Let me begin by expressing the deep sympathy we all
feel with the people of Mexico following the serious earthquakes that struck their
country and their capital last week. The tragic and widespread consequences, loss
of life, human suffering and material damage have made the deepest impact
world-wide. The international community stands ready to help the Mexican people in
the enormous tasks that now lie ahead. Let me also join the previous speakers who
have congratulated you, Sir, on your election to the very important office of
President of this session of the General Assembly, i feel confident that your wise
and firm leadership will contribute greatly to the successful outcome of our work this autumn.
The fortieth anniversary of the united Nations calls for reflection and assessment of the future role of the Organization.- In his report the Secretary-General says:
"He must be realistic about our difficulties and the dangers that we face. But let us also resolve to find the ways by which, together, we can surmount them." (A/40/1, p. 16)
Norway fully concurs with the Secretary-General in his call for such a constructive and forward-looking approach. But, unfortunately, the realities today do not always correspond with the aims and objectives of the United Nations Charter. Too often we see a lack of the political will to assume collective responsibility and to respect and abide by the decisions taken. Political rhetoric and verbal condemnations have often replaced efforts and taken time for the work of seeking realistic and constructive solutions. This is harmful to the reputation of the United Nations and, even more important, it is contrary to the long-term interests of Member States. We urgently need to alter this. Meraber states must face up to this challenge realistically and reaffirm their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter, not only in words but, above all, in deeds.
The challenges we are facing today, grave conflicts the resolution of which requires concerted international action, explain why a strengthening of the united Nations is so important. Let me comment on some of the more pressing problems with which the Organization is faced.
In south Africa the situation is explosive. Opposition to apartheid is growing every day. Apartheid represents a serious violation of basic human rights as laid down in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Apartheid also constitutes a serious threat to peace and stability in southern Africa.
The response of the South African Government to the legitimate demands for meaningful political participation by the non-white majority has been disappointing, to say the least. One should have no illusions that the recent attempts at reforming the apartheid system will bring any fundamental changes in the system as such. They are mostly directed towards maintaining it in another form.
In July this year the South African Government declared a state of emergency, detaining hundreds of political opponents and using violent means to suppress all political manifestation. These acts of oppression must be strongly condemned.
The Norwegian Government firmly believes that effective international pressure must be brought to bear on the South African Government to put an end to apartheid by peaceful means. Norway has therefore repeatedly advocated that the United Nations Security Council adopt mandatory and comprehensive economic sanctions against South Africa.
In the absence of this, Norway and the other Nordic countries have adopted a number of unilateral measures in order to increase the pressure on south Africa to abolish apartheid. In 1978 the Nordic countries adopted a program of action for this purpose, and in March this year Norway took the initiative in reviewing and extending this program. The result of this will be that the Nordic Foreign Ministers will finalize an extended Nordic program of action at their meeting in Oslo next month.
In addition to these Nordic measures, last March the Norwegian Government presented a national plan of action in order further to reduce Norway's trade and other economic relations with South Africa. This plan has already resulted in substantially reduced imports of any commodities from south Africa.
In the present situation even limited sanctions may have an important psychological effect on the South African Government by making it clear that the apartheid system is unacceptable to the world community. In recent months many countries have introduced various such measures. In July the Security Council, in its resolution 569 (19S5), recommended that member States adopt a number of voluntary measures against South Africa. Norway welcomes these developments and urges other countries to implement similar measures. However, mandatory sanctions by the Security Council are still our primary request. Words of condensation of apartheid are not enough.
Norway also appeals urgently to the South African Government to lift the state of emergency, to release all political prisoners and to start a dialog with the genuine leaders of the black population with the aim of abolishing apartheid and introducing equal rights for all population groups.
The question of Namibia also constitutes a major challenge to the United Nations. My Government continues to believe that every effort must be made to achieve a negotiated settlement of the Namibian conflict in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978). We have noted in this respect the efforts made by the Secretary-General and by the United States and would encourage them to continue their endeavors. The independence of Namibia is long overdue.
The Middle East continues to be one of the most serious areas of conflict in the world. Lebanon remains in turmoil. There is no foreseeable end to the tragic armed conflict between Iraq and Iran with its meaningless loss of life and endless human suffering.
The Arab-Israeli conflict is still an unresolved issue, we have, however, witnessed some positive developments. The peace initiatives taken by King Hussein of Jordan and President Mubarak of Egypt are steps forward in the search for a settlement. It is our impression that the cautious Israeli response enhances this prospect of renewing the peace process.
Peace and security in the Middle East can ultimately be achieved only through a negotiated settlement that takes due account of the interests of all the parties concerned. Such a settlement must be based on the united Nations Charter and Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and negotiations should take place directly between the parties concerned.
Peace-keeping operations constitute one of the most important and successful tools of the United Nations in its efforts to maintain international peace and security.
The situation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) illustrates, however, the great difficulties that a peace-keeping force may encounter. UNIFIL is still  in a position to fulfill its mandate. In spite of the difficult circumstances in which the Force has operated over the years, UNIFIL's presence has symbolized the will of the international community to restore peace and security and to re-establish Lebanese authority in the area in accordance with the resolutions of the Security Council.
As a major troop-contributing country, Norway is concerned about the present unsatisfactory situation for the Force. It is of particular importance that UNIFIL be given a realistic opportunity to perform the tasks it has been assigned. UNIFIL should be allowed to deploy its troops down to the international border. The parties involved must genuinely co-operate with UNIFIL in discharging its mandate. The security of the forces must not be unduly jeopardized. Responsibility for that rests primarily with the parties; but the Security Council also has an obligation to see to it that the Force's mandate can be implemented in accordance with the Council's own decisions.
Before the present mandate expires in mid-October, careful consideration must be given to all aspects of UNIFIL*s presence in southern Lebanon.
In Asia also we are faced with serious conflicts with widespread international consequences. The Soviet Union's military intervention in Afghanistan not only causes great suffering and losses for the Afghan people and increases tension in the region, but it is also me of the major issues preventing normalization between the East and the West. In spite of the efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General, the Afghan problem remains unresolved. The core of the problem is the unwillingness of the Soviet Union to consider in a serious way the question of troop withdrawal. We urge the Soviet Union to reconsider its position. A solution would significantly improve international relations.
In Kampuchea we are confronted with a similar situation. Kampuchea has been occupied for nearly seven years by Vietnamese forces. The occupying Power shows no concrete willingness to contribute to a lasting and peaceful solution as drawn up by the General Assembly: first, the total withdrawal of all foreign troops and, secondly, the right of the Kampuchean people freely to choose their own government.
In Central America, the persistent efforts of the Contadora countries offer the best hope for resolving problems in the area. The aim is to lessen the military tension and build confidence among the neighboring countries. Durable solutions can best be sought by the countries of the region themselves. In the opinion of sty Government, it is of particular importance to prevent outside interference. But other nations should render economic support and co-operation and encourage political and social reforms as a basis for a truly democratic and peaceful development.
Disarmament has remained a central and important concern of our world Organization over the years. The challenge is especially urgent in the field of nuclear weapons. It is highly significant therefore - and it must be welcomed -that the United States and the Soviet Union have resumed their talks in Geneva. Norway fully supports those negotiations as a means of obtaining substantial reductions in the number of nuclear arms and in securing the removal of the most destabilizing nuclear-weapon systems.
It is equally important to prevent an arms race in outer space.
It is our hope that the Geneva talks will result in agreements covering reductions and limitations of offensive and defensive weapon systems.
The maintenance of the non-proliferation regime is of vital importance for international peace and security. During the Third Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) that aspect was strongly emphasized. Moreover, the Review Conference has demonstrated the urgent need for further measures to halt the nuclear-arms buildup and to begin nuclear disarmament.
We should continue to take concrete measures also within the United Nations framework to create a favorable climate for new progress in disarmament. Our task must clearly be to broaden the areas of agreement and put the collective weight of the Member states behind our recommendations. in this way our Organization will be able to make significant contributions to our efforts in search of security at a substantially lower level of armament. Similarly, the negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament should be expedited; in particular, it would be of special importance to move forward on a comprehensive ban on all nuclear tests.
For our part, we have also stated that we would be ready to support proposals to create a basis for an agreed, balanced and verifiable freeze on nuclear arms in the context of negotiations on substantial reductions.
Although substantial and balanced reductions in nuclear weapon are of primary importance, it is also vital to achieve progress in the field of conventional disarmament. We believe that a verified, lower level of forces in Europe, as a result of the Vienna negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions, would be an important contribution to stability in that region. It would also be conducive to building confidence in East-West relations. The Stockholm Conference on Disarmament in Europe has taken up this particular task. Norway considers it most important that the confidence-building measures laid down in the Final Act of Helsinki be developed further.
The commemoration this summer of the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Final Act of Helsinki reminded us that many expectations relating to the process of security and co-operation in Europe have not been met. However, through persistent efforts and by taking small steps at a time it should be possible to reduce mutual suspicion and insecurity and break down the barriers between East and West in Europe
We regret that agreement on a comprehensive convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons has not been readied despite painstaking efforts in the Conference on Disarmament. The elimination of all chemical weapons from existing arsenals must be our aim. It is a matter of the utmost concern that such abhorrent weapons have been used in recent years and that they continue to be considered as militarily useful. Both the buildup and the spread of such weapons should be halted and a process of reduction should be started.
International stability depends to a great extent upon our ability to secure a balanced development in all parts of the world. If we succeed in reducing the present levels of armament - as we must - some of the resources released in this process should be used for the benefit of the poorer nations. For those reasons Norway puts great emphasis on and will take an active part in next year's International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development.
The recently concluded World Conference to Review and Appraise the Achievements of the United Nations Decade for women succeeded in adopting by consensus a forward-looking strategy. This is a highly satisfactory result. After 10 years of struggle and confrontation, the Conference was able to affirm a global commitment to seek long-term changes in order to eliminate discrimination against women. We have thereby been provided with an important set of propositions that will guide our renewed efforts to help women to move into the social and economic mainstream of their societies.
The General Assembly should at this session take steps to ensure that the many recommendations are systematically followed up and monitored by the United Nations. Norway intends to participate actively in the .deliberations at this session of the General Assembly in order to arrive at a comprehensive approach within the United Nations to issues related to women.
The United Nations has over the past 40 years made substantive advances in elaborating international human rights standards. The Covenants and Conventions that grew out of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constitute the basis for promoting equal and fundamental rights for people in all parts of the world. Specific mechanisms have also been established by the United Nations to monitor compliance with these agreements. Although the existing international instruments are fairly comprehensive, improvements can and should be made. Norway supports these efforts of the United Nations and stands ready to participate actively and constructively in this field.
In spite of present international rules and regulations, violations of human rights continue to take place to an alarming extent. In many parts of the world, discrimination, arbitrary executions, torture and denial of basic political and civil rights seem to be the rule rather than the exception. The most pressing challenge facing us today in the field of human rights is the practical implementation of agreed standards. This obligation rests primarily with the Governments themselves within their area of responsibility. The international community, however, in particular through the relevant organs of the United Nations, has a responsibility to oppose and as far as possible prevent violations wherever they occur. This international responsibility roust be exerted in a non-discriminatory way irrespective of.where the violation takes place. The application of basic human rights standards must be truly universal.
A priority task must therefore be to strengthen the ability of the United Nations to deal with human rights violations. The establishment of a position such as the united Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights will in our opinion be a useful instrument to this end.
The refugee problem is also a joint responsibility of the international community. It is important that we all contribute to its solution. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees plays a key role in the efforts to alleviate the plight of refugees, in providing humanitarian assistance and protection and in finding countries for resettlement.
International humanitarian work, and in particular assistance to refugees, is an important element and has a long tradition in Norway's foreign policy. This policy will be continued and we will do our utmost to strengthen and support the activities of the High Commissioner.
The United Nations is aptly described as a corner-stone in Norway's foreign policy. To enhance the role of the Organization is an important task for the Norwegian Government. Our aim is an organization that is effective and vigorous, that serves the needs of Member States and that plays a central role in the maintenance of international peace and security, in the promotion of economic and social development and in the protection of fundamental human rights. Only if our Organization can truly be said to be "a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends", as formulated in the Charter, will we be able to build a more peaceful, stable and just world.


Owing to professional chance and our convergent interests, I have had the good fortune to know Ambassador de Pinies for many years. It is with rare pleasure that I convey to him the heartfelt congratulations of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its fortieth session. I am certain that his rich experience in international affairs and his qualities as a statesman will help to ensure that our work meets with the success that we all desire.
To our brother, His Excellency Mr. Paul Lusaka, we renew our expressions of pride and satisfaction at the ability, effectiveness and calmness with which he presided over the work of the thirty-ninth session.
We pay a tribute also to the Secretary-General for the many initiatives he has taken in the cause of peace and on behalf of countries which by nature or fate has not favored.
Z wish also, on behalf of ray delegation, to request the delegation of Mexico to convey our sympathy and support to its Government and our condolences to the families which have suffered so greatly as a result of the earthquakes which recently ravaged Mexico.
It has often been said that the vision of the founders of our Organization and their attitude to our collective future were not basically different from our own. Their philosophy was based on two premises: the wisdom of nations and the balanced division of responsibilities in the moral and material reconstruction of a world plunged into indescribable chaos by the ravages of war and fascist totalitarian ideologies. They had to restructure international relations in order to safeguard a peace which had been won through enormous sacrifices, to ensure economic recovery, to promote the social progress of peoples and to guarantee human rights. Finally, to crown it all, an international authority was to see to it that the actions of nations in furtherance of the purposes of the Charter would be co-ordinated and harmonized. That was the scenario for a better world, in which all peoples would feel safe and States would undertake to subordinate the promotion of their own interests to the quest for the common good.
Once the facts had been established, the norms promulgated and the means defined, it was our job to build upon them. But 40 years later we are still wondering whether the vision of our predecessors was not too idealistic, whether our Organization is still relevant and whether we have failed in the mission bequeathed to us. The principles remain valid, while priorities have been rearranged and the perception of our goals has changed in the light of positive and negative developments in the world situation. Nevertheless, our heritage has not been excessively compromised, and we must undertake a periodic evaluation, which will form the framework for our discussions as we commemorate the fortieth anniversary of our Organization.
This anniversary coincides with the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, to the drafting of which all contributed, in particular the Afro-Asian, Latin American and socialist countries. Since 1960, more than 70 of us have achieved sovereignty or recovered it. Thus, our full participation in international affairs has been directly or indirectly fostered by the adoption of that Declaration, which represents the culmination of the struggle waged by the democratic forces and the expression of the solidarity among peoples.
Some would say that decolonization, which is an inevitable, irreversible historical process, would have come about even had the United Nations not existed. It is sufficient to list the cases of decolonization between the two world wars and recall the insistence with which we invoked the Charter during the anti-colonial struggle to be convinced of the opposite. Certainly, it is in the field of decolonization that the United Nations has succeeded in playing its role as a center for the co-ordination of efforts, to the extent that preconditions, hesitations and ambiguities have given way to reason.
The same could have been said of Namibia, where so many hopes have always been pinned on the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) and the joint action of the United Nations Council for Namibia, the United Nations Commissioner for Namibia and the Special Committee of 24, to all of which we pay a tribute. We have identified the obstacles and they are all the fault of the Pretoria regime: the continued illegal occupation of an international Territory; the absurd linkage between the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola and the obligation of a usurper regime to give back what does not belong to it; the continued acts of aggression against the front-line States} the installation of a so-called interim administration; and the authorization given to national and transnational corporations to engage in excessive exploitation of the resources of the Territory.
All the means prescribed in Chapter VI of the Charter have been exhausted, and implementation of Article 41. has even begun. It is time for us seriously to consider binding sanctions and recourse to Article 42 if we wish to establish the authority of the Organization and prove to international public opinion and the South West Africa people's Organization (SWAPO), which is recognized as the sole authentic and legitimate representative of the Namibian people, that we want, and are able, to fulfill our responsibilities.
Recently there has been talk of the adverse effects of sanctions and reference has been made to history and to economic and humanitarian considerations. Until total independence is won, the Namibian people, like any other struggling people, is ready to make sacrifices.
It would be scandalous if, through our omissions and procrastination and the absence of true solidarity on the part of some of us, those sacrifices were in vain and the Pretoria regime managed to impose its own solution.
Another act of decolonization to be achieved relates to western Sahara. The Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries have recognized that the United Nations can make a major contribution to establishing a process and a mechanism which will make possible the effective exercise by the Sahraoui people of their legitimate sovereign rights. Direct negotiations between the two parties, the Kingdom of Morocco and the EOLISARIO Front, would eliminate the threats to peace, stability and security in the region.
The United Nations can be proud of its work in the field of decolonization and can commit itself to continuing that work until the colonial phenomenon has been totally eradicated, but can the same be said about development and the elimination of economic and social inequality? The network of institutions and organizations dealing with international economic, social and cultural co-operation is widespread and interlinked. We agreed, after arduous negotiations, to focus our action on integrated national development, the restructuring of economic relations among nations and the development of world economic security. None of those provisions violates the purposes or principles of the Charter, in particular those set forth in Chapter IX. Yet the results are mixed, not to say disappointing, mainly because of the changes that successive crises have imposed on priorities.
Thus, the idea of world economic security, which logically should have been our prime concern, has not always been supported by some among us. It has sometimes been ill -defined, sometimes complex, sometimes controversial, and often, on various pretexts, it has been reduced to some of its aspects that have been wisely referred to as instances of the interdependence of nations and problems. This could lead to excessive subordination or to conflicts of interest; and that,
when considered from the viewpoint of individual or collective selfishness, is inevitably reflected in a general imbalance and a gradual erosion of international economic co-operation - a phenomenon that in its turn has brought about marginalization, backwardness and the increasing impoverishment of the majority of the nations of the world.
It is therefore natural that the struggle of the third world to reverse this trend continues. It started with our demand for a new international economic order and the adoption of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. It will go on until we are sure that the international negotiations will lead to acceptance of the idea of economic security for all, because, if we accept the axiom that there is no development without security and no security without development, we must acknowledge that our actions must be simultaneous and not consecutive.
In any case, what security or development, whether integrated or not, can we boast of when we face inextricable, nightmarish debt problems? Is it not true that in the majority of cases the debt was incurred to ensure for our peoples more rapid development, more equitable at the international level and better distributed at the national level? Is it not true that we continue to be the victims of the erratic prices of raw materials, unfavorable terms of trade, fluctuations in interest and exchange rates and, recently, the too high priority accorded by banks and financial institutions to ideas of profitability?
Since the first United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, held in New Delhi 21 years ago, it could be said that we have enjoyed rehashing the same arguments, we could reply that we have not always found the necessary understanding in our partners to remove obstacles in situations whose urgency and acuteness might have escaped them, we do not wish to dwell at length on missed opportunities. We assume it is agreed that the present discussion falls within the framework of a continuing significant consensus that the United Nations cannot
tolerate any further fragmentation of negotiations and of the decision-making system.
Two major challenges remain to be met: the critical economic situation in Africa and the problems of indebtedness and financing for development.
In Africa, disease, famine, malnutrition and poverty remain widespread. Twenty-one countries and 205 million inhabitants re still affected by drought. Domestic production and rates of growth have continually fallen since 1980. Serious balance-of-payments difficulties still exist and debt servicing alone, evaluated at $158 billion in 1984, is jeopardizing development and stability.
Over and above emergency assistance, the co-ordination of which is fortunately handled by the United Nations Office for Emergency Operations in Africa, the seriousness of these problems makes joint action by Africa and the international community necessary to revive, inter alia, long-term development and economic growth and to ensure appropriate structural reforms. African Heads of State and Government have made specific proposals in this connection, such as the convening of a United Nations conference on the economic situation in Africa, the organization of a conference on African debt and the establishment of special funds for Africa.
The negative development of the economic situation has compelled us to call for the speedy convening of an international conference on money and finance for development. A process of consultation would be established between debtors and creditors to agree on more flexible measures for rescheduling and the adjustment of modalities for granting official development assistance. But, despite the moratoriums, rescheduling and structural adjustments, questions of development and financing will not be satisfactorily resolved until the problem of indebtedness is resolved.
We are shocked and overwhelmed by what we do not hesitate to call the scandal of the century - the fact that the net transfer of capital to the developing countries was $180 billion from 1978 to 1983, but became negative in 1984 and that the world debt amounts to approximately $900 billion, whereas military expenditures amounted to $820 billion for 1984 alone.
The figures speak for themselves, and it is difficult to resist simplistic equations, particularly since few nations would agree to sacrifice their security for the development of others. But it would be wrong for us not to stress the link between development and disarmament. The study requested by the United Nations on the allocation to development purposes of funds released by disarmament was published 23 years ago, and where are we now? In times of political crisis, development is relegated to second place and that concept has been overshadowed by the emphasis nations place on strengthening their military security either individually or in the framework of existing alliances, which naturally implies recognition of the failure of the collective security system envisaged in the Charter.
Development, disarmament and security are for us aspects o£ the same situation. They must be the concern of us all, not merely of some Powers or of the the two blocs. That is why we have always advocated that the right place for finding a solution to these problems must be the United Nations. According to Article 26 of the Charter:
"... the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating... plans to be submitted to the Members of the United Nations for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments", and Article 11 says that:
"The General Assembly may consider... the principles governing disarmament and the regulation of armaments, and may make recommendations with regard to such principles to the Members or to the Security Council or to both".
The constitutional provisions and the relevant machinery exist, but in practice two Powers take care of everything with, from time to time, consultation of the members of the two alliances, and the United Nations is reduced to a marginal role. This marginalization cannot continue because at some point it will challenge the consensus we achieved with regard to the limitation, control, reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons.
We cannot avoid the complexity of the problem, given the conditions inherent to each stage and the transition from one stage to another. As soon as some progress is made in limitation, difficulties arise at the level of verification, research and development bring about a revision of the ceiling of limitation and of the list of types of weapons concerned, and reduction is seen in the context of political criteria and, therefore, subordinated to the evolution of the relationship between the military or nuclear Powers. Uncertainty is the rule, and we cannot blame propaganda alone for the favorable reactions of international public opinion when we talk of zones of peace, such as the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean, a freeze in the deployment of new weapons, moratoriums, zones free from chemical or nuclear weapons and the non-militarization of environments considered to be the common heritage of mankind, that is, the sea-bed, the ocean floor and outer space.
Disarmament is too important to be left in the hands of technicians alone. More than ever before, political action is necessary and urgent. It is time for the United Nations to play the role of initiator and prime mover in establishing mutual trust among the nuclear Powers and for it to be included in bilateral discussions, directly and through providing it with appropriate information.
He base ourselves on the same mutual trust when we speak of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Already certain Powers - and major ones at that - are allowed to escape the constraints of that Treaty, but distrust persists vis-a-vis the signatories, who intend to place nuclear energy at the service of development, and no mention is made of article VI of the Treaty, whereby the nuclear Powers have undertaken to conduct negotiations in good faith in order to eliminate nuclear weapons. If everyone fulfilled their obligations, the Treaty would be more fully respected.
In the field of conventional disarmament, what we have just said about the role of the United Nations is valid here too. However, we must bear in mind the new dimensions - namely, the existence and continuation of conflicts and tensions, as well as the responsibility and the ability of the United Nations to prevent them and resolve them. In principle, if the conditions of military, political and economic security were met, and if at all times in all places and at all times there was a spirit of amity, tolerance and good neighborliness, peaceful coexistence and principles relating to international sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference, respect and mutual advantage, we could then say that conflicts and tensions would disappear.
But the facts have produced a different situation. National interest has not yet managed to blend with general interest. Our society	although claiming universality, is still human with all its strengths weaknesses. The States concerned themselves hesitate to bring their disputes t n international forum, while the United Nations is not sure of its authority and of the adequacy of the means made available to it by the Member States.
We are devoted to the cardinal principle of peaceful negotiated settlement of disputes. Although everything hinges on the kind of dispute and on the readiness of the States concerned, we must provide for a certain measure of flexibility and not stick blindly to the order in which the means are enumerated in the Charter. Hence we continue to believe that, in the context of the development of international law, it is desirable that some categories of conflicts be submitted to binding arbitration.
It is not unreasonable to think that such a procedure would have a positive effect on a peaceful and independent reunification of the Korean homeland, without foreign interference; on the war between Iran and Iraq, which might be settled round a conference table even after all efforts at conciliation and mediation had unfortunately failed; on the search for a political solution to the deadlocks in South-East Asia, Central America, the.Caribbean and South America; and on the situation in Cyprus, where a solution entails respect for the relevant United Nations resolutions and for the sovereignty, unity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus. Some seek shelter behind the provisions of the Charter in order to entrust the task of settling some of these conflicts to regional and sub-regional bodies; but sooner or later there will be leveled against us the accusation that we are more likely to generate and maintain crises than to defuse then.
The experience of the past 40 years has put us to the test with regard to the question of the Middle East and the situation in South Africa, matters on which world public opinion has judged and continues to judge us rather harshly.
In the Middle East, the context, the conditions and the machinery for a settlement do exist. Despite our efforts, the cycle of violence continues, to such an extent that the very existence of Lebanon is threatened. The rights of a people for which we have a special responsibility are being negotiated at the whim of alliances and of strategic or ideological interests, under the cover of various plans which leave us somewhat skeptical. Are we from now on to understand that the United Nations plan for the final settlement of the Palestinian problem is doomed to oblivion in the Security Council? Are we to be satisfied with expediency which, because of its very nature and its inoperative character, merely strengthens Israeli intransigence? Were this to be so, we would be creating an irreversible situation to the benefit of hegemonism and exclusivism.
The fortieth anniversary of the Organization affords us an opportunity to reconsider the overall question of the Middle East and in particular the question of Palestine, and to relaunch the international conference in which the Palestinians must participate on an equal footing with the other parties, in keeping with resolution 3375 (XXX) of 10 November 1975. We are convinced that a settlement of the question of Palestine founded on the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people is the key element of an overall political settlement of the conflict in the Middle East - the establishment of which cannot be realized without removing the ostracism in which some have placed the Palestine Liberation Organization.
The situation is no different in South Africa, for we have allowed it to deteriorate through our indecision and our .jppsaseEent of the apartheid regime, we are witnessing a real political and social revolution, involving the African National Congress of South Africa, the forces of liberation and of the struggle against apartheid, students, young people, trade unionists and religious circles. Some see foreign intervention there. Others, such as we ourselves, are convinced that it is a revolution above all African-inspired for the advent of a just and democratic society.
It was to be expected that reactionary circles would rush to support certain reforms and half-measures to turn the South African revolution away from its objectives and preserve the established order. It would have been more logical, however little some may be faithful to our principles, to return to the spirit of 1945 and to recognize that the creation of our Organization was also a revolution, born of the determination to put an end for ever to the new order that fascism and Nazism wanted to impose upon us.
We have noticed that, as in every general debate, we have been unable to resist the temptation to get out old files, to go through them, add what we believe to be new elements and remove what seems to be no longer relevant. That exercise, which lawyers entrust to their clerks, sometimes allows us to obtain information whose wise and timely use permits us to draw conclusions supporting our argument and then to regard the file as closed. But we have not come here mainly to make demands, argue our case or pass judgment. Our approach continues to be political; our desire is to find solutions, and therefore one can well understand our frustration when at the en.* of the session, or even during the course of it, the files are put away and closed, only to be reopened for use in other debates.
However, the current session to some extent lades the sense of futility to which unfortunately we have become accustomed. Indeed, we are convinced that our thoughts should be devoted to defining the conditions for the creation of a better world for future generations. It might be wondered whether there exists a better world than that in which we live, which, after all, has been free of world war for two generations, a world which, we are told, enjoys globally a prosperity unmatched in human history, a world in which science and technology are at our service - but also unfortunately a world where there are more shadows than rays of light.
However, it is quite natural for a given society at each stage of its development to regard itself as the best. Here it is sufficient to recall the Age of Enlightenment. But, just as a nation is dedicated to striving to develop and flourish, the destiny of the international society is to surpass its previous achievements. In that context, we say: Yes, there will always be a better world than that which it suggested to us, and better than the one we leave behind. That is our vision. It is not merely wishful thinking, but will be the outcome of the dynamic of history. It is our hope that present and future realities will reflect it better.
I wish to conclude by reading out to the Assembly a few extracts from the message sent by Mr. Didier Ratsiraka, President of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar, to the Secretary-General on 8 May, as follows:
"When the international community is commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the victory over Nazism and fascism at the end of the Second World War, the struggle waged against them, the people and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar once again reaffirm their firm adherence to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and recognize the need to support and strengthen the United Nations in order to make it an
effective instrument which can play its crucial role in the maintenance of international peace and security... The struggle against all forms of injustice, racial discrimination and Fascist ideologies and practices is one
Madagascar. The people and the Government of Madagascar have always been opposed to fascism and all other forms of totalitarian ideologies and practices based on intolerance, hatred and racial terror, and all forms of domination and hegemony.
"He are convinced that, despite all the difficulties it encounters, the United Nations will develop between nations friendly relations based on respect for the principle of equality of the rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, and will achieve international co-operation by developing and fostering respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and will be able to preserve peace for mankind as a whole."


It gives me great pleasure to join those who have spoken before me. Sir, in congratulating you on your assumption of the high office of President of the Assembly. Your skills and ability, your experience and leadership, are well known. Consequently we could not have found a person better suited than you to guide our deliberations at this important juncture. Your election is a tribute to your personal qualities and to your country. We are confident that your guidance will make this session of the General Assembly fruitful and productive.
I should also like to take this opportunity to express my sincere gratitude to Ambassador Lusaka of Zambia, who served with great distinction as President of the Assembly during its thirty-ninth session. Like those who have spoken before me, I wish to express my admiration for the way in which Ambassador Lusaka carried out his task. His presidency has earned both him and his country great honor.
On behalf of the Swedish Government, I wish to express to the Government and people of Mexico our deepest sympathy for the great human suffering and extensive material damage the recent earthquake in Mexico cost them. The people of Sweden were deeply distressed to learn about that almost incomprehensible natural disaster. I wish to assure the representative of Mexico of my Government's readiness to contribute in assisting Mexico in its emergency and in its heavy task of reconstruction.
During this session of the General Assembly the United Nations will celebrate its fortieth anniversary. This gives me a welcome opportunity to confirm that Sweden's membership of the United Nations and the obligations it implies remain a cornerstone of Swedish foreign policy.
One of the most important changes during the past 40 years is that the United Nations has become almost universal. At a time of ever-growing interdependence it is more important than over to safeguard this valuable asset. More than a hundred new independent States have been admitted as members. Largely owing to the United Nations, it was possible to accelerate the process of decolonization.
The basic task of the united Nations of maintaining international peace and security is more important than ever in the age of nuclear weapons. In this area, the Organization is facing a number of difficulties. The Secretary-General has stimulated a necessary international discussion on the possibilities of strengthening the role of the United Nations in this respect.
Under the Charter, a special responsibility has been placed upon the permanent members of the Security Council. It depends mainly on them whether or not the United Nations can be used as an effective instrument for the maintenance of international peace and security and for the promotion of a peaceful development in the world.
The arms race continues unimpeded. As emphasized in the United Nations study on security concepts, no State can any longer build its security exclusively on its own military strength. Even the nuclear-weapon States are ultimately dependent for their security on decisions taken in capitals far from their own territories.
Issues of war and peace and international development cannot be left exclusively to the great Powers. This has been underlined in the so-called Five-Continent Peace Initiative, signed by Heads of State and Government from six countries, including Sweden. In this initiative it is emphasized that non-nuclear-weapon States also have the right to make their voices heard with regard to nuclear weapons.
Today, nuclear weapons are a threat to the survival of mankind. More and more States are beginning to discuss nuclear weapons also in terms of international law. The Charter of the United Nations prohibits the threat or use of force. The use of force in self-defense that is recognized in the Charter must be proportionate to the force used by the attacker. Furthermore, it should be noted that existing international law relating to armed conflict contains some general principles which outlaw certain methods of warfare. Relevant principles in this context are inter alia the principle of distinction between military and civilian objects, the ban on methods and means that cause unnecessary suffering and the principle of proportionality. The latter principle prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause civilian losses that would be excessive in relation to the direct military advantage anticipated. Principles of international law place a heavy responsibility on any Government considering the use of nuclear weapons. The use of nuclear weapons in contravention of the principles to which I have just referred will be in conflict with international law.
Today, interest is focused on the bilateral negotiations in Geneva and the approaching summit meeting between the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States. But at the same time as these negotiations are in progress, the arsenals are growing. The proposal for a nuclear-weapon freeze remains valid. A freeze could be a first step towards reductions in, and the elimination of, nuclear weapons.
However, the bilateral negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States cannot diminish the importance of the multilateral work done here in the United Nations, at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and in other forums. For Europe, the process initiated by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the ongoing Stockholm Conference on Confidence and Security-Building Measures offer important opportunities of strengthening co-operation and detente. As the Stockholm Conference now approaches its final stages, it is essential that the negotiations enter into a more concrete phase as soon as possible.
The arms race knows no boundaries and is reaching to the oceans and out into space. Outer space is the common heritage of mankind. Peaceful space activities are today of great importance to all States for purposes of communication, for earth resources surveys and for weather observation. As far as security policy is concerned, satellites have important stabilizing functions, such as early warning and the verification of disarmament agreements.
The issue of preventing an arms race in outer space has attracted much attention recently. The Swedish Government believes that security cannot be achieved through technical solutions, as, for example, new military systems which can be introduced in outer space. They cannot solve the problem of reliance on nuclear deterrence, which is fundamentally a political problem. Only negotiated political solutions can be realistic. Sweden has also noted with concern the development of anti-satellite systems, which contribute to an increased risk of an arms race in outer space and to destabilizing development in a strategic area.
Another serious development in weapons technology is the obvious risk of a growing concentration on such weapons as sea and air-launched cruise missiles. The Swedish Government wishes in particular to emphasize the importance of reaching agreement on a ban on long-range cruise missiles.
The naval arms race has brought the military forces of the great Powers, including their nuclear weapons, to all continents. The United Nations study on the naval arms race, which has now been completed, demonstrates the importance of disarmament and confidence-building measures in this area as well as of measures to strengthen the rules of international law on naval warfare.
It ought to be of common interest to all States to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The best way of achieving this is to strengthen the international set of rules that has been drawn up through the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the work of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Against this background, we regret that some nuclear-weapon
States are not even prepared to negotiate on a complete nuclear-weapon test ban. This measure, above all others, would contribute to the prevention of a threatening proliferation of nuclear weapons.
There is also a risk that other types of weapons of mass destruction will spread to more states. The plans for the manufacture of binary chemical weapons
existing ban on the use of chemical weapons. The Swedish Government hopes that the ongoing negotiations at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva will lead to a comprehensive ban on such weapons.
The relationship between disarmament and development has been highlighted in several international studies. A national study has been carried out in Sweden pursuant to a recommendation of the United Nations. Sweden will take an active part in the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development that the General Assembly has decided to convene.
The struggle of the great Powers for power and influence tends often to aggravate local and regional crises. A growing part of the transfer of resources to the developing countries is given in the form of military support. The international arms transfers are increasing in magnitude.
The situation in southern Africa today constitutes a serious threat to international peace and security. In its defense of the abhorrent system of apartheid, the white minority regime in South Africa has demonstrated that it is prepared to use brutal force against the majority of the population as well as against neighboring countries.
are a cause of grave concern.
For decades we have appealed in vain to the white minority regime to abolish apartheid. Time is now running out. A peaceful solution should, however, still be possible. Therefore, decisive reforms roust be brought about without delay in order to transform South Africa into a democracy with equal rights for all. Only in this way can enormous suffering for all, including the white minority, be avoided.
The state of emergency in South Africa should be lifted immediately, the political prisoners released and a dialog initiated with the authentic leaders of the majority of the population.
Mandatory sanctions decided upon by the united Nations Security Council are, in the opinion of the Swedish Government, the most effective means of pressure at our disposal. They also represent a peaceful means, supported by prominent leaders of the black majority, its liberation movements and Africa as a whole.
Recently international pressure on South Africa has grown significantly. A further increase in this pressure is necessary. In the view of my Government the the Security Council resolution of 26 July this year was a step in the right direction. In that resolution member states were recommended to take certain measures against South Africa, such as the suspension of all new investments there.
These measures should now be made mandatory through a decision of the Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter. Only if applied by all States can they become truly effective. If South Africa does not fundamentally change its policy, the sanctions should be extended to cover other important areas, such as the economic field as a whole and communications.
Economic sanctions against South Africa are particularly appropriate as a contribution to the peaceful abolition of the policy of apartheid, as apartheid is also a system of economic repression. The apartheid policy facilitates the exploitation of the black population, which in turn is a prerequisite for the very high standard of living of the white minority compared with that of the black majority. The short-term economic benefits of the apartheid policy are an important explanation as to why the white minority adheres so strongly to that inhuman system.
The Swedish Government will continue its efforts to help increase pressure on South Africa. In addition to the measures already taken in Sweden this year -among them the strengthening of the ban on new investments introduced in 1979 - we shall take certain unilateral measures over and above the measures recommended by the Security Council. In particular, I should like to mention a recommendation to Swedish companies to seek markets and suppliers outside South Africa, as well as a ban on all imports into Sweden of agricultural products from South Africa.
Together with the other Nordic countries, we are working on an extension and strengthening of our 197S joint Nordic program of action against South Africa. A new, revised program will be presented at a meeting of the Nordic Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Oslo next month.
Namibia is a country under foreign occupation. Again South Africa is trying to force its political solutions on the Namibian people. This is a flagrant violation of the plan for independence and free elections in Namibia which was adopted by the Security Council as long ago as in 1978. Questions that fall outside the United Nations plan must not be used as a pretext to prevent its implementation.
However, South Africa shows no sign that it is willing to abandon its delaying tactics. The Security Council should, therefore, as envisaged in its resolution of June this year and without further delay, take effective action against South Africa, including mandatory sanctions, with a view to ensuring the implementation of the United Nations plan.
Sweden is increasing its assistance to the liberation movements, the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), to the refugees and to the victims and opponents of the apartheid system. Some of this assistance is channeled through various united Nations agencies. Together with our development assistance to the front-line States and to the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC), Swedish assistance to southern Africa for the current fiscal year amounts to more than 1.7 billion Swedish Krona. This represents one third of our total bilateral assistance to developing countries.
The situation in the Middle East remains grave. Different initiatives taken in the region indicate, however, a strong desire for peace. The efforts to advance the peace process must receive support.
A lasting solution to the conflict in the Middle East requires that the parties meet in direct negotiations. The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) must have the right to participate on an equal basis in such negotiations. An international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations might be a way of bringing the parties together and could serve as a framework for direct negotiations.
The right of Israel and other States in the area to exist must be recognized. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) should be the basis for a negotiated settlement. In our opinion, these resolutions mean that Israel should withdraw from the territories occupied in 1967 in exchange for peace being ensured within secure and recognized boundaries. For a settlement to be lasting, it is also required that the Palestinian people achieve self-determination. They have, if they so wish, the right to for a state of their own on the West Bank and in the Gaza strip.
The deep crisis in Lebanon remains. Apart from the many Lebanese victims of this tragic conflict, aggravated by the Israeli invasion, the fighting has caused suffering to the Palestinian refugees. Those refugees find themselves in an increasingly vulnerable situation. The main responsibility for finding a solution to the country's crisis rests with the Lebanese parties themselves. At the same timer external powers must respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon.
The war between Iran and Iraq has now lasted for five years. Widespread suffering and casualties on both sides have resulted. Civilian population centers have been bombed and chemical weapons used, in violation of the rules of international law.
It is the fervent hope of the Swedish Government that it will be possible to bring the conflict to an early end by peaceful means. We fully support the United Nations efforts in this respect. In particular, the elements of a peaceful solution presented to the parties by the Secretary-General should be recalled. The Swedish Prime Minister, Mr. Olof Palme, Special Representative of the Secretary-General, is closely following the development of the conflict and remains in contact with the parties concerned in order to promote such a solution.
The continuing armed intervention in Afghanistan by the Soviet Union constitutes a violation of the fundamental rules of international law and must be unequivocally condemned. The Swedish Government supports the efforts of the United Nations to find a negotiated solution to the conflict. The main element in a peaceful solution must be the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and the possibility for the people of Afghanistan to determine their own form of government and their own future. It is important that a report to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights has drawn attention to the violations of human rights in Afghanistan and the suffering of its people. For many years Kampuchea has been the victim of foreign intervention and convulsive internal strife. We recall the terrible suffering that the Kampuchean people went through under Pol Pot's regime. Human rights must be respected. It is our firm opinion that the Vietnamese occupation must end without delay, since it represents a violation of fundamental principles of international law. It is necessary to pursue the efforts to create conditions for the Kampuchean people again to determine their own future without external intervention and internal repression. We urge the parties concerned to spare no effort to achieve a negotiated settlement which ensures such a future.
The conflicts in Central America have their origin in economic and social injustices. They can only be solved by negotiations. The Contadora group, strengthened by the support group formed by four countries, must be given the opportunity of completing its work for peace in a climate which is not marked by East-West tensions and increased militarization. The international community must reject measures in violation of international law to overthrow a legitimate Government, such as boycott actions and support of armed groups. All States must pursue a policy which reduces the level of military armaments in the area and promotes negotiations. The peace talks in El Salvador should be resumed, as well as the bilateral talks between the United States ant! Nicaragua. The United States has a great and undeniable influence in this part of the world, and thus an important role to play to promote a peaceful development.
We note with satisfaction that the two Korean States have now begun to take cautious steps towards increased mutual contacts. These initiatives represent a possibility of allowing the armistice of the past thirty years to be followed by real peace in the Korean peninsula.
The protection of human rights is the concern of the international community as a whole, and not only an internal matter for individual countries. Violations of human rights in a country often have international repercussions in the form of increased tension and risks of international conflict. Equally, it is apparent that tension between States often leads be increased oppression within States.
For a long time Sweden has been involved in the struggle for human rights and fundamental freedoms. We actively participate in the further development of international norms in this field. The two Human Rights Covenants were adopted as early as 1966. Sweden has ratified these Covenants and has furthermore acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. My country has thereby accepted international supervision of the implementation of that Covenant. We urge all States to adhere to these fundamental treaties. We also urge them to accept the competence of the supervisory bodies as regards individual complaints as well.
The Swedish Government welcomes the fact that the international norms and principles in the area of human rights have been further supplemented by the Convention against torture which was unanimously adopted by this Assembly last year. Sweden intends to ratify that Convention before the end of the year.
The question of the abolition of the death penalty should remain on the international agenda. These efforts must not be delayed.
Unfortunately, there is a gap between theory and practice as regards human rights. Violations of human rights should be pointed out wherever they occur.
Sweden was pleased to support the adoption of the forward-looking strategies at the United Nations women's Conference in Nairobi. The consensus that was reached conveys optimism for the future and constitutes a firm ground for all to build on in order to promote equality between women and men.
The imbalances in the world economy represent a continued threat to international economic development. Determined and mutually supportive actions by all countries are essential. The struggle against protectionism is of the utmost importance. Both industrialized and developing countries must strive to expand and strengthen free trade. A new round of multilateral trade negotiations, carefully prepared, would constitute an important step in such a process. The special trade problems of the developing countries must be one area of priority.
Increased access to the markets of the industrialized countries is a prerequisite for the developing countries if they are to achieve a long-term solution to their serious debt problems, which are a threat not least to the development of the poorest countries.
Studies by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) clearly show the great need for increased development assistance to those countries. Furthermore, these studies demonstrate that the major part of all development assistance has given positive results. Donor countries must now increase their assistance, especially through the multilateral development agencies. Above all the International Development Association (IDA) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), with their knowledge, size and co-ordinating capacity, have an important role to play in solving today's development crisis. Without a determined and consistent financial strategy, based on co-operation between donors, recipients and financial institutions, we shall not be able to achieve sustainable progress, above all not in the poorest countries.
This applies particularly to Africa. The international community has already made a considerable effort to relieve this crisis-stricken continent. However, much remains to be done. Our aim must be to link disaster relief to long-term efforts. Productive agricultural capacity must be restored and the process of desertification and deforestation reversed.
The international program of action for the most vulnerable group of countries, those least developed, will soon be reviewed in Geneva. This will be a suitable occasion for donor countries and the least-developed countries to approach the problems jointly in a practical way.
The refugee situation in the world continues to be of the utmost concern. More and more people are forced to leave their countries. In addition to well-grounded fears of persecution, this is increasingly the result of war, internal conflicts and natural disasters. The need for immediate relief .is growing, while at the same time greater resources are required in order to achieve lasting solutions. In the poorest countries assistance to refugees should be combined with long-term development assistance, taking into account the needs of the local population in areas with many refugees. The Swedish Government greatly appreciates the efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and will continue to support this important humanitarian work.
During the past decade, the United Nations and the United Nations system have become an increasingly important instrument for joint efforts by Member States to cope with large-scale environmental problems such as soil erosion, air pollution and the handling of hazardous waste. International environmental co-operation requires that, through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), environmental aspects be included in large areas of the activities of the United Nations and of most of the specialized agencies.
Sweden is of the view that one of the really great challenges for the United Nations is to develop into an effective instrument for the co-operation of the Member States in counteracting the disastrous destruction of the environment which affects all mankind.
The narcotic drug situation in the world is alarming. Illegal production of narcotic drugs is increasing, illicit trafficking is becoming better organized and more difficult to combat. The international struggle against illegal drugs must be intensified. Sweden welcomes the various initiatives taken to achieve better co-ordination of united Nations efforts. We also welcome the Secretary-General's proposal for a world conference on drug abuse and illicit trafficking. It is our hope that the proposal will be adopted and that the conference will lead to global support for a concrete program of action.
The Swedish Government is deeply concerned that an organization of such importance as the United Nations should have serious financial problems. The principle of collective financial problems responsibility flows from Article 17 of the Charter. It should be obvious to all Member States that they must meet their obligations. The largest part of the financial deficit, which at the end of 1984 was estimated at $US 360 million, pertains to contributions withheld from important peace-keeping operations. In practice, this means that the deficit is largely financed by the troop-contributing countries.
Unilateral national decisions not to pay the contribution assessed by the United Nations, for whatever reason they are made, undermine morale and the fundamental principle of collective responsibility for the financing of the United Nations. Developments in this respect are alarming and we appeal especially to the Soviet Union and the United States to consider their responsibility. The work of the United Nations must have a financially sound foundation which enables the Organization to carry out its tasks in an effective and rational way.
The United Nations is a unique forum in which the States of the world can seek solutions to their ever-more-pressing problems. In every field interdependence grows stronger. Only through joint efforts can we create the necessary conditions for lasting peace and security, respect for human rights, economic and social progress and a genuine commitment to the fulfillment of our responsibility towards our environment and the finite resources of our planet.
This anniversary calls for reflection. We must safeguard our indispensable Organization. We must also provide it with the opportunities and resources it needs to fulfill the functions vital to the future of humanity.