 Many different words have been spoken from this rostrum. However, those which have prevailed are those which have not been devalued through frequent repetition over a long period of time. Their everlasting value is due to the concepts they embody. "Peace", "security", "freedom of peoples", "prosperity" and "a bright future for humanity" - these are the words that fall into this category. They acquire special significance when backed up with specific proposals and practical deeds aimed at translating these ideals into the flesh and blood of today's international relations and at converting them into a foundation on which the generations to come will build their lives.
At present mankind is going through a particularly crucial stage in its history. Now is the time to decide whether it will continue as a history of reason and peaceful creativity or become a history of global catastrophe. Throughout the preceding millennia humanity, even in times of ordeals and wars, kept looking forward with hope to the morrow, expecting it to be brighter, to bring about more joy and a better life. At present mankind is viewing its future with alarm. This profound feeling of alarm is caused by social injustice, destruction and pollution of the environment, diseases, hunger affecting whole nations and, above all, the threat of total nuclear annihilation. Mankind will be confident of its future only when it eliminates that threat through joint efforts.
The removal of the nuclear and space threat and reversal of the arms race would enable humanity to keep its civilization humane in the best sense of the word and to release resources for economic and social progress. There can be no normal life on a nuclear powder-keg.
The urgency of the situation and the sheer magnitude of the challenge require fundamentally new political thinking. The stereotyped dogmas of the past, such as "might is right", "in politics weakness is an admission of guilt", "containment through deterrence" and the like, are hopelessly out of date. Far from promoting the security of the peoples of the world, they place it in direct jeopardy. The Secretary-General in his report on the work of the Organization presented at this session also stressed the need for
"a fresh beginning in efforts to overcome stalemates on major issues". (A/41/1, p. 2).
It is imperative to shed the dogma according to which the security of one State is built on impairing the security of another. In this nuclear and space age the only real security is security for all.
The new political thinking must be translated into practical deeds. Guided by the need to ensure progress in nuclear disarmament as well as in other fields, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has suggested an urgent meeting between the highest leaders of the Soviet Union and the United states of America. That proposal has been accepted by President Reagan. As the Assembly knows, the meeting will take place in Iceland on 11 and 12 October. It must give an overwhelmingly powerful impulse to negotiations and open up the shortest and most direct approach to the path leading to results. We regard impr • went in Soviet-United States relations not only in the context of the interests of the Soviet and American peoples but rather in terms of stronger security for all.
It was through the desire to build a reliable road leading to exactly this kind of universal security that the States of the socialist community introduced their joint initiative on "Establishment of a comprehensive system of international security" for consideration at this session of the Assembly.
The Byelorussian SSR, as a co-sponsor of the proposal, is convinced that relations between States must be built on the principles of peaceful coexistence and respect for mutual interests - security interests in the first place - which
would be ensured through material, political and legal, as well as moral and psychological, guarantees. They must be based on co-operation both in preserving life on Earth and in solving the entire gamut of global problems on which the quality of life depends.
Experience teaches us that no State can reliably protect itself by military and technically means alone, even if it succeeds in gaining military superiority over the other side, something which is in fact unattainable. In view of the nature of modern weapons, security can be ensured only through political means. The old order of things must give way to a comprehensive system of international security embracing all spheres of inter-State relations - military, political, economic and humanitarian. Such a system not only would be in utmost harmony with the principles and purposes of the united Nations Charter but would also enhance their efficacy and the effectiveness of the Organization. It would be the only adequate response to the precarious situation in which humanity finds itself today. The United Nations, being universal both in its membership and in the range of issues it deals with, represents a unique international forum organically suitable for achieving that goal. The Byelorussian SSR, as a founding Member of the United Nations, is convinced that the Organization, which last year celebrated its fortieth anniversary, is mature enough and rich enough in experience for that purpose.
We are realists and understand that a comprehensive system of international security will not be brought into existence overnight just by the wave of a magic wand. Persistent efforts will be required of all States. Which is needed is the political will and foresight, dialog and the ability and willingness to overcome myopic, short-lived and selfish calculations in order to agree on mutually acceptable compromises for the sake of the common good.
To end the arms race on Earth and prevent it in outer space and to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction - that must be one of the principal basic elements of a comprehensive security system. The well-known German philosopher and humanist of the eighteenth century Johann Gottfried von Herder wrote at a time when arms were yet primitive, if judged by today's terms: "The battle axe can create nothing, but it can cause a great deal of destruction." The truth of those words has a thousand times greater thrust nowadays. The pernicious policy of the arms race has brought us to a point beyond which destruction may be total. Time itself is now running against humanity, because new means of annihilation are being devised which might not be subject to control at all. In these circumstances pronouncements to the effect that anything but an arms buildup can be the cause of mistrust between States are inappropriate. Without going into scholasticism, let us ask those who espouse this postulate: Do arms engender trust?
Resolute practical moves are required to break out of the vicious spirals of the internal spring of the arms race. Real opportunities for that are opened up by the line of action pursued by the Soviet Union and all the States of the socialist community which reject the cliches of confrontation, defy the stereotypes in political thinking and artificial barriers. The USSR, through its practical actions, proves its readiness to seek compromise solutions to all problems that give rise to controversy or suspicion. The Soviet proposals of 15 January 1986 outlining a program for complete and general nuclear disarmament by the year 2000 are in line with the new requirements of today's world. Since those proposals are radical in their purpose - to rid the Earth completely not only of nuclear but also of chemical and other types of weapons of mass destruction - they provide for the necessity of appropriate verification measures and strict compliance at each stage of implementation with the principle of undiminished security for all States. They are based on the premise that the USSR and the United states of America should set an example for other nuclear-weapon Powers by talking real disarmament measures.
A large-scale program of "star peace" providing for the development of diversified peaceful co-operation in outer space in the interests of all States and for the establishment of a world space organization has been submitted to the United Nations. This objective is in sharp contrast to the dangerous "star wars" plans, and it is clear to any sensible person which of the existing alternatives best serves the interests of the inhabitants of the planet.
Indeed, if the objective of the total elimination of nuclear weapons is pursued in earnest and not for the sake of mere rhetoric, why choose to that end the much too dangerous and much too costly path for our planet of extending the arms race to outer space? Why abandon compliance with the treaties curbing the nuclear-arms race and undermine agreements strengthening stability? I am referring here to the strategic arms limitation treaties and the anti-ballistic missile treaty concluded between the USSR and the United States of America. Something must be wrong here, either with logic or true intentions, for there exists a simple and straightforward way - that of a mutual stage-by-stage elimination of nuclear weapons even before the end of this century. In the absence of nuclear weapons there will be no need for defense against such weapons.

It should be emphasized that the Soviet union does not confine itself only to submitting proposals. Its constructive spirit and sincerity go far enough to introduce a new major element in international practice. The USSR has unilaterally taken large-scale measures of restraint and arms limitation: they include the obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons; the halting of measures undertaken in response to the deployment of United States nuclear missiles in Europe; the subsequent removal from alert status of a large number of medium-range missiles in Europe; the obligation not to place anti-satellite systems in outer space; and, above all, the unilateral moratorium valid since 6 August 1985 on all nuclear explosions.
The moratorium has been extended on four consecutive occasions, although it was obviously a difficult and security-threatening decision for the USSR to take, in view of the unabated and provocative continuation of testing of nuclear weapons in the United States. By virtue of the latest extension of the moratorium, the Soviet Union will observe the International Year of Peace with no nuclear testing. This is a practical example of a truly responsible approach to the problems of today's world - an example which gives mankind greater hope to relieve itself of the nuclear threat.
A mutual halt to and prohibition of nuclear testing by the USSR and the United States of America are important in themselves and, moreover, will constitute a real step towards nuclear disarmament. What is needed are not half-measure resubstitute but a radical solution to the problem. The Byelorussian SSR expresses the hope that the United States will heed world public opinion and come to realize the need for halting nuclear-weapon tests.
The objective of the gradual elimination of nuclear weapons includes also a geographical component and issues related to the levels of conventional
armaments. Therefore, and in order to help to free Europe cf nuclear weapons, it has been proposed that nuclear medium-range missiles be eliminated from that continent and nuclear-weapon-free zones established there. Besides, the Warsaw Treaty member states have also proposed to the States members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and all European countries a program for reducing in the near future by one fourth the armed forces and conventional armaments in Europe from the Atlantic to the Orals.
New proposals have also been introduced allowing for final iz a tiers without any further delay of a convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons, the elimination of their stockpiles, and the industrial base for their production.
That is but a brief, overall list of the major proposals put forward by socialist countries. They are prepared to consider in earnest other countries' initiatives as well. This is our policy and it is based on the decisions of the Twenty-seventh Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Onion and has its roots in today's realities. It has been dictated by our responsibility vis-k-vis the future and takes into account the legitimate concerns of all parties.
If no progress has been made so far in eliminating the nuclear space threat and reversing the arms race, that is only because progress can be achieved solely through contained efforts and shared awareness of our common responsibility. It is to be hoped that those to whom the States of the socialist community and the non-aligned countries have addressed their proposals will display genuine preparedness to engage in a two-way Movement along the highway of disarmament.
There are those that claim that their arms build-up is for the sake of negotiations. From there, it is but a small step to conducting negotiations solely for the sake of the arras build-up. Indeed, toe military potential intended to serve as a bargaining chip is steadily being increased. Unfortunately, it is not being accompanied by progress at the negotiating table. Why is that? The United States does not want to accept the fact that acting from a position of force is no way to read) honest agreements. The logical aim of such a policy is to force one's bargaining partner to his knees and impose inequitable solutions. That is impossible in today's world. The aid result is increased nuclear tension. Does that best serve the vital interests of all nations, including the United States? Does it impart greater security to the world? The answer is self-evident; it is in the negative.
It is to be hoped that the pragmatism and sense of reality that are inherent traits of the Americans will not fall victim to the syndrome of thinking in military terms, and that realism and awareness of the need for a joint search for ways to normalize the international situation, put an end to the senseless arms race and eliminate nuclear weapons will prevail in United States assessments and actions. The agreement between the USSR and the United States on the summit meeting soon to be held in Reykjavik inspires optimism. It is important that that meeting pave the way to the achievement of meaningful agreements at future talks and meetings.
History has shown that militarist policies and the desire to attain world domination are increasingly isolated, both morally and politically, in the international arena. Vigorous attempts to implant militaristic stereotypes in people's minds have not had the expected result. The debate in the General Assembly leaves no doubt in this regard. At the same time, it can be said with utter certainty that no one is trying to drive the United states into a corner. Or the contrary, there is a common desire to involve the United States of America in sincere efforts to achieve a breakthrough in international relations, to awaken the Chi ted States to the need to fulfill its responsibility for the fate of peace on earth. Everyone is aware of the fact that without the constructive participation of the united States of America and other countries there can be no lasting solution to the problem of eliminating the threat of war and the per sis tent regional conflicts and to other global problems. Such an approach is manifest in the initiatives of socialist countries which envisage collective efforts, and in the Harare documents of the Non-Aligned Movement.
What, then, stands in the way? To a great extent, the impediment is anti-Soviet feeling and false perceptions of Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Some people in the Nest have yet to realize that all peoples, communists including, have no less a right to life, their beliefs and their way of life than have anti-communists. Are these in Western ruling circles prepared to recognize those rights to socialism and to work together with it for peace? Can they overcome the inertia of the anti-communist mentality and adopt the position of the peaceful coexistence of States with different social systems?
We have heard from this rostrum, allegations that Marxism-Leninism and war are inseparable. Let us recall a few of the facts, which are obviously well known to everyone, including those that make such statements. The first decree of the Soviet State was the Decree of Peace. That appeal, by the way, was rejected by capitalist States. Peace is the basis and the immutable precept of Soviet foreign policy. It is stated in the present program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union states that "A world without wars and without arms is the ideal of socialism." It is also well known that the USSR has never encroached upon the political institutions of other countries, whereas the Soviet State itself has on more than one occasion been the object of armed intervention and aggression. Anti-sovietism is still felt today in political circles in some Western States. It is manifest in the unwillingness to respond in kind to the Soviet pledge not to make the first nuclear strike. Those unwilling to reciprocate understand that were they to do so the myth of communist aggressiveness would collapse and the ideological impetus that turns the dynamo of the arms race, which yields enormous profits to the military-industrial complex would be weakened.
It is no less important to look for new approaches to the just settlement of regional conflicts. The cliche of East-West confrontation is inapplicable here. It is not only worn out but completely distorts the reality to which it is being applied. If there is a genuine desire to extinguish hotbeds of tension, we must tackle their socio-economic and political roots. It is there that the true source of conflicts is to be found, as well as in the denial of the right of peoples to self-determination and independence, to be free to choose their own path. Only through the solution of those root problems will it be possible to achieve genuine, just and comprehensive solutions.
In the Middle East such a settlement is possible through the collective efforts of all the par ties concerned, on the basis of the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 and the exercise of the inalienable national rights of the Arab people of Palestine, including the right to self-determination and to create their own independent State. The convening, without delay, of the International Peace Conference on the Middle East, with the participation of all interested parties, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PDO), would be a constructive step along the road towards such a settlement. That is the aim of the recent Soviet proposal calling for the creation of a preparatory committee for that Conference, with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
The peoples of Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Kampuchea have already made their choices by overthrowing anti-people regimes. All attempts to prevent them from pursuing their chosen path of building a new society should cease forthwith.
The explosive situation in southern Africa also calls for an urgent political settlement. It is necessary to step up the collective search for ways of guaranteeing the security of the independent African States of the region and achieving a just settlement in Namibia without delay, in accordance with United Nations decisions. The imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against the racist South African regime would be an effective step towards independence for Namibia and the elimination of the inhumane system of apartheid. It would also help in the achievement of peace and stability, in the interest of all the peoples of the region, including the white population of South Africa.
The interests and aspirations of all the nations of the Mediterranean region, including Cypruss Libya and Lebanon, would be well served by the creation of a zone of stable peace and co-operation in the region.
We continue our consistent support for the efforts of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to strengthen peace, bring about a relaxation of tensions in the Korean peninsula and achieve the peaceful reunification of Korea. The proposal of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to transform that region into a nuclear-free zone could become an important element in efforts to eliminate the threat of nuclear war.
The whole region of Asia and the Pacific is becoming a factor of ever-in creasing importance in world affairs. A broad proposal for ensuring security and co-operation in that region through the collective efforts of States, as put forward by the Soviet Union, is in keeping with the idea of a comprehensive system of international security.
The problem of human rights must also be addressed seriously and consistently. What is necessary, is not just to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but also to work for the accession of States to such fundamental instruments in this field as the International Covenants on Human Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.
Regrettably, few of those posing as the principal advocates of human rights, are to be found on the lists of States parties to those instruments. The Soviet Union has proposed that all Governments adjust their internal legislation to comply with international norms in this field. Such an action would be natural, it would seem, as natural as ABC, but the same advocates of human rights are not in a hurry to react positively.
Respect for the socio-economic rights of peoples and for equal economic security for all States is also the key instrument to solve economic problems of the world. To ignore the demands for the restructuring of international economic relations on a just and democratic basis without discrimination, illegal blockades and sanctions, and to praise the anarchy of the market-place, is to be out of touch with reality. One might argue that this market anarchy creates wealth. Indeed it does, but only for the few. For the rest, market anarchy reveals its other face: unemployment, illiteracy, lack of medical assistance, lack of housing, injustice in international trade, the silken strangling cord of external indebtedness, and hunger that affects entire nations. Such an order is in no way acceptable for the majority of the inhabitants of our world. The range of issues facing the united Nations is wide indeed. If they are to be resolved successfully, it is necessary to make collective efforts to increase the efficiency of the United Nations and to enhance its prestige.
However, a trend to the opposite on the part of certain Western States has emerged recently, that is, to undermine the Organization, to impede its activities, to bring tough pressure to bear on some Member States and to apply arbitrary discriminatory measures against others. We are witnessing a situation whereby the United Nations is being subjected to political-financial blackmail. In any society blackmail is considered to be an abominable phenomenon, it is doubly abominable when used against this universal Organization which is the symbol of mankind's hope for a better world.
What should be the position of States, if they are really seeking to promote mutual understanding and security? The present situation demands new approaches. The General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, stressed recently:
"Civilization is going through a crucial moment in its development. It is high time for all those capable of reasonable and sane thinking to adopt a clear-cut and well-defined position regardless of ideological and political differences. The machinery of mankind's self-preservation should be put into operation. There is no time to waste."
Human genius has created tremendous opportunities, and at the same time it has brought about a great threat to humanity. This dual character of today's potential emerged quite clearly against the backdrop of the accident at the Chernobyl atomic power plant, which has also affected Byelorussia; it is aggravated by the impossibility of relying entirely on technology, no matter how sophisticated it may be, which the tragic death of American astronauts and systematic failures of computers have made so painfully obvious. Matter can release tremendous amounts of energy, which, if it gets out of control, is capable of wiping out life from the face of the Earth. A nuclear war, should it break out, would lead precisely to this outcome. There is, however, the highest form of matter, which is intellect. It can prevent the irreparable. Persistent and sincere efforts by all States, and all peoples, not lip-service, are needed now to prevent the triumph of blind and merciless forces over the collective intellect of humanity. The goal of the united Nations and of the current session of the General Assembly is to mobilize such efforts.
The forthcoming meeting of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Community Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the United States President, Ronald Reagan, which is welcomed with hope throughout the world, the success of the Stockholm Conference, the adoption by the International Atomic Energy Agency of important conventions which improve the security of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as well as other encouraging developments in international affairs, make us increasingly confident that it is possible to arrive at agreements in the interests of peace, security, freedom, justice and co-operation.


On behalf of the people and the Government of Ghana, I extend to the President our warmest congratulations on his election to preside over the forty-first session. His election is a tribute to his personal qualities and an honor to his country. To his immediate predecessor, Mr. Jaime de Pinies, I offer congratulations on a job well done.
A year ago to the day we celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. It was an occasion for renewing our faith in the organization and the ideals it stood for. Beneath the many and varied assessments made of the Organization, however, lay one incontrovertible truth - that its continuing relevance as the framework for international co-operation has not been
diminished by time or circumstance.
perhaps at no time has that spirit of international co-operation and good will
been better demonstrated than in the response to Africa's economic crisis during
the special session in May. Although Africa did not achieve all its objectives,
the spirit of international co-operation and good will demonstrated at the special
session was a gain for all.
Ghana joins in expressing our gratitude to the international community for the
interest shown in Africa's economic recovery Program. What is urgently required
now is that the expressions of good will be reduced to firm commitments to raise
the necessary resources for the program's success. In an increasingly
interdependent world, the rest of humanity will not long remain spared Africa's
misfortunes. We therefore renew Africa's appeal to all, especially our partners in
the developed world, to translate their friendly understanding of our problems into
practical support. Africa's problems are many and deep-seated. There is no doubt about Africa's resolve to accept the challenges now facing the continent. But, while Africa's recovery is largely dependent on its own efforts, the fact remains that meaningful progress hinges on the international economic environment.
Indeed, how can Africa make basic structural reforms in the face of the current wide fluctuations in commodity prices, the deterioration in the terms of trade, the decline in real terms of official development assistance, unstable exchange rates, high interest rates, protectionism, the heavy debt burden and a host of other unfavorable economic conditions which adversely affect our economic fortunes? it is a fact that, contrary to all reason, the world economic environment facilitates a far greater influx of resources from the developing countries to the developed countries than vice versa. Those factors contribute substantially to the aggravation of our continent's problems.
It follows, therefore, that a meaningful solution of the nagging socio-economic problems of Africa - indeed, of the third world generally - call for a greater political will on the part of the international community, particularly the industrialized West, to address the root causes. So far that will has not been demonstrated. Initiatives taken by the developing countries to halt the decline in commodity prices and bring some stability to their export earnings have not received the support of some major industrialized countries. Thus, the
establishment of an integrated program for commodities and its common fund today remains a forlorn hope.
If the developing countries expand their productive base, as is being advocated, it is unlikely that world demand will outstrip the increased supply and thus exert upward pressure on commodity prices. In all probability the increased supply will only depress prices. And, in any case, would there be increased access of the increased output to the markets of the industrialized countries? On present
performance, the answer is likely to be "No'.
Debt repayment and servicing have put a great strain on the meager financial
resources of the developing countries, including my own. It is estimated that in 1985 alone the net interest paid in external debt servicing by developing countries amounted to $4 billion. In recent years the debt service ratio has risen to unacceptable levels. Many countries have come to realize that they cannot cope with it without imposing intolerable sacrifices on their people, with serious implications for political stability. Unilateral ceilings on the percentage of export earnings that should be devoted to debt servicing have therefore been imposed by some countries, and unless there is greater understanding from creditors
that practice is bound to grow.
The deepening debt problem requires realistic and concerted international action. The repeated acts of rescheduling and the building up of arrears will, in the long run, only hinder development. Rescheduling creates a climate of uncertainty, while arrears can also lead to the halting of loan commitments and hamper the formulation of adjustment programs that can bring relief.
in the international monetary area, problems of liquidity and a stable exchange rate regime remain. Special drawing rights (SDRs), if they had been allowed to develop to their full potential, would have put decision-making in international liquidity creation into the multilateral context where it properly belongs. The position today is that the national currencies of a few countries continue to serve as reserve currencies. It is nearly 10 years since the last issue of SDRs was made, and they are shrinking as a percentage of total non-gold reserves. Yet during that period the need for access to international liquidity by many developing countries has never been greater. Coupled with the problem of international liquidity creation and allocation is the uncertainty in international financial transactions engendered by wide fluctuations in the floating exchange-rate system.
When developing countries call for an international conference on money and finance, debt or trade, it must be understood that they do not seek confrontation. Rather, they seek an opportunity for a genuine and democratic dialog to find solutions to the complex problems afflicting the world today. They seek to mold international institutions in a way that will promote the well-being of all countries, what they cannot accept is prescriptions by a few countries through mechanisms on which they have no representation and in which their interests and concerns are given only perfunctory consideration.
Although the world economy has in the last few years shown signs of recovery, serious imbalances in the international economic environment persist. For most of the developing countries, economic recovery in the past three decades has remained a pipe dream. But in an increasingly interdependent world lack of progress in one part has the inevitable effect of slowing down the dynamism of the other. The economic recovery of the developed countries, therefore, is likely to be short-lived if economic growth is not encouraged and induced in the developing countries.
For those reasons, Ghana welcomes the emphasis which has been given lately to adjustment through growth. Past policies of demand management have caused considerable social hardship, particularly to vulnerable segments of the population, in countries pursuing structural adjustment. When we have made our best efforts, followed adjustment policy prescriptions to the letter and ended up creating more misery than we set out to alleviate, we are bound to raise fundamental questions about the system and its supporting mechanisms for restoring equilibrium - not an equilibrium based on the old unjust order, but one that gives all countries an equal opportunity to realize their full potential for economic and social development. The widespread recognition of the need to pursue growth-oriented policies must be accompanied by a corresponding recognition that the unfavorable external economic environment should be changed. In short, a new international economic order is called for. I wish to turn now to political Batters. The General Assembly's declaration of 1986 as the International Year of Peace presupposes that Member States would adhere strictly to their Charter obligations and resort to peaceful means in settling disputes. The year 1986 is fast drawing to a close but, unfortunately, the vision of a world at peace is far from reality. This is true both in the settlement of outstanding regional conflicts, which in the year have shown no signs of diminishing, and in the management of regrettable bilateral conflicts, in which force rather than peaceful negotiations have been the order of the day.
Striking cases in point are South Africa's frequent incursions into the front-line States of Lesotho and Swaziland, and the recent barbaric bombarding of civilian targets in Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana, calculated to terrorize those countries to withdraw support for the liberation movements in South Africa and Namibia and to increase the racist regime's domination of those countries. South Africa is constantly in the news now and high on the agenda of several international meetings because the racist Pretoria regime has opted for the use of violence and terrorism upon those in southern Africa who legitimately protest against the continued practice of apartheid.
The overwhelming majority of the international community favors the isolation of South Africa economically, politically and socially. The choice has been made above all others because it is the only peaceful means available to check the unhappy turn of events in that country from further deterioration and to put an end apartheid. Regrettably, there are certain Governments, including the United Kingdom, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Portugal and Japan, which by their policies appear to support the racist regime. The Governments of these countries continue to oppose meaningful sanctions because they claim sanctions would hurt' the blacks in South Africa and the neighboring States. The fact of the matter is that the burden of apartheid is far greater than the economic deprivation they will suffer with sanctions.
The liberation movements, which articulate the aspirations of the oppressed people of South Africa and the front-line States themselves, have openly advocated the imposition of sanctions and have declared their readiness to make sac if ices now to free themselves from the constant threat and application of violence by the racist Pretoria regime. It is sheer hypocrisy, in the circumstances, to oppose sanctions because of the effect this will have on the peoples of southern Africa.
We have also been told that sanctions will not work, and insincere references have been made to historical parallels, such as that of what was then Rhodesia after Unilateral Declaration, of Independence. If sanctions do not work, why impose them on Poland, Libya, Cuba, Nicaragua and others? These claims overlook the gaping dissimilarities in the Rhodesian and South African situations and betray an obvious intent not to make sanctions work. We all know how the effectiveness of sanctions against Rhodesia was undermined by the Western world. The truth of the matter is that opposition to sanctions is based on fear of loss of material interests and on solidarity with persons of a common racial origin.
Mandatory sanctions can work if they are comprehensive in scope and sincerely applied. They will work if we place humanity before narrow selfish benefits. They will work if we stop placing the employment of a few thousand workers before the fundamental human rights of millions of deprived blacks in South Africa.
The apartheid system no longer has a place in this world. It must be dismantled now. We appeal once again to the racist regime in South Africa to free Nelson Mandela, Zaphena Mothopeng and all other political prisoners, and to initiate negotiations with the legitimate leaders of the black majority with a view to sharing power democratically with all South Africans, irrespective of race, color or creed.
The question of the independence of Namibia continues to pose a serious challenge to the international community. It is unacceptable that South Africa still occupies Namibia 20 years after the General Assembly terminated its Mandate and assumed direct administration of the Territory. This fact in itself reflects a serious weakness of the United Nations which we should help to remedy. The best South Africa offered in terms of co-operation with the United Nations was when it participated in the pre-implementation talks held in Geneva early in 1981. But those talks failed to achieve any concrete results because of South Africa's arrogance and prevarication. Since then the Namibian independence issue has been deadlocked owing in part to the introduction by the Reagan administration of its so-called "constructive engagement" and "linkage" theories. These extraneous elements have played well into the hands of South Africa. The net result is that Namibia's independence plan, authored and sponsored by the Western Contact Group, and accepted unanimously by the Security Council in resolution 435 (1978), has remained unimplemented eight years after its adoption.
The Namibian question is a decolonization issue and cannot therefore be linked with the domestic affairs of an independent country. The people and the Government of Angola have the legitimate right to make whatever practical arrangements they may think fit for the defence of their country, arrangements necessitated by South Africa's aggression and interference in their internal affairs. We therefore totally reject any attempt to link Namibia's independence with the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and we reiterate Ghana's support for the conclusions of the special session of the General Assembly on Namibia, which has just ended, and particularly, foe measures relating to the isolation of South Africa economically and politically, and for the immediate implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978).
There are other hotbeds of tension on the African continent which deserve the attention of this session. With regard to Western Sahara, it is a matter of regret that what should have been a straightforward issue of applying the principle of self-determination to the inhabitants of that territory has degenerated into a war involving Morocco, which has itself in the past been a victim of colonialism. We reiterate our support for the Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic and for the right of the Republic to sovereign existence, we call upon Morocco once again to enter into direct negotiations with the Polisario Front in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the Organization of African Unity and of the United Nations General Assembly, on the matter.
In Chad, there seems to be relative calm now. But behind this facade is an uneasy situation that can no longer be tolerated, particularly at this crucial time when the people of Chad need to husband their limited resources to combat the effects of prolonged drought and the serious damage caused to their crops by pests. We remain convinced that the need for a lasting solution of the Chadian problem lies in national reconciliation. We therefore urge all the internal parties and the people of Chad to bury their differences and to seek a solution to their problem on the basis of dialog.
In the Middle East we have continued to witness an unfortunate cycle of violence, particularly in Lebanon. The spectacle of an Arab turning on a brother Arab is most disturbing indeed and we wonder when the incessant tragedy will end. The grisly killings and the destruction of property in Lebanon should disturb the conscience of all those who believe in peace, brotherhood and progress. Over the past eight years Ghana has been involved in the international effort to assist the Government of Lebanon to maintain law and order and to preserve its territorial integrity. We shall continue to do so. However, we hope that all the factions involved in the continuing violence will assist in bringing peace to that country and in preserving its independence and territorial integrity.
The situation in Lebanon is generally linked to the precarious question of the Middle East. We in Ghana continue to emphasize today, as we did last year, that the Palestine question is at the core of the Middle East problem. Lasting peace in that subregion will continue to elude us as long as justice is denied to the Palestinian people, ""nus peace will come only when Israel and its supporters listen to logic and reason. The display of military muscle will not promote peace in that area. On the contrary, such actions increase tension. Lasting peace can be achieved only on the basis of dialog among all the parties, including
especially the Palestinians under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The insistence on pre-conditions and the attempt to make scapegoats of Libya and other countries of the subregion for terrorism is counter-productive. In this regard, Ghana deplores fresh threats of the use of force again Libya. Terrorism in the Middle East has its roots in the Palestinian question and its eradication can come about when there is full recognition of the rights of Palestinians to a homeland.
I must, however, emphasize Ghana's opposition to and abhorrence of blind terrorism.
The Cyprus situation also continues to be a natter of concern to the Government of Ghana. The recent incident resulting from the closure of border points by the Turkish Cypriots once again demonstrates the need for restraint by both parties. We again appeal for tolerance and flexibility, and we support the Secretary-General's mediation efforts. Ghana, for its part, will continue to support a unified and independent Cyprus free from external interference and is in favor of the settlement of communal differences through peaceful dialog.
I new turn to the fratricidal war between Iran and Iraq. That war, now in its eighth year, is a matter of deep concern to the Government of Ghana, not merely because of the indescribable human carnage involved, but also because of the enormous resources being wasted by the two combatants - resources that could have been used to provide for the pressing needs of their peoples.
we once again appeal to the friendly countries of Iran and Iraq to end the war and to resolve to settle their differences by peaceful means. We deplore the initiation and continuance of the war as being in violation of the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Charter of the United Nations and condemn the violation of international law by the use of chemical weapons, the inhuman treatment of prisoners and the indiscriminate bombardment of civilian targets.
The situation in Central America has taken a turn for the worse as the result of the recent decision by the United States Administration to make available to the rebel forces fighting the Nicaraguan Government weapons and logistic support worth 8100 million. We say in a constructive spirit to our American friends that their
decision is ill-advised and contrary to international law. It will only intensify conflict in the area.
That decision, together with the assistance being given to the Savimbi bandits, poses a serious threat to the independence and territorial integrity of countries of the third world. It is a new dimension in the attempt to undermine the right of peoples of the third world to self-determination. Such a cynical disregard of the rights of others and of international law constitutes a great threat to international peace and security.
We remain convinced that any attempt to pressure Nicaragua to abandon its search for a suitable form of government on the basis of the country's peculiar historical experience and culture will only result in conflict. The International Court of Justice itself has in recent decisions upheld the sovereign right of the Nicaraguan people freely to choose their own political, economic and social systems and has rejected as illegal any pressure on Nicaragua intended to subvert the popular aspirations of the people of that country.
Ghana therefore endorses the Contactor a process as the only realistic way of finding a peaceful and lasting solution to the most serious conflict now raging in Central America. We urge all parties to enter into serious dialog within the Contadora framework.
Ghana's commitment to the principle of self-determination demands that we not gloss over the ongoing developments in Afghanistan and Kampuchea. It is a natter of deep regret that in spite of the Secretary-General's mediation efforts, the problem of Afghanistan has not been resolved, nor is an end to the Kampuchean conflict in sight. In our view, the people of Afghanistan and Kampuchea must be left to determine their own future, free of foreign interference and occupation forces.
We note with satisfaction the announcement by the Soviet Union of the withdrawal of some of its troops from Afghanistan and we hope that this process will be hastened and embrace all foreign forces on the territory. We also hope that this will be the case in regard to Kampuchea. We call on all parties involved in those conflicts to respect the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to agree to negotiate an end to those conflicts.
The Korean problem also remains unresolved. That problem should, in our view, be solved through peaceful dialog by the Koreans themselves, without outside interference. We are pleased to note that steps have been taken in that direction and we hope that both the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea will make a serious effort towards reunification.
I now turn to the question of disarmament, which remains high on the agenda of all peace-loving peoples of the world. The specter of nuclear annihilation continues to threaten us all. This unhappy state of affairs is largely the result of the continuing deep mistrust and suspicion between the two super-Powers and their military allies. Contrary to reason, the belief that peace can be secured through strength lives on.
New heights are being scaled in the arms race, and not even outer space will be spared. Enormous resources, which could make a difference between affluence and poverty for the under-privileged peoples of this world, are being spent. For how long can we continue along this path? Every one of us must assist in the momentous task of bringing the super-Powers to the negotiating table for complete disarmament in the interest of the survival of the human race. Recent events make us more hopeful of progress - not least, the current moves to put arras control talks bade on trade.
If the Organization is to discharge its varied and heavy responsibilities effectively, it must have the necessary financial support. Unfortunately, the United Nations is undergoing a serious financial crisis owing principally to the withholding of funds by certain Member States for one reason or another. We see the present financial crisis as basically political in nature and, in a sense, a
reflection of the loss of faith in the multilateral system by some influential Members as the result of the fact that the United Nations system is no longer liable to manipulation by them.
Both the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UN23C0) and the United Nations may be in need of some re form in regard to operating machinery, but the answer to that problem is not to undermine their existence. We certainly deplore any attempt capriciously to weaken these organizations or threaten their usefulness to developing countries or to turn them to the selfish advantage of the rich and powerful, in other words, we pledge to uphold the sacred principles of the Charter and the United Nations system, we call on all Member States, particularly the founding and influential Members of the United Nations, to fulfill their pledge to uphold the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
In conclusion, I wish to reassure the Assembly of my Government's commitment to the United Nations system and its ideals. The United Nations may not have been able to solve all our problems, but we do not think it has been endowed with the power required for that. However, it remains a shining example of what mankind can achieve through international co-operation, we have a duty to ensure that this unique experiment in human co-operation survives and continues to contribute to the creation of a happy tomorrow for generations to come. That should be the heritage that this generation leaves to posterity.


Mr. President, my delegation is reassured to know that this difficult forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly is being steered by a statesman of your ability, from a country with which we share warm friendship and co-operation in several forums, including the Commonwealth and the Group of Least Developed Countries, where Banqladesh's role is appreciatively
acknowledged with appreciation.
We must also thank Mr. Jaime de Pinies for his dignified and efficient conduct of the historic fortieth session. We are also reassured and gladdened by the Secretary-General's welcome recovery and return to us. We are, more than ever, in need of his experience and wisdom.
If last year was one for reflection and reaffirmation of faith, this year is surely the year for action and reform - indeed a year of reckoning - and the most urgent item with which we must wrestle is the survival of this Organization and its continuance in the most effective and efficient manner. Small States, like ourselves, need the United Nations and have shared the belief, expressed so often during this debate, that the United Nations would become a truly effective collective security organization. While we continue in that belief, the reality of it is yet far from realization. What we, as small States, have to ensure is that the United Nations not only survives its current crisis but comes through the stronger for it. The Group of 18, whose establishment we endorsed, has worked hard towards this end. My delegation feels that, given the constraints under which it
was operating and the very real political differences which exist on the subject of reform, the report it has produced is a very constructive and useful step forward. We support those elements on which consensus was reached and, in regard to chapter 6, we support a reform of the budget formulation and decision-makinq process. We look to this Assembly to arrive at a consensus which will ensure that the views of both the major contributors and the small States are taken into account. We are encouraged by the Secretary-General's comments in document A/41/663 indicating that he has already taken steps to ensure that the Secretariat is in a position to start the process of reform as soon as the decisions of the General Assembly are known. Now it is up to all of us, and we for our part are optimistic. We trust that these hopes will not be dashed by major contributors continuing to withhold funds despite our efforts.
The Secretary-General has used a dramatic analogy. He says: "that the safety net which the United Nations constitutes for the world's security should not be allowed to become tattered". In Samoa we have a saying that is perhaps akin to this. We say that "the fishing net that became entangled in the night will be disentangled in the morning". Thus we believe that, no matter what the difficulties or how knotty the problems, they can be resolved in the light of reason and good faith and thus the net be repaired. We are convinced that we can restore confidence in this organization and in its role.
To turn to the broader scene, my delegation finds it ironically sad that in this International Year of Peace so little real peace has come to the troubled parts of the world.
In South Africa there is no peace for children languishing in gaols and no prospects for peace while the South African Government turns deaf ears to the cries of suffering and to the dire warnings that have been given by many. These
warnings include that of the Commonwealth Group of Eminent Persons. We support the Commonwealth proposals for action and believe that pressure from the world coMunity is imperative.
We also wish to see a peaceful Namibia, free from South African illegal occupation and brought to its rightful place in the world community through the United Nations plan.
In Afghanistan foreign forces remain, and children have no peace in which to play and for playthings only bombs disguised as toys.
The Iran-Iraq war drags desperately on, with massive losses of young lives that have known no peace in their short span.
Lebanon is still tragically strife-torn, with brother fighting brother in conflicts still fueled by outside interference and with little hope of peace in sight.
In Democratic Kampuchea people who have known no peace for generations still suffer. Foreign forces remain, and despite the efforts of the Association of South-East Asian Nations and the new eight-poi*. approach proposed by the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea, response is lacking and peace seems far off.
In Korea a people is still divided and knows no permanent peace. We support the peaceful reunification of Korea and, as an interim measure, the admission of both Koreas to the United Nations, which should increase the opportunities for peaceful contact between them. In Central America also, despite the efforts of the Contadora and the Support Group, peace is still elusive. The Middle East peace process hae round to a halt and the Arab-Israeli conflict continues. There is little likelihood of peace there till direct peace negotiations, with the participation of all concerned, are undertaken. Meanwhile, the very symbols of our peace-keeping efforts, the united Nations peace-keeping forces, are targeted and slain in direct defiance of our collective aspirations for peace. Finally, while terrorism is rampant there can be no guarantee of peace for any of us anywhere on this Earth.
While the Secretary-General and his representatives have been tireless in their efforts to bring the spirit of this year to bear on the situation wherever possible - and ther-a are some glimmers of hope - there is no way for peace to prevail while countries still persist in flouting the principles of the Charter.
In our part of the world, the South Pacific Forum members have taken several decisions that are intended to preserve the peace and security of our region. At their meeting last year the Forum Heads of Government adopted the South Pacific Nuclear-Free-Zone Treaty, and at this year's meeting they adopted three protocols calling on the five major nuclear-weapon States to respect the Treaty. We have been gratified by the favorable international reaction to the Treaty and pleased that several of the nuclear-weapon States have indicated their readiness to sign the protocols. We would urge those that have so far given no response to acknowledge the deeply felt concerns of our region, to sign the protocols as soon as they are open for signature and to adhere to them henceforth.
People sometimes think of the South Pacific as peaceful and pristine and remote from the world's problems. They forget that our region more than any other has been used and abused as a testing ground by nuclear-weapon States. It has also been contemplated as a convenient dumping ground for nuclear wastes. The countries of the South Pacific are united in their absolute opposition to any such use of our environment. We are united in outrage that the French Government continues to test nuclear weapons at Mururoa Atoll. This testing is in flagrant disregard of our constant calls for it to cease.
This testing takes place in the heart of Polynesia. As a Polynesian country, Samoa has long asked that, if this testing is so safe and of such great importance to the security of metropolitan France, France do it on its own territory and free us in the Pacific from the fear of disaster and of damage of an irreversible kind to us and our surroundings.
This fear, and the deep concern felt so keenly by small Pacific Island states because of both the fragility of our environment and the vulnerability of our peoples in the face of nuclear disaster, testing or dumping, is echoed across the seas by others in similar surroundings. This shared concern was most eloquently voiced here several days ago by the Honorable I.ester Bird, Deputy Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, a sister small island country. He said:
"We in the Caribbean have good reason to sympathize with our sister States in the Pacific that have been distressed for years over nuclear tests conducted by larger States and the dumping of nuclear wastes. We share the deep-seated fears of the Pacific Island countries about the long-term medical effects of exposure to radiation and the contamination of the environment, including marine life and food crops, which could be caused by nuclear activity.All of out fears are justified, and for this reason we have for many years joined in efforts here to promote the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We see this as one of the most urgent and practical steps to slow down the deadly arms race and decrease nuclear dangers. We will continue to press for this and other measures designed to halt the arms race.
We were encouraged that two draft conventions in the field of nuclear safety were finalized at the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna, and that it appears that the super-Powers intend to abide by them. Surely they must realize, in the wake of the tragic disasters experienced by them both in the past year, that no nation, however mighty, is technologically invincible or free from human frailty. We are much saddened by these tragedies and the loss of life involved. We would hope, however, that these experiences might prove to the super-Powers how imperative it is that they work together, both in sharing technology for the safety and benefit of mankind and in eliminating nuclear weapons and the chance of nuclear disaster from this Earth.
The successful outcome of the Stockholm Conference on Confidence and Security Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe and the holding of the preparatory summit in Iceland this week-end give us cause for hope and we pray that this may be fulfilled.
Last year we celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This year, as we in Samoa look back over 25 years of successful decolonization action by the United Nations and look forward to next year and our own silver jubilee, marking our 25 years of independence, we wish to congratulate the United Nations on its tremendous achievements in this area and the very positive role it has played both in our region and in other parts of the world.
However, in the South Pacific the process is not yet complete. We are anxious for those that have not yet fulfilled the aspirations of their peoples to share in this historical process and join us as full members of our Pacific community.
We are, indeed, pleased that the peoples of Micronesia have had the chance freely to express their views and have done so under the supervision of United Nations Missions, which have included representatives of South Pacific countries. Thus tine principles of the Charter and of resolution 1514 (XV) are being observed, and it is for this reason that the Forum countries are firm in their support for the termination of the trusteeship. We welcomed the decision of the Trusteeship Council in this regard on 28 May this year.
In New Caledonia, however, the United Nations has not yet played an active role in the decolonization process, and the Forum leaders, at their recent meeting, took tine decision to seek the re-inscription of New Caledonia on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. This decision reflects the concern of the For urn to see
"a peaceful transition to an independent New Caledonia in accordance with the innate rights and aspirations of the indigenous people and in a manner which guarantees the rights and interests of all inhabitants of this multiracial society".
The Forum members expressed their disappointment that the present French Government seems to be going back on previous commitments entered into with all parties in New Caledonia to see the Territory move to a form of independence and, instead, now seem intent on New Caledonia's remaining a Territory of France. Forum leaders emphasized the importance of genuine dialog with all the parties concerned, including France, and their wish to continue their efforts in this regard. It is hoped that United Nations participation will not only enhance these
efforts but assist the progress of New Caledonia to the exercise of a truly legitimate act of self-determination monitored by the United Nations. We feel this to be essential for the peace and stability of the South Pacific region.
We welcome the assurance of support for this move by the non-aligned Heads of State or Government in Harare and look forward to working with non-aligned delegations here and to gaining the widest possible support from the membership of
this Organization.
During this General Assembly we shall mark the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the two human rights Covenants. Yet, sadly, violations of human rights of the vilest kind still shame the human race. Here, just as in other areas I have mentioned and many others that 1 have not had the time to touch on, eternal vigilance is required. The United Nations has so much to do and so many needing or depending on its efforts that we cannot afford to let it fail.
We in Samoa hold firmly the deep conviction that, with God's help and our own efforts, this Organization will be restored to the vision its founders held 41 years ago.


At the outset, I should like to extend to Mr. Choudhury my warmest congratulations on his unanimous election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly. I am particularly pleased at his election since our two countries maintain excellent relations. The Organization will, I am sure, benefit from his wide diplomatic experience. I am confident that his authority and his great negotiating skill will guarantee the success of our work at this session.
I should also like to thank his predecessor, Mr. de Pinies, Ambassador of Spain, for the skillful manner in which he guided the General Assembly at its last session.
I take particular pleasure in saluting the Secretary-General and drawing attention publicly to the untiring dedication with which he fulfills the high responsibilities entrusted to him by the international community. I am delighted to see him among us today in excellent health and ready to share in our common endeavor to ensure that the United Nations fulfills its role in the world.
The Secretary-General's report to the General Assembly has received the close attention of my Government. He correctly emphasizes the extent to which the interdependence of all States compels us to co-operate ever more closely in order to achieve stronger multilateralism. The ideals of the Organization can only be achieved through such co-operation among all States, which is the responsibility of every State, directly and individually.
My country's commitment to international co-operation has been clearly demonstrated in the past. Today, I am convinced that the goals of such cooperation include the strengthening of the United Nations.
In this context, ray country attaches great importance to the universal character of our Organization. For example, with regard to the question of the Korean Peninsula, Belgium is in favor of the simultaneous admission of the two Koreas to membership of the United Nations, pending direct talks between the two parties leading to reunification.
The Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Sir Geoffrey Howe, current President of the Council of Ministers of the European Community, has perfectly described from this rostrum the way in which the 12 members of the Community view international questions of concern to us. I should like to thank my colleague and emphasize that Belgium associates itself strongly with his statement.
A year ago the General Assembly proclaimed 1986 the International Year of Peace. That initiative was a response to the aspiration of all people to live in a world in which peace is permanently guaranteed by effective, verified disarmament. But we must recognize that a number of fundamental prerequisites for effective disarmament have not yet been fulfilled. There is still an appalling lack of trust, and without trust nothing concrete will ever be achieved. It seems to me, therefore, that only a gradual approach has any chance of leading to results that will lead to permanent solutions.
The Geneva summit in the autumn of last year gave rise to great expectations;
the "spirit of Geneva" characterized the ensuing atmosphere of growing trust between the two super-Powers. Since then, those relations have had ups and downs, but the
dialog continues, and that is the main thing. We hope that another summit will take place
in Washington. Seal progress towards agreements on the reduction of forces is possible, beginning with the complete elimination of a whole category of weapons. I am thinking of medium-range nuclear missile, which are of direct concern to my com try.
A balanced redaction of the strategic arsenals of the two super-Powers will open the way to greater stability. That goal could be readied without upsetting the balance of power, because such a reduction would simply bring the arsenals down again to their level of some 10 years ago.
It is against this general background that we must examine the question of
putting an aid to nuclear testing. Belgium welcomes the progress that has been
made in the past few months. We follow with interest the proposals that have been
made on both sides in the area of verification. It seems to us that the climate is
favorable for a resumption of dialog. Belgium has therefore welcomed the Soviet
decision to extend its unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests. However, Belgium
believes that a moratorium, even if it were multilateral, would not necessarily
offer all the safeguards that can be provided only by a treaty signed in due and good form.
If, taking into account the real facts of the problem, a total halt in nuclear testing cannot be expected over the short term, there are intermediary solutions within the context of a gradual and realistic approach. The military nuclear Powers, beginning with the two super-Powers, could agree cm limiting testing programs to a minimum. President Reagan said the day before yesterday that he was ready to start negotiating an agreement along those lines. Such an agreement would be accompanied by a commitment to provide all relevant in for nation relating to verification. Such a step, particularly if it were accompanied by on-site inspection and verification - and this seems to be accepted in principle now -would provide valuable information on the reliability of procedures for exchanging seismic data. This would play an essential role in verification of a complete halting of nuclear tests.
Whatever the importance of negotiations on reducing nuclear arsenals, arms control has also a conventional dimension which we cannot neglect.
Belgium has always followed very closely the issue of conventional arms control, particularly in Europe where, in addition to the negotiations on a mutual and balanced force reduction, which have been going on for years now, we see new prospects that can be explored. We must also increase trust and transparency. The Stockholm Conference has just ended with encouraging results. We welcome those results, but we are still far from the goal. Mich remains to be done before real confidence can be built, for that is the only way to take greater strides towards disarmament in Europe.
For this reason the Disarmament Conference in Geneva must continue its work in all earnest and with intensity. For Belgium, the ban on chemical weapons is a priority. Only a universal ban can prevent the possible use of these weapons. Indeed, the world has unfortunately witnessed the use of those weapons in the past few months.
Alternative approaches, such as "chemical-weapon-free zones", can never
provide the same safeguards. However, some optimism seems to be justified in view
of the progress made in Geneva. Let us hope the momentum will be strengthened
still further. We await with interest the concrete proposals from the Warsaw Pact
member states relating to verification. A constructive attitude on the part of
those countries is a major contribution to the success of the negotiations now
under way. Belgium will continue to be as active as possible in the Geneva Conference.
Here, I should like to express gratitude to the Secretary-General, who over the past year has carried out his task of investigating alleged violations of the Geneva Protocol. His work is an important aspect of the credibility of the Protocol, which in the absence of a complete ban on chemical weapons is the only bulwark protecting mankind from the actual use of such chemical weapons.
The convention cm the ban of biological warfare is now the subject of a second review conference in Geneva. My country hopes that this conference will further strengthen the standing of that convention which, despite criticism regarding the lack of appropriate verification measures, is an important instrument against those weapons, which otherwise could rapidly become operational.
We are also making great efforts in other forums in addition to our work and the work of this Organization. The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, held at Helsinki, the tenth anniversary of which we celebrated last year, initiated a permanent, process aimed not only at arms control and reduction, but also at safeguarding human integrity and dignity and promoting mutual confidence in relations between peoples.
The 35 signatory countries will be meeting again in Vienna on 4 November for a thorough consideration of implementation of the positions agreed on in the Final Act of Helsinki and at the Madrid meeting. Belgium attaches great importance to this work since it includes a full examination of the way in which commitments entered into 10 years ago have been implemented, and an examination of the achievements of several specialized intermediary meetings.
The negotiators will also be examining ways and means of improving the implementation of the Final Act, this important instrument. The commitments entered into at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe are indivisible. It will therefore be absolutely indispensable for the negotiators to arrive at a balanced agreement, with possibilities for progress in each and every one of the main fields covered in the Final Act.
Peace and security are a necessary basis for fulfilling the aspirations of the individual and for creating a climate in which inter national relations can be directed towards universal economic and social progress. Unfortunately, those ideals are threatened by other factors, no less dangerous than war itself. Recent events force us to strengthen our actions in the area of the environment and human health. Here I am thinking in particular of nuclear safety, deforestation and drug abuse.
The Chernobyl accident did indeed evoke a profound reaction in public opinion throughout the world. It directly affected the lives and health of workers at the plant, contaminated the population in the region, and produced negative effects throughout large parts of Europe. It is essential, it seems to me, that international machinery should be devised to respond to the serious concerns resulting from this accident.
In the nuclear area, we must arrive at a common concept of security. The activities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Community on the regional level have increased our information and our evaluation of nuclear safety. However, there is an element of decision-making in the design of nuclear plants that still lies exclusively within national competence.
There is an obvious need for international co-operation. As a first step we must agree on a common international approach to the evaluation of risks in nuclear plants and of the possibility of serious accidents. Here, the role of IAEA is of the utmost importance. We cannot accept a situation in which the norms for acceptable levels of radiation in agricultural products, soil and water are purely national and may therefore vary.
There has been a crisis of credibility in this connection. The world needs standard norms and measures of exposure. IAEA and other competent bodies must work swiftly to resolve this matter. Lastly, the Chernobyl accident has revealed the need for a better flow of information, in this particular field, an important field, a great effort must be made at the national level, where adequate data should be made available. This should be done at all levels - national, regional and global. IAEA could encompass such a global information structure. Here, I welcome the convention on early notification of nuclear accidents.
Problems have arisen on the question of whether this convention should include accidents linked to nuclear weapons or tests. A solution has been found providing that States possessing nuclear weapons should make voluntary notification of accidents not listed in article 1 of the convention. We invite all States to declare their intention to this effect. Belgium attaches paramount importance to this question and feels that all nuclear Powers should make such a statement, because it is the only guarantee for our populations that appropriate measures will be taken whatever the nature of the nuclear accident causing radioactive fallout on their territory.
Finally, we must ensure international solidarity in the event of nuclear disaster. In this respect I welcome the prompt action taken by IAEA to draft an international convention on assistance in case of nuclear accidents or similar risks of radiation exposure.
I should like to touch briefly on two other problems affecting our environment and health: deforestation and the gradual death of European forests rank high among our concerns.
In Europe the death of forests is associated with acid rain. The scientists cannot give a definite explanation of the complex process which leads to the slow death of European forests, but all scientists agree that atmospheric pollution is one of the major causes. Vast regions of central and northern Europe are seeing their age-old forests dying slowly. The effects are disastrous from the standpoint of the ecology and the economy, not to mention human health. That effort is essential at the level of international co-operation. Belgium has lent its full support to the major initiatives taken in the past 15 years to protect the environment. My country will preside over the work of the "European Year of the Environment", to be organized in 1987 within the framework of the European Economic Community. At the national level, the Belgian Government continues its work to combat atmospheric pollution.
But Europe is not the only continent affected by the disappearance of forests. In Africa, America and Asia tropical forests are now disappearing as a result of human activities. The disappearance of tropical forests is indeed a real threat to mankind. For many years the drought which has struck many countries in Africa has demonstrated the importance of respecting ecological balances.
The international community is gradually becoming more aware of this as a result, inter-alia, of the work of the United Nations. This new awareness must now be translated into action.
Belgium stands ready to join its European, African and international partners to define a co-ordinated and concerted strategy to combat desertification in which man would be at the center of action. That was stated by the Belgian Prime Minister at the recent Silva Conference in Paris. The elaboration of such a common strategy is the only way to mobilize efficient ways and means to see our forests reborn and to contact desert and famine.
I turn now to another issue. The illicit drug trafficking and drug abuse are an international problem which increasingly threatens the general health of the population and undermines society and its institutions. There is a link between drug trafficking and the increase in crime and terrorism, the regression of national economies and the modification of social systems.
The international community must fully assume its responsibilities in this area. Most of our Governments have intensified their fight against drug abuse, drug production and trafficking. The international dimension of the problem makes co-operation at the regional and international levels essential.
Last June, the 12 member States of the European Community decided to increase their cooperation in the fight against drugs, while ensuring that their actions would not duplicate the work carried out in other multilateral forums.
Belgium believes that the,United Nations has a unique role to play in this field and welcomes two initiatives taken within the Organization's framework, namely, the draft convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the proposed international conference on drug abuse and illicit trafficking. My country has approved both initiatives within the framework of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs and the Economic and Social Council.
I have already mentioned another scourge that threatens mankind and which can
be fought only through efficient international co-operation. I refer to
terrorism. In recent weeks the horrendous events in Karachi, Istanbul and Paris
demonstrated once again how this criminal madness increasingly threatens us in our daily life.
General Assembly resolution 40/61, adopted by consensus last year, unequivocally condemns terrorist acts. This is an important stage in our common fight, in order to contribute to the implementation of that important resolution, I wish to inform representatives that measures have been taken in my country to ratify the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents, which was signed in New York on 14 December 1973 and the International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, which was adopted in New York on 17 December 1979.
Recent developments show clearly that efforts undertaken by the United Nations must be sustained and increased-, above all, they must be efficiently and actively supported for all states. It is essential that the international community as a whole steadfastly reiterates that no political goal can ever justify resort to terrorism. Our loathing for such actions must be clearly reaffirmed. When I spoke last year on this same issue I raised the possibility of drafting a convention or. the use of booby-trap devices along the lines of the Convention against the taking of hostages. I should like to repeat the suggestion now. Of course my country would also be prepared to support any other proposal to intensify the fight against this scourge.
Another issue that I should like to speak on is human rights which directly affect man's ability to live in dignity. A striking example of violations of human rights is South Africa. In his statement made on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Community, my British colleague reflected the horror inspired in us by the policy of apartheid, our greatest concern over the extremely distressing situation in South Africa, and our firm commitment to contribute to the abolition of apartheid in all its manifestations. In the course of this session I shall speak again on this matter, as we did at the recent special session on Namibia. Today I shall comment in a more general manner. This year Belgium is once again a member of the Commission on Human Rights, thus demonstrating the great interest that my country attaches to matters relating to human rights.
Aside from the events that took place during the last session of the Commission on Human Rights, I should like to stress some main trends that are taking shape in the United Nations in the field of human rights and to mention paths we should like to see followed.
First, it seems to me that our Organization, through its various organs, has almost completed its process of establishing universal norms pertaining to fundamental rights. From now on there is the danger that we would be witnessing exercises of merely refining those norms, which appears absurd when the most fundamental human rights are still being ignored or violated in certain parts of the world. We are therefore of the opinion that the efforts of the international community should now be focused essentially on the implementation of existing norms.
I have already had the opportunity to express before the Assembly Belgium's views on what could be an ideal system for maintaining observance of human rights through a universal mechanism, as well as through interactive regional arrangements. We are still far from this, but we would like to emphasize here the need to strengthen international co-operation in the field of human rights. Such co-operation cannot be kept within national boundaries. The international community must address itself specifically to the fate of individuals and peoples. One should be able to draw the line between what would be inadmissible interference in the internal affairs of States, such as intervening their political, social and economic order, and objective concern for international co-operation properly understood.
We acknowledge that, universal as it should be, the implementation of human rights requires subtle balances which take into consideration social, cultural and historical elements. Such considerations invite us to be cautious. We do not want to condemn; we wish first of all to understand individual situations. That
nevertheless implies that, in return the authorities involved should not only co-operate in order to clarify the situation but also agree that wherever a common examination of a situation revealed unacceptable shortcomings, that situation should be remedied. Belgium has always emphasized and encouraged the progress made, rather than tried to highlight remaining flaws.
As I have said, Belgium is of the opinion that our Organization must decisively turn to the implementation of human rights. We therefore regret in particular the present financial situation which the Organization is having to face. Indeed, and even if it is only for the time being, various essential bodies dealing with: the implementation of those rights have been silenced. The Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was not able to meet this year and the Human Rights Committee was obliged to reduce the number of its annual meetings. The share of the United Nations budget allocated to activities in the field of human rights is modest. That sector has been severely affected by austerity measures and retention of such cuts in coming years could very quickly jeopardize the whole system of the promotion and protection of human rights.
In the same spirit we wish to maintain and build on the new approaches of the Commission on Human Rights, to the implementation and promotion of rights as reflected in the monographs on forced disappearances, summary executions, religious intolerance and torture.
In this connection, Belgium will work to strengthen the institution of special rapporteurs appointed by the Commission to investigate violations of human rights. We will also call for the co-operation of the Governments involved. Indeed, we believe, as does the Secretary-General, that this is the direction in which we should move in future. I have just mentioned the financial crisis our Organization is facing. In his report on the work of the Organization the Secretary-General declares that it is ; uncertain whether the United Nations will remain solvent until the end of the year. This current session of the General Assembly must therefore take immediate action to resolve the crisis.	f
As the President of the Assembly said in his opening address, one must cut " bureaucratic waste, redirect expenditure to priority areas and streamline the administration. I might add that one should rationalize and lighten the intergovernmental mechanism, which is the responsibility of Member States and for which the United Nations Secretariat is but a support. The Group of 18 : Intergovernmental Experts has submitted a set of useful proposals to that effect, heading in the right direction.
We should also be able to agree on a method of planning and budgeting procedures which would ensure a positive consensus on the budget and on the programs of the United Nations. That would help to avoid a situation in which Member States contributing the largest share of the budget find themselves obliged to abstain or vote against the budget.
The agenda of the present session of the General Assembly is indeed heavy. May our work proceed in good faith and with goodwill, without which all dialog will remain sterile, and may we find our inspiration in the hopes of all men and women for peace, dignity and prosperity.