrificing the development and basic needs of our people, and in a measure of sovereign reaffirmation we set a ceiling of 10 per cent of our export income for debt-servicing. Thus we have been able to implement an independent and national economic policy which has made it possible for us to avoid a decline in the value of our currency, to reduce inflation, to lower interest rates, to reactivate the economy and employment, and to stimulate social expenditure by the State.
This decision has been answered by the International Monetary Fund, which declared Peru ineligible for new credits from that institution. The fact that the Monetary Fund continues to use anachronistic criteria to apply that measure is a demonstration of its persistence in ignoring the seriousness of the problem of the foreign debt.
On the other hand, the international community, fully aware of the explosive political nature of the problem, has chosen to inscribe the question of the foreign debt crisis and development on the agenda of the General Assembly, thus recognizing the competence of the United Nations to seek a just, effective and lasting solution.
The debt today characterizes the historic stage when the transnational creditors and seeking to lead our countries towards extreme dependence, preventing them not only from defining the priorities of their development processes, but also from drawing up their own political plans.

The foreign debt is therefore a retrograde step in the evolution of international relations because it tends to neutralize the State in its very essence.
This situation obliges us to make a profoundly political assessment of the duty of the United Nations to oversee the future of the international community and to stem a trend which is so anarchic as to be a destructive element in the very system of international relations.
The warning that the President of Peru sounded a year ago on the dangerous threat that drugs trafficking poses to contemporary civilization and the primary responsibility of the consumer countries was welcomed and confirmed by leaders the world over, and has become a central subject of national debate and a central subject in the political life of world consumer centers. Convinced that in order to confront this scourge, joint action is necessary Peru has entered into bilateral agreements with neighboring countries and at the Andean level we have promoted and signed the Rodrigo Lara Bonilia Convention, which bears the name of the Colombian minister, martyr in the struggle against drugs trafficking and which is open to accession by other Latin American countries.
Furthermore, my country carried out the so-called Candor Operations, which struck a harsh blow at drugs traffickers by destroying sophisticated clandestine laboratories, landing strips, and by capturing planes and boats as well as modern weaponry in order to fulfill the commitment assumed by my country towards the youth of the world.
With the moral authority conferred upon us by these actions, we urge the adoption of effective measures in the great consumer centers, as demand in those centers is primarily responsible for the existence of the narcotics traffic in accordance with the old economic law that demand creates its own supply.
In disarmament debates we can see that in this nuclear era our civilization, for the first time in history, is coexisting with the means of its own destruction.
This threat is more imminent today for two reasons. First, because the balance of terror, always precarious but thus far a real balance, is being bypassed in the strategic concepts of the super-Powers, while delays, in their arms-control talks have become disconcertingly long.
Secondly, because the planned leap towards the militarization of outer space would not only exponentially expand the nuclear threat and its cost, but in certain sectors is being adduced as an anti-nuclear panacea.
This bring us into an extraordinarily unstable international situation in which disarmament efforts may be frozen altogether, and in which the process of conventional and regional disarmament is also held back.
Peru is not a nuclear country, nor does it wish to become one. Fortunately, Latin America has with great foresight chosen the path of denuclearization. This is why we firmly ask that the super-Powers do their duty towards mankind's future by halting the arms race and dismantling their nuclear arsenals.
This is what mankind wants. This was the appeal made from Harare by the 101 Heads of state of the Non-illigned Movement. This is the demand of the international community represented in this Assembly, which cannot abandon its right and duty to protect life.
When President Alan Garcia took the initiative in July last year in sponsoring a regional agreement to limit the procurement of arms, which has already received valuable support from neighboring countries, and when he announced then, as he also announced two months ago, a unilateral reduction of arms purchases, he was doing no more than to translate into reality in the context of Latin America that which we are seeking from the nuclear Powers - the right to life and development* We want to give a new dimension to defense needs on the basis of new concepts of regional security, based on a system of relations characterized by the dynamics of co-operation and not of conflict, thereby providing what is needed for the well-being of our people.
That is why Peru also offered to be headquarters of the United Nations Regional center for Peace, Disarmament and Development, which can foster in Latin America a collective regional awareness of those objectives, which are of universal interest.
Terrorism is today another irrational phenomenon, which the international community must tackle with resolve. Our primary obligation must be to reach, within the framework of the United Nations, legally binding agreements clearly dissociating States from terrorist activities, whether overt or covert, and effectively punishing those who promote terrorism. Unless that first goal is achieved, the political objective of the systematic blackmail and destabilization pursued by international terrorism will be promoted whether through contributing to the erosion of democratic societies and their replacement by repressive police States or through the collapse of the international legal order as people take the law into their own hands.
In Peru, which has for some years suffered from the criminal action of terrorism as a misguided tool used to advance alleged social demands, our policy is clear: energetically to combat that armed fanaticism, but within the framework of law and respect for human rights, and if human rights are violated to punish in an
 exemplary manner those responsible, in such a way as to maintain intact our democratic order.
Therefore, it has always been disappointing that some democratic States represented here permit - in a mistaken interpretation of freedom of opinion -expressions of support, however insignificant, for those that have chosen the path of fratricidal violence in a democracy as bread and pluralist as Peru's. This grave legal and moral distortion must be corrected. We urge democratic countries to rectify their legislation, and we urge the international community to adopt clear norms repudiating those absurdly lenient attitudes towards crime and destruction.
I referred to those grave problems because I sincerely believe that they all have alarmingly destructive consequences which no State can confront alone, and because they really amount to a global crisis in international relations resulting in a weakening of the system of multilateral co-operation, a resurgence of power politics, the erosion of the international legal order, a recrudescence of local conflicts and a sharpening of the crisis in North-South relations.
In this context it is clear that the so-called crisis of multilateralism is much more than a crisis of one form of international co-operation. What is at stake is the very validity of the system of co-operation and collective security, the alternative being to have to accept the legitimization of power as an instrument of international politics.
That is why, in the specific context of the United Nations, any reform must strengthen the first of those two options - that is, the Organization's role as the body responsible for promoting peace, security, co-operation and the solution of the problems of development in a framework of responsibility and collective action. In that regard, any reform to improve the efficiency of the United Nations and to make more democratic the taking of decisions can only be welcomed by the international community. But if the Organization's distressing financial problems led us into situations that were incompatible with making the system more democratic, we should have no hesitation in choosing a more democratic and independent, but at the same time more austere, system giving no State decision-making power over the Organization's fate on the basis of its economic contribution.
Present conditions demand that international peace and security be strengthened. In the Middle East the continuation of the conflict and the delay in starting a process of negotiations serve only to increase violence. A just and lasting solution, with rights and guarantees for all, can be based only on the merging of three substantive elements: the recovery by the Palestinian people of all its rights, including the right to form its own free and sovereign State; withdrawal from all occupied territories* and recognition of the right of Israel and all the States of the area to live in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders, in accordance with the provisions of General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.
Complying with the principle of non-intervention is a basic obligation of international coexistence and the indispensable partner of the right to self-determination .
We are in favor of an urgent solution in Afghanistan, through the withdrawal of all foreign troops and respect for the independence and non-alignment of the Afghan people. Similarly, we support the immediate withdrawal of foreign occupation forces from Cyprus and its right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. We propose a negotiated political solution in Kampuchea, including the prompt withdrawal of foreign troops and the safeguarding of its national integrity and independence.
In Central America acts of intervention constitute the main obstacle to the peace efforts of the Con tad or a Group and the Support Group. But Contadora is committed before history to peace in Central America, and its efforts will not cease. It is essential to continue to work for the establishment of conditions conducive to peace agreements. It is therefore essential that an end be put to all acts of intervention, coercion and harassment that can rekindle violence and cause an escalation of the conflict.
In the context of that serious problem the Peruvian Government clearly reaffirms its solidarity with the people and Government of Nicaragua with regard to any act of intervention or aggression. we demand an immediate end to the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua and respect for international legality, as enshrined in the recent advisory opinion of the Inter national Court of Justice.
In the South Atlantic the continuation of the British military presence in the Malvinas and the permanent danger of an escalation of tension make it essential that the negotiations called for by the General Assembly start soon with a view to reaching a definitive solution to the problem, with respect for the inalienable rights of Argentinian sovereignty.
In southern Africa the last battles against colonialism and racism are being waged. The peoples and nations of sisterly Africa must know that not only history is on their side; they also have with them all of us who uphold racial equality and the right to independence and the freedom of peoples.
As an expression of that militant solidarity, the Government of Peru has established diplomatic relations with the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAFO), which is in the vanguard of the struggle and the legitimate representative of the people of Namibia. Peru's participation in the machinery for action created in Harare bears witness to the fact that we likewise fully join in the commitment made at the eighth Summit Conference of the non-aligned countries to give all the support and help necessary to SWAFO, the liberation movements of South Africa and the front-line States in a struggle in which - however much it may be impeded by selfishness, arrogance and obduracy - victory is now seen on the horizon. We are deeply concerned at the negative trend in the international situation. None the less, we are encouraged by the conviction that we are not alone in our struggle, we see ever growing political trends within the industrialized countries against war, the use of force and acts of intervention - in other words, against any type of imperialist action. But the greatest encouragement canes from our own strength, from our peoples, from their indomitable fight for a more just, more free world, from their capacity to sacrifice, to do without, in order to uphold our struggle for economic independence and from our potential for collective action as a factor of social change in international relations.
We, the non-aligned countries, constitute an important force in the present-day world. The fact that the Yalta and Potsdam Agreements did not remain petrified in time, that the cold war did not succeed in dividing the world into rigid zones of influence, that colonialism did not live on in the dreams of the colonizers, that the United Nations ceased to be the exclusive instrument of the Powers is largely thanks to the role played by the Non-Aligned Movement in its 25 years of existence.
The Eighth Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Zimbabwe, strengthened this process and reaffirmed the full validity of the Non-Aligned Movement as a valid choice for our peoples in reaffirming their independence and asserting their destiny. It is more necessary than ever before that the non-aligned countries, most of which have experienced a colonial past and which are now confronting an unequal structure of political and economic power, fulfill the historic duty of bolstering our unity and overcoming the problems that stand between our peoples and the better and more just world to which they aspire.
Peru is fully committed and dedicated to that shared undertaking in brotherly solidarity with all the peoples of the world with whom we share the same devotion to peace, freedom, democracy and justice.


 I take pleasure at the outset of my statement in congratulating you. Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-first session. The Assembly's decision to entrust that high responsibility to you reflects international appreciation of you personally and is an expression of the eminent international position that the People* s Republic of Bangladesh commands. I must not fail to mention the strong brotherly relations that exist between our two countries. We are certain that your wide experience, wisdom and ability will be of great assistance to the General Assembly in fulfilling its responsibilities in the best possible way.
I also wish to take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Mr. Jaime de PiniSs, President of the fortieth session, for the effective way he carried out his functions during his presidency. The wisdom and capability which characterized his direction of the proceedings of the previous session earned the gratitude and appreciation of the world community for both him and his friendly country, Spain.
I must mention also the consistent efforts made by the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, in the field of international relations, and his role in connection with the many responsibilities of the United Nations, one result of which during the previous session, was the success of the arrangements for and the attainment of the objectives of the program for the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, which reminded the international community of the importance of the Organization and its effective role.
The establishment of the United Nations was from the beginning an expression of the urgent desire and strong determination of the peoples of the world to avoid a repetition of the tragedies caused by the Second World War. That desire and determination reflected a deep and fundamental awareness of the importance of peace
and security and the need for them to prevail all over the world and for putting an end to all acts of violence and aggression, all military threats and all forms of interventionist!!, hegemonism and colonialism. Such considerations have linked the name of the United Nations with lofty concepts and noble values, making of it the meeting point of all expectations of and aspirations to peace and the rule of law, as well as the starting point for all efforts to replace disruption and war by understanding and solidarity.
From the time that it was founded, when the late King Abdul-Aziz established the basis of his rule, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has adhered to the principle of international peace and made the establishment of a sound basis of justice in dealings between nations in the political, economic and social fields one of the objectives of its foreign policy. Consequently, Saudi Arabia was one of the original signatories of the San Francisco Charter, on the basis of which this international Organization was established. Ever since then its belief in the fundamental importance of the Organization and its basic principles and objectives has never wavered. That belief is further confirmed and strengthened by the fact that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which adheres to the religion of Islam, plays an outstanding international role which stems from a foreign policy based on the conviction that the basic principles of the Organization and the lofty purposes and principles of its Charter embody a reaffirmation of the tenets of Islamic law which regulate inter-State relations. Thus the Kingdom has repeatedly reaffirmed its commitment and adherence to the principles of the Charter and its noble objectives, which constitute a firm guarantee of the achievement of international peace and security and a sound basis for the establishment of normal, just and balanced relations between nations. In that context, His Majesty King Fahd bin Abdul-Aziz pointed out on one occasion that we in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"work in the global field within the framework of the United Nations and its affiliates and agencies. We adhere to its Charter and support its efforts, and oppose any aberrant action aimed at weakening it and diminishing the rule of international law in order to replace it by the force of arms and coercion. Our actions have always reflected and continue to reflect our sense of belonging to an international community that is one family, irrespective of the diversity of its interests, and demonstrate our faith in a peace based on justice and righteousness."
Although the United Nations has been able to achieve many results in various fields, it is capable of achieving more and of redoubling its efforts in the interest of international peace and security to secure justice, and enable peoples to regain their usurped rights. It is also capable of providing safeguards and guarantees that would ensure respect for the resolutions it adopts and a commitment to implement them, as well as of overcoming the obstacles that face those resolutions. Such obstacles have become a real challenge, which Member States must face, if they want the Organization to be a real instrument for establishing the foundations of peace and the consolidation of the basis of justice that they seek.
While current international relations are still strained by conflicts, disturbances and quarrels, while complex political problems are still not being solved and severe economic crises are still threatening peace and stability, it would be unfair to put the blame for all this upon the shoulders of the United Nations alone, because the success or failure of this international Organization is tied to the positions taken by Member States and the extent of their commitment to the implementation of its resolutions and the fulfillment of its principles and objectives, and to their efforts in discharging their obligations. One of the biggest challenges that the United Nations faces is undoubtedly that of the existence of a wide gulf between the commitments to the Charter and its objectives and the actual conduct of nations in their international relations, especially those nations that persist in aggression, usurpation, terrorism and discrimination, such as Israel and South Africa.
A cursory glance at the current international situation shows that world political, economic and social problems, have not diminished but increased in depth and gravity. It also confirms that the role of the United Nations grows in importance as the possibilities and opportunities for interaction and co-operation between nations increase. If peace based on right and justice, not on a balance of terror, is the objective of this international Organization - and it is the only sure means of ensuring security and stability - the feeling of injustice among the peoples deprived of self-determination in Palestine, Afghanistan and Namibia is the most dangerous time bomb threatening the strength and cohesion of this Organization; indeed, it threatens the peace and security of the entire world.
The problems that the Middle East is now experiencing and the complexities that emerge from these, are in reality and in the final analysis consequences of Zionist aggression against Palestine and a result of the cumulative effects of the problem of Palestine. The wars and political and military conflicts that the region has known over the past 39 years are but one of the consequences of the failure to solve the basic problem and of the Israeli aggression in the region. The continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands is living proof of Israel's expansionist intentions, its blatant defiance of the resolutions of the United Nations and its consistent contempt for world public opinion and every law and convention. The tragic situation in Lebanon is one of the grave consequences of this problem. It is clear from all I have said that the establishment of peace in our region cannot be achieved without the solution of the main problem, the problem of Palestine, and that can be achieved only through recognition of the legitimate and inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. Israel's defiance and its persistent attempts to frustrate peace efforts in order to gain time to achieve its purposes and designs will only lead to more turmoil and to complications that will increase the difficulties involved in solving the problem, with all the dangers and perils that would entail.
It is unnecessary to reaffirm the fact that no solution is likely to succeed if it does not include the Palestine Liberation Organization, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, as one of the elements of the quest and a party to the dialog. If peace is intended to be permanent then it must come from the area of the conflict and be based on justice, so that rights will be restored to their legitimate owners. The Arab countries have shouldered their historic responsibility and offered to do all they can for the sake of peace and stability in the region. They articulated their understanding of the peace process in the "Fez resolutions", which emphasized the Arab consensus on a peace based on justice, in accordance with international law and in concurrence with the international will represented by the resolutions of the United Nations.
The war between Iraq and Iran, which we follow with grave concern and sadness, adds another dimension to the tense situation in the Middle East, over and above the bloodshed, destruction and devastation to which two brotherly peoples, who have the closest of links and the strongest of ties with each other as well as with us, are being exposed. This destructive war, which serves no purposes and brings no benefit to either of the parties to the dispute, has threatened and continues to threaten the peace and security of the region and indeed the peace and security of the whole world. His Majesty Ring Fahd bin Abdul-Aziz has on numerous occasions expressed his grave concern at the continuation of the war between those two brotherly and neighboring countries. His Majesty's Government has also participated in all efforts to put an end to that war and to help Iraq and Iran reach a peaceful solution to their conflict, in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations and in harmony with the spirit of Islamic brotherhood and good-neighborly relations. In this context. His Majesty's Government has supported the mediation efforts made by the States of the Gulf Co-operation Council, the Good Offices Committee of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and the United Nations, as represented by its Secretary-General. It has endeavored to mobilize international support for those mediation efforts, in the hope of ending that war.
While we express full appreciation to Iraq for its responsiveness to the peace efforts, we sincerely hope that Iran also will respond to those efforts. We also hope that the United Nations, being responsible for international peace and security, will take the necessary measures and steps to ensure the implementation of the decisions it has already adopted in this respect, in order to put an end to this destructive war.
The problem of Afghanistan and the continued Soviet military occupation of that country is one of the most serious problems facing the international community today and one which requires a quick and decisive solution. The Soviet presence in Afghanistan has entered its seventh year and the Afghan Mujahideen are still waging a fierce war in defense of their religion, their country and their rights. The Organization of the Islamic Conference has made extensive efforts to remove the manifestations of oppression and occupation that the Afghan people are being exposed to, in order to enable them to liberate their country and secure their rights to freedom and independence.
The United Nations also has made appreciable efforts to solve this problem. While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports them, it reaffirms that any such efforts should take into consideration the right of the Afghan Mujahideen and their demands. While the Kingdom salutes the Mujahideen, it renders full support to the demands made by the Afghan people for the withdrawal of foreign troops from their land and the establishment of a government that is acceptable to them and can preserve their neutrality and beliefs. It also salutes the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for its noble humanitarian stand in shouldering the burden of more than three and a half million Afghan refugees on its soil and the heavy economic and social burden which that stand entails.
What is taking place on the African continent falls within the purview of the main interests of the Arab world. Historic, cultural and geographic links unify the two sides and make their solidarity inevitable in the face of the common challenges embodied in colonialism, Zionism and racial discrimination.
The valiant struggle of the black majority against the repugnant apartheid policies practiced by the Government of South Africa fills our hearts with the hope that that policy has collapsed and demonstrated its failure. The Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has consistently supported the imposition of comprehensive sanctions against that racist Government in order to force it to implement the resolutions adopted by the United Nations. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate the support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa and for the refusal to establish any form of ties with the South African regime.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia also reaffirms its complete support for the people of Namibia in their struggle for self-determination and independence, for the resolution adopted by the General Assembly at its special session on Namibia held here at United Nations Headquarters in September 1986 and for the resolutions of the eighth summit conference of the non-aligned countries held at Harare, Zimbabwe, earlier this month, as well as for the resolutions of the Organization of African Unity. The aim of all those resolutions is to put an end to racist practices and to the foreign occupation of Namibia.
Economic problems today represent one of the most important obstacles to international reconciliation, which might otherwise have served as one of the most important reasons for co-operation between nations, for despite the indications of economic recovery in a number of the major industrialized countries, the world is still faced with a deterioration in the performance of international commerce, particularly in the trade of developing countries. The indications of limited recovery in some industrialized countries are weak and unbalanced and are not really helping to reactivate the demand for the basic raw materials exported by developing countries. Thus it becomes clear that unless this recovery is accompanied by definite measures to regain confidence in the international economic system, actual recovery will remain a dream hard to achieve or realize.
Moreover, the global situation of the petroleum industry is still enveloped in obscurities and fluctuations, following a drop in prices which is having a negative effect on that industry and on the economies of petroleum-exporting countries and on their ability to resume their development, and to continue to transfer wealth to developing nations and provide the necessary liquidity to finance the process of development in those countries.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, being itself a developing country, recognizes from its own experience the extent of the difficulties that face the peoples of the developing countries in achieving the standard of living to which they aspire. The Kingdom believes it has responsibilities as a member of the international community, and through its concern to strengthen the ties of co-operation and solidarity between peoples, and its desire to participate effectively in solving the development problems which face most developing countries, took the initiative, when resources became available to it, of investing a substantial amount of those resources in supporting efforts designed to promote the developmental process in the least privileged countries. It has even made the fulfillment of its commitments in this respect a permanent policy.
The obvious disparity between the countries of the world, in terms of the quantities and types of natural and material resources they possess, makes co-operation between developing and developed countries an urgent requirement. Moreover, this disparity should lead to the promotion of understanding between peoples, the encouragement of dialog, and the strengthening of solidarity between the nations of the world, rather than becoming a cause for preserving imbalances and widening the gap between rich and poor countries. In this context, the Kingdom is convinced of the need to realize the objective of comprehensive development, because that is the only way to achieve real growth for all the peoples of the world. To secure this aim, development assistance must continue and increase, which in turn requires concerted and sincere efforts to support the existing developmental institutions and establishments and to strengthen their resources and their ability to play a more effective and realistic role in addressing the requirements of this critical stage. Comprehensive development is of the essence, for without it we cannot expect a viable world of continuous growth, whose peoples exchange benefits and complement one another.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia believes that it will only be possible to provide the financial resources required during this decade to bring about the requisite economic change and to achieve a reasonable rate of comprehensive development in the developing countries as a whole when the industrialized countries in both the Eastern and Western blocs begin to bear their full responsibility by providing the financial contributions to which they are committed in accordance with the strategy of international development and the objectives of official development assistance. It is no longer possible to accept the excuses that the industrialized nations advance, either in terms of the quantity and type of that assistance, or in terras of international responsibility regarding the economic difficulties that the developing countries are experiencing.
We should like to take this opportunity to appeal to the industrialized countries not to waste the opportunity for them to establish s basis for useful co-operation with the developing countries. We call upon them to resume, without further delay, the serious dialog required to begin a new era of comprehensive international negotiations in a spirit of mutual confidence and sincere co-operation in the best interests of the international community. At the same time, we appeal for a continuation of the trend in the developing nations towards greater realism, objectivity, and flexibility. We reaffirm our full conviction that the difficulties obstructing our present efforts to revitalize international economic co-operation and to build a new international economic order based on justice, should not, under any circumstances, be a cause of despair. On the contrary, it should be an incentive for us to continue our efforts for the good of humanity. Finally, we must conclude by expressing the hope of our peoples - or rather the hope of all peace-loving peoples - for the success of the efforts aimed at defusing the threat posed by the weapons of war that fill the world, and our hopes for the limitation of such weapons. We all know that in a new world war victor and vanquished will suffer the same fate; both will be destroyed and modern civilization will be wiped out. So we hope that the countries most directly concerned with this matter will realize that their commitment in this respect is a historic responsibility, and that they will live up to it in accordance with the standards demanded by the United Nations Charter, which enshrines a principle of commitment and a means of action commensurate with the level of responsibility that we hope all will respect.


May I first congratulate our President on his election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the General Assembly. He brings to his high office unique knowledge and expertise based on service in various capacities. Bangladesh is highly appreciated for its long-standing contribution in the work related particularly to the development process of the least developed countries. I am convinced that he will lead this session to a successful and fruitful conclusion.
I should also like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Ambassador de Pinies, who served with great distinction as President of the General Assembly during its fortieth session. Like those who have spoken before me, I wish to express my admiration for the way in which Mr. de Pinies carried out his task.
The determined efforts and capable leadership of the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, in the face of the harsh international situation described in his report, have the full support of the Finnish Government.
When speaking from this rostrum in recent years I have seen only little reason for optimism. Despite signs of improvement, that assessment is still valid. Particularly the increased violence, of which we receive new reports daily, gives
cause for alarm. I fear that unless governments which have given their pledge to
the Charter work effectively together/ our noble intentions collapse, confrontation prevails over co-operation and violence replaces negotiation.
Yet there are signs of promise. During the past year we have witnessed an encouraging improvement in the atmosphere of East-West relations. The ongoing negotiations in Geneva, both bilateral and multilateral, give cause for hope. In the economic field we have also experienced new positive developments which, it is hoped, will lead to the revitalizing of negotiations on international economic co-operation and development.
My Government has welcomed with great satisfaction the reactivation of the dialog between the two leading Powers. We particularly welcomed the fact that at their first meeting the leaders of the Soviet Onion and the United States, conscious of their special responsibility for maintaining peace, agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. In a common pledge both leaders stated that they will not seek to achieve military superiority. We hope that these principles will provide a solid basis for a continued dialog resulting in concrete agreements. They have already given new stimulus for a dialog across a broad range of issues, particularly in the domain of disarmament. We hope that meetings at all levels, including the highest level, will remain a regular practice in relations between the leading Powers.
In addition to the bilateral negotiations between the two leading Powers, the Conference on Disarmament, with its broad agenda, offers an important multilateral negotiating forum. The banning of chemical weapons, prevention of nuclear war, limitation of nuclear arsenals, and prevention of the arms race, including its extension to new areas, in particular to outer space, remain priorities on the agenda of multilateral disarmament negotiations. Particularly an agreement on a
comprehensive test ban would be an important disarmament measure. We appeal for such an agreement and we give our support to all measures, including a moratorium on tests, wMch could lead to such an agreement.
In Europe, considerable progress has been made in the framework of the process of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). A lot has been done and the past CSCE expert meetings and conferences in all three important areas of the Final Act - in security questions, in economic relations and in the humanitarian area - give substantial ground for further co-operation. The outcome of the Stockholm Conference opa>s widening possibilities for increasing mutual confidence among the European nations and thus provides enhanced stability and security in our continent. It also testifies to the continuing commitment of the 35 participating States to the implementation of the provisions of the Final Act. The Vienna follow-up meeting of the CSCE will offer a renewed opportunity to review what has been accomplished and to chart the future course of the CSCE process.
Another positive development in recent international co-operation is the successful included special session of the General Assembly on the critical economic situation in Africa last May. The African Governments have shown determination in reviewing their domestic policies and in adjusting their economies to the hard internal and external realities of today's economic environment. The international community endorsed this new orientation by adopting unanimously the African Priority Program for Economic Recovery (APPER). Its full implementation is now an obligation for the international community. For its part Finland has already started to incorporate the APPER program into Finnish development co-operation with Africa. It is important, in our view, that the donor governments also bear in mind the financial needs of the APPER program when decisions on replenishment levels are made in various international financial institutions.
The objectives of the APPER program also serve to illustrate the interdependence of different aspects of economic development. The program strengthens, in practical terms, the understanding of the interrelationship between the environment, the use of natural resources and population growth.
Awareness on these issues is spreading. In this respect concrete policy measures are being outlined in APPER. They can and should also be applied in other parts of the developing world. And they should be supported and complemented by external resources from industrialized countries. This is highly important especially now, when the implementation of such complex developmental programs requiring difficult measures of economic adjustment is being carried out.
In the area of international economic co-operation there are fewer and fewer issues which lend themselves to unilateral action. The open multilateral trading system is of crucial importance to the economic development of all countries and particularly the developing countries. In the view of my Government the decision reached at Punta del Este to launch a new round of multilateral trade negotiations was of essential importance. It will undoubtedly be conducive to an improved international climate of trade policy. Finland looks towards the negotiations ahead with confidence and expects that the new round will lead to further trade liberalization, to the strengthening of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system and to a better response in the face of the evolving international economic cooperation and international relations in general.
The positive developments in the international economic co-operation which I have just mentioned should form a basis for further progress on pending important international economic issues such as those in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt and trade. In this connection the role of the United Nations in the economic field should be clarified. Also, the idea of convening a ministerial session of the Economic and Social Council deserves attention.
I have spoken about positive signs in the broad area of international relations. They do not change the overall picture, in which human suffering and the use of force are dominant features. The Finnish Government strongly rejects the use of force in international relations in any form whatsoever. This applies to acts by States as well as individuals. Human rights and fundamental freedoms continue to be denied in many parts of the world. It is our common responsibility
to ensure respect for them.
Today we are witnessing new forms of international violence, notably terrorism. Front pages of the press repeatedly contain descriptions of attacks by terrorist groups claiming to further a multitude of causes. Terrorist acts against innocent people deserve the strongest condemnation.
Effective international action is needed to prevent terrorism. Last year the
General Assembly condemned
"as criminal, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize friendly relations among States and their security", (resolution 40/61, para. 1) Last December the Security Council unequivocally condemned all acts of hostage-taking and abduction, having already agreed on a common statement on international terrorism in which it condemned "terrorism in all its forms". The international community ought to develop new, modern means of controlling jointly the new forms of violence. And equally jointly we must find ways to eradicate gradually what lies behind the violence. In the long run that would be much more effective than merely trying to control violent outbursts resulting from those root
causes.
I cannot fail to take note of the wide-ranging political confrontation and open warfare which haunt parts of Africa and Asia as well as Central America and the Middle East. We shall have an opportunity to discuss these burning issues as this session of the Assembly continues its work. In this statement I should like, however, to deal with two issues: southern Africa and the Middle East. The
crises in these regions have grown even more critical and increasingly challenge the world community.
The situation in southern Africa has been the subject of a number of significant international meetings during the recent months. In South Africa the vast majority of the people are determined to end the inhuman apartheid system and the repression practised by the racist regime. The need for concerted international action to persuade the South African Government to abandon the system of apartheid has become evident. Finland, together with the other Nordic countries, is working to increase economic and other pressure against South Africa. We expect the Security Council to take an early decision to impose effective sanctions against South Africa. The world community has a responsibility to alleviate any economic hardships South Africa is causing its neighbors. We appeal to all countries to increase their economic and humanitarian assistance to the front-line States and co-operation with the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference.
The fourteenth special session of the General Assembly on Namibia, which was held last week and at which I presented the Finnish position, amply and accurately demonstrated that the international community does not condone any pretexts to delay Namibian independence on the basis of Security Council resolution 435 (1978).
The situation in the Middle East remains grave. There is again a risk of a recurrence of more widespread violations. During recent months we have witnessed a number of tragic incidents which have resulted in many victims.
Just and lasting peace in the Middle East can be achieved only if Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), together with guarantees of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians, form the basis of the settlement. The possibility of convening an international conference for the purpose of reaching a
comprehensive settlement of the conflict, with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the Palestinians and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), should be thoroughly examined.
The United Nations and its peace-keeping operations play a vital role in creating favorable conditions for a political solution. These operations have proved a useful instrument of crisis management. During the current year the United Nations peace-keeping Force in Lebanon has carried out its duties under constant and growing danger. It operates in a deteriorating situation created by the inability of the parties involved to reach agreement on security arrangements in the area and to come to an understanding of the role of the Force in southern Lebanon. However unsatisfactory the present state of affairs may be, Finland continues to believe in the role of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). We are grateful to the Secretary-General and his staff for their unrelenting efforts to redress the situation.
The Charter provides an international code of conduct which binds all Member States. The first and foremost task of the United Nations is the maintenance of international peace and security. To fulfill its task this Organization should shoulder its responsibility for collective security as defined in the Charter and make every effort to develop a more just, secure and stable system of different but equal and interdependent nations. The United Nations should assist in resolving conflicts and disputes between nations; it should foster economic and social progress and promote human rights.
Times have changed, and the challenges facing the Organization have expanded tremendously. One of the most serious new challenges for the world community is the protection of our common environment. Environmental protection has become more and more a problem of international dimensions. As for my own country, Finland has been active in its own region to promote environmental protection. Examples of the results already achieved are the Convention on Trans-boundary Air Pollution, negotiated under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe (ECC), and the Convention on the Protection of the Baltic Sea. During the follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE), to be held soon in Vienna, Finland will make a proposal to convene an expert meeting on the environment.
Yet regional co-operation, as important as it is, does not alone meet our needs. The endeavors of the rapidly growing world population to achieve higher and higher levels of material consumption is burdening the global environment more and more with results which, in the worst analysis, might lead to a catastrophe. Mankind has to take this threat seriously. The United Nations should provide us with the practical means to promote international co-operation in this area of primary and vital importance.
Together with the other Nordic countries, Finland is systematically examining ways and means of strengthening the Organization. In these efforts, the reports submitted by the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization offer us valuable guidelines. Ours is an Organization of sovereign States, each with, its own legitimate need for security and well-being. Yet it is also an Organization of common responsibility. The United Nations is as strong or as weak as we, the Member States, want it to be.Against the background of our common aspirations and common achievements, the present financial and administrative crisis of the United Nations seems paradoxical. The latest development gives us a reason for serious concern about the Organization's ability to carry out its task. As we know, the financial viability of the United Nations is jeopardized at the moment. A situation like this is most regrettable and cannot be condoned. The financial crisis of the United Nations is detrimental to the Organization's authority and is even an act
against the Charter.
We have to make all efforts to restore the credibility and financial viability of the United Nations. The prerequisite for the reassessment of the financial situation is that all countries pay their past and current dues in accordance with the Charter, in full and without delay.
Furthermore, we have to address the question relating to the efficiency of the Organization. During the coming weeks the Assembly will examine the recommendations of the Group of High-level Intergovernmental Experts. The study conducted by the Group has been called by necessity. It provides, in our opinion, a useful basis for further discussion on longer-term remedial measures in order to promote the efficiency of the United Nations.
In my intervention I have emphasized the unique role of the United Nations based upon the Charter. Finland wholeheartedly supports the Secretary-General as he states in his report that the United Nations should become that strong constructive force in world affairs that is vitally needed. The complex problems of an increasingly interdependent world can only be solved with the help of effective multilateral action. This is the role the United Nations should attain and preserve.


 Mr. President, I have the honor to convey to you the congratulations and best wishes of the Government and people of the Republic of Vanuatu. Your unanimous election to preside over the forty-first session of the General Assembly is a tribute to you and to the Government and people of Bangladesh. We add our voice to that of those who have already spoken so eloquently of your broad experience, your skills and your dedication to the principles and ideals which unite us in this world body.
We congratulate your illustrious predecessor, Jaime de Pinies, for the outstanding manner in which he carried out the duties of President. We also associate ourselves with the many expressions of appreciation and praise for the work of our Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar.
We are pleased to see that the Secretary-General's health has been restored. It is to be hoped that we, the nations of the world, will ease the burden of his high office by following up our expressions of praise with concrete deeds that are consistent with our Charter and the sentiments expressed by those moving words. Matching our deeds to the words might assure the future good health of our Secretary-General and the United Nations itself. Such a course of action might even assure the good health of our very troubled world.
Last year at this time we gathered to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the founding of our Organization. For a brief period, the world's attention was focused on the United Nations and the dramatic activities here at Headquarters. A few observers were drawn to, and mesmerized by, the obvious glamor and excitement of that historic event. Most, however, waited anxiously for the results of our thought and reflection on what had been achieved during our first 40 years and what had not, where we have been and where we are going. For us, and for most of the world, it was less a period of celebration and more a period of critical evaluation.
Today , we are not commemorating a notable anniversary. There fore, fewer cameras, microphones, flashbulbs and notepads are present. Fewer words are written, fewer said, and even fewer listened to. None the less, what we say and do at this session will be just as important and crucial to the future of the human race as what was said and done at the last session.
This year, the mood is quieter and more subdued. The airports, hotels and restaurants of our host city are not quite as crowded today as they were c
one year ago. The streets and highways approaching the United Nations are not as jammed with official motorcades, and the general public is not- as affected by, and therefore not as concerned with, our deliberations. However, as little has changed foe the better since we -last met, our current session is, in a very real sense, every bit as dramatic, urgent and intense as the last. A cursory glance around the globe reveals why.
The prisons of South Africa are even fuller than they were one year ago. The refugee camps that house the people of Palestine are even more crowded than they were one year ago. More people have been killed as a result of the senseless and tragic war between Iran and Iraq. In Lebanon, more children have been deprived of the innocence of youth and turned into soldiers as even more death and destruction have been visited upon that once serene land. Cyprus continues to be divided and occupied by a powerful neighbor.
More debt has accumulated in South America, threatening that continent's democratic advances. More firepower and less development aid has been pledged to the people of Central America, and new obstacles have been placed in the path of the Contadora process. A few still speak of the "five" States in Central America, forgetting the existence of Belize, and the fact that it is a home to many refugees and that it, too, is vulnerable to the region's instability.
The people of Kampuchea and Afghanistan are no closer to being allowed to live in peace and choose their own destinies, free from all forms of foreign interference, than they were one year ago. The people of East Timor, and those of other territories in our region, are no closer to being free to determine their own futures that they were one year ago.
We are no closer to seeing a referendum held in Western Sahara than we were last year at this time. South Africa is no closer to aiding its illegal occupation of Namibia than it was one year ago. Certain foreign economic interests are no closer to ending their illegal and immoral looting and pillage of Namibia's resources than they were one year ago.
The illegal traffic in deadly drugs has increased, and more young lives have been ruined, if not ended, as a result. Individual and State terrorism continue unabated in absolute defiance of every known standard of decency and common sense. France continues to test its nuclear weapons in our region, disregarding the objections of the countries of the region and the harm caused to our environment.
Throughout the world, more people are hungry, homeless, unemployed and, as a result, frustrated or without hope. Gaps in real income between nations and between individuals have widened. Everywhere one looks, the rich have become richer and the poor have become poorer. Yet, somehow, in the midst of all of this, the inventory of nuclear weapons has grown larger.
Despite all of this, there is a faint glimmer of hope. FOr millions of people in every corner of the earth, the United Nations still represents mankind's finest qualities. It symbolizes their dream of justice, equality, and peace. They care little about celebrations and commemorations. Diplomatic dinners and receptions are very remote to them, but the United Nations and its specialized agencies are not. That is why we must make sure that the Organization is not destroyed or emasculated, but instead strengthened and made even more relevant.
The financial crisis facing the United Nations is, as everyone knows, in reality a major political crisis. As such, it commands our attention and demands, above all else, our candor.
A great deal has been written, and even more has been said, on the subject of the imperfections of the United Nations. Critics point to our lengthy debates, repetitive speeches, strident resolutions, and our frequent waste and inefficiency. The criticisms are not completely without merit. There is considerable room for improvement.
However, one must ask why the United Nations' most vociferous critics do not begin with a candid self-examination. What measures have they taken to correct similar, if not worse, shortcomings  in the various national and local governmental bodies of their own respective jurisdictions? Are we to believe that the United Nations is unique in its frequent waste and inefficiency? Is this the only place where there are too many lengthy speeches and too many divisive resolutions? Of course not.
Let us pause for a moment and carefully consider what the most vocal critics have to say about the excessive number of resolutions passed each year. We happen to agree with that criticism. However, it does not go far enough. We should also ask why Cyprus is still occupied*, why the Palestinians still can't go home or even call their hone their home; why apartheid still exists in South Africa; why Namibia is still not interdependently so many other questions on our agenda are unresolved.
Had the earlier, more moderate resolutions been implemented, most of those problems would have been resolved, and others might not have arisen. If today's resolutions are more militant, or strident in tone, the fault may not lie
exclusively with the authors of the resolutions. Those who, while haying it in their power to restrain or reform those States that have ignored their obligations under our Charter, have chosen not to exercise that power, must also share the responsibility. Their repeated failure to help us implement the expressed will of the international community has led to the situation they now abhor.
The occasional inability to be exact and concise in our various resolutions is, we agree, a serious and regrettable deficiency. However, it is a deficiency of form. On the other hand, actively frustrating the will of our international democracy in so many instances is a substantive shortcoming. That is even more regrettable.
There is no doubt that we should consider changes in some of our practices and procedures, and perhaps even in some aspects of the structure of the United Nations. However, we must be careful not, as the saying goes, "to throw out the baby with the bath water". Change and reform are two-way avenues. We cannot be expected to consider making some changes but not others. Nor can we reform the Organization without a willingness by most of our Members to modify their behavior and a willingness by other to reform themselves.
The report of the Group of High-Lev el Intergovernmental Experts is an important document. It is obvious that considerable thought and effort have been expended in its preparation. We commend the Group of 18 for its labor on our behalf. The conclusions of their report merit our careful consideration, as it is obvious that we have reached a critical stage in the history of this Organization and another very critical stage in the process of international co-operation.
This year, as in past years, we have been reminded of mankind's vulnerabilities and imperfections. In lands an geographically removed from each other as the Solomon Islands and the Cameroons, death and destruction have struck without warning, in the form of an unusually severe cyclone in one instance and of a volcanic gas leak in the other. It is almost as if nature had chosen those harsh methods of delivering a painful reminder of its mystery, its power and the fact that as individual nations we are all vulnerable.
In lands as politically remote from each other as the United States and the Soviet Union, two separate incidents involving imperfect technology and human miscalculation have caused major disasters that have.had an impact upon and traumatized people far beyond the borders of those two powerful States. The tragic explosion of the space shuttle Challenger and the equally tragic accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant point to mankind's scientific imperfections and the very thin margin of error between scientific progress and disaster. In a related sense those two accidents also bring to mind the thin margin of error between the policy of nuclear deterrence and the potential accidental nuclear annihilation of the entire human race. They remind us that unless we work together no amount of technology can save our species from its own inventions.
How many more reminders will have to be given before an even greater disaster occurs? what further lesson do we peed? Must we see more evidence of the homicidal and suicidal nature of the nuclear-arms race or may we finally say that enough is not only enough but more than enough?
As President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev prepare for their second summit meeting we note the positive step evidenced by the recently concluded Stockholm accord. It is to be hoped that the flexibility demonstrated in the final stages of the negotiation of that accord and the trust and confidence evidenced in its terms will enable them to take further steps on the long road to a lasting and stable peace.
The establishment of trust and confidence in Europe is but one dimension of the world-wide search for peace. Trust and confidence in the process of multilateralism must also be evident in our work here at the united Nations, to ensure the continued relevance of the Organization and its value to future generations. Not one of our countries, large or small, East or West, North or South, can afford to denigrate this Organization in word or deed. We all need the United Nations. Some of us simply recognize that we need it more than others of us care to admit.
I now turn to southern Africa. That area, more than any other, tests the will and resolve of the international community. The late W. E. B. DuBois wrote in his most noted passage that "the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line". I doubt that this renowned historian, despite his wisdom and acumen, knew how prophetic those words would be. He was born in a society that had only recently ended its own form of legalized slavery. Racism was still prevalent in the land of his birth. Segregation was the accepted code of behavior. Africa, Asia and the Caribbean were colonized. The peoples of those regions were locked in the grip of those who saw them as mere subhuman producers of raw materials for their hungry factories.
A great deal has changed since his time. DuBois and others managed, through decades of difficult struggle, to overcome the segregationists and change the face and the soul of the land of their birth. Their children now know hope where before they knew only despair. Most of the countries of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean are, through the efforts of their respective peoples, now politically independent. Their children also know hope where once they knew only despair.
Unfortunately, South Africa is a land untouched by the passage of time. Despite its twentieth century technology, its people continue to be victims of the backward attitudes of the nineteenth century. Even in death South Africa's people are victimized. A few weeks ago, at a place called Evander, 177 human beings lost their lives in a gold-mine accident. That disaster could have been avoided but concern for the safety of African miners is not an attribute of South Africa. The company involved identified the five dead whites by name, occupation and marital status and gave details of how many children each had. The 172 dead blacks were identified only as members of different tribes. Even in death they were given no dignity. This was not South Africa's worst mining accident and it is not the worst example of the South African regime's inhumanity. It is, however, a good example of how pervasive that regime's racism is. Recent cosmetic changes are almost meaningless. Despite the efforts of some to paint a different picture, its intransigence and unwillingness to change in any substantive manner are as evident today as they were yesterday.
The apartheid regime is not content with terrorizing the people of South Africa. Its system has also been imposed on the people of Namibia and threatens the survival of each of the front-line States. That regime, in fact, challenges every member of the United Nations.
None of us could possibly accept such behavior in our own countries, why, then, do we still permit those storm troopers in Pretoria to call themselves a legitimate Government? Why do some of us still hesitate to align ourselves with the people who seek nothing more than the right to walk the land of their own country as free human beings? Why do same of us close our eyes to the fact that the Pretoria regime has already imposed sanctions on neighboring African States in an effort to make them betray their own principles and their own people? How can those who oppose sanctions claim to be motivated by concern for South Africa's black population when apartheid itself is nothing more than the institutionalization of sanctions against that same population? How much longer must the world wait for some finally to decide to join the battle against this evil? What degree of brutality and callousness will finally move them to action? Must we wait until the next century for their attitudes to catch up with those of this century?
Turning to our own area, the South Pacific, we draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that ours is a part of the world that contains many of the remaining Non-Self-Governing Territories. We seldom fail to mention this, because nothing poses a graver threat to the stability and tranquility of our region and nothing is in greater contradiction of the Charter of the United Nations and its various pronouncements.
In the modern world colonialism is just as much an anachronism as apartheid. What could be more outdated than the notion that the people of any territory are incapable of deciding for themselves who they are, what they wish to be and how they choose to live? That is why the maintenance of colonialism in the midst of the South Pacific region is unacceptable. The States of our region speak with one clear voice on the subject. We are as convinced of this as are the States of other regions that colonialism has no place in their midst.
In August, the Heads of Government of the 13 member States of the South Pacific Forum decided to ask the United Nations to place New Caledonia on its list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. That step had been considered in the past but had not been taken. In the past, the Forum countries believed that the administering Power recognized its responsibilities in the area of decolonization and that it would act accordingly. The events of the past year have now convinced us otherwise.
In September, the Heads of State or Government of the 101-member Movement of Non-Aligned Countries supported our regional initiative. At the eighth summit conference in Harare, Zimbabwe, the Heads of State or Government strongly urged the forty-first session of the General Assembly to place New Caledonia on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. They also admitted New Caledonia's independence movement, the Front de Liberation Nationale Ranak et Socialiste (FLNRS) as an observer. Vanuatu, having joined in those unanimous decisions, now anticipates that the General Assembly will itself take appropriate action.
He seek no quarrel with the administering Power and will not be provoked into one. If we are called names or if stones are cast in our direction we will not respond in kind. The principles involved are too lofty, our Charter is too explicit and the various resolutions are too clear for us to allow ourselves to be dragged into such a useless and senseless exercise.
We have been told that this is all our fault. How can that be so? It was not Vanuatu that colonized New Caledonia. It was not Vanuatu that drafted the Charter of the United Nations. It was not Vanuatu that was the author of the various resolutions on decolonization. It was not a representative of Vanuatu who first uttered the words "liberty, equality, fraternity".
We cannot take individual credit. Vanuatu is only one of 13 countries in the South Pacific For una, one of 99 countries and two liberation movements in the Hon-Aligned Movement and one of 159 coin tries in the United Nations.
On another day, we were told that Australia was to blame* on another day, it was New Zealand> on another, Fiji ; on yet another, Papua New Guinea; and on other days the Solomon Islands or Samoa. Everyone has been given credit for causing the case of New Caledonia to be brought to the united Nations except the one party which really deserves the credit; the administering Power. It chose not to proceed with what it had promised the colonized people of New Caledonia. Therefore it can blame no one but itself.
We have also been bold that economic aid to Vanuatu will be terminated if we persist in bringing the question of New Caledonia to the united Nations. This is a most unfortunate suggestion. Naturally we do not want to see this aid terminated. Vanuatu is, after all, a small developing country. In fact it is one of the least developed countries. However, we will not be intimidated in this way or in any other manner.
Similar threats have been made and carried out against other countries. Vanuatu is not the first and will probably not be the last to be threatened in this fashion. We regret this, but such is life. We have always believed that the administering Power is above such actions. We still hope that it is. However, if it is not, Vanuatu will survive, and New Caledonia will still become independent. Nothing will stop that process.
Finally, we were also told that the Political Declaration by the Heads of State or Government of the Movement of Non-Aligned Coin tries was meaningless. "They do not mean it," we were told. "They will change their minds when they get to the United Nations," we heard.
We find it incredible that anyone should believe that the leaders of the non-aligned countries are not serious when they issue a political declaration. It is fathomable to us that anyone would believe that they do not mean what they say and say what they mean. How could anyone expect representatives of the non-aligned countries at the United Nations to act contrary to a clear and explicit declaration made by their Heads of state or Government?
More incredibly, how could anyone expect non-aligned Members of the United Nations to forget their own histories and reverse a unanimous summit decision on what is clearly a decolonization question? How could anyone expect any Member of the United Nations to say that the United Nations should not even consider a colonial question? How can anyone question the competence of the United Nations to consider this Batter? Who aiaong us is prepared to take the floor and express a lack of confidence in the fairness and objectivity of the decolonization process that we ourselves have established and that we ourselves monitor? Vanuatu would never ask any nation to do anything that is so patently at odds with its own principles and the Charter. we hope that France, the administering Power in New Caledonia, would not consider asking any nation to do such a thing.
Prance is still our friend, its representatives and its nationals are in all sincerity welcome in Vanuatu. We anticipate that they will also be welcome in an independent New Caledonia. We fully understand the political constraints and other difficulties facing France in New Caledonia due to the presence of a large settler population. It has faced similar constraints before, as have other administering Powers.
The independence movement and the countries of the region are anxious to work constructively with the French Government in the decolonization process. That is why we wish to have the United Nations play its customary role. What could be more reasonable?
Indonesia, our large and influential neighbor, is a country we respect. We have always admired its struggle to free itself from colonialism. Everyone knows that we have also on occasion disagreed with some of its policies in our area. Despite these areas of disagreement, Vanuatu has always considered itself a friend of Indonesia and always will.
On roost matters we concur. On a few we do not. However, we listen attentively to Indonesia's position on those subjects. We analyze what is said and carefully note the areas in which, as a matter of principle, we do not agree and those in which we do agree.
Nothing is static. Only evolution is a constant. We have never feared to let Indonesia know where we have disagreed. Similarly, we do not fear to let it know where we* agree. We do so today once again as a candid friend.
We are pleased by the ability of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea to address some of the problems that have arisen along their border in a positive and conciliatory manner. As a Melanesian State sharing a rich cultural heritage with other Melanesian peoples, Vanuatu appreciates the measures taken to assure the survival of cultural diversity and ethnic pluralism in our region. We commend Indonesia and Papua New Guinea for the steps they have taken in this regard. Both deserve a great deal of credit and support for these initiatives and those to follow.
On East Timor, we support the Secretary-General's attempts to bring about an acceptable solution. His humanitarian efforts merit the support of the entire international community. The negotiations between Portugal and Indonesia are an encouraging sign. As we have always stated, we will support the genuine wishes of the people of the Territory, nothing more and nothing less.
R Ours is a monumental task. The United Nations is charged with considering and resolving major issues some of which seem in one form or another to have vexed mankind almost from the beginning of recorded history. There are still no easy answers or quick solutions to any of these issues.
Just as nature's process of creating oil or precious minerals took centuries of agitation and ferment of various elements, so too will the process of creating a better future take years of effort by every nation represented in this Hall, and
r-
some that are not yet represented here. We have begun that process. Let us continue it, and let us bequeath to future generations' the ability and the means to improve upon the humble efforts of this generation. .