Mr. President, I have great pleasure in conveying to you cordial felicitations on your election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-fifth session. Your unanimous election is a befitting tribute to your qualities of statesmanship, as well as to your country, with which Pakistan maintains close and friendly relations.
I should also like to convey through you to your predecessor,
Mr. Joseph N. Garba of Nigeria, our high esteem for the manner in which he conducted the proceedings of the forty-fourth session.
May I take this opportunity to convey to the Secretary-General,
Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, our deep appreciation for his unwavering commitment to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
It is also a privilege to welcome Liechtenstein as the newest Member of the United Nations.
The world is witnessing the universal triumph of human values, the affirmation of freedom and of all those virtues that give meaning to life. A new international order is on the horizon. East-West rivalry is already a relic of the past. Co-operation and understanding are the order of the day. With the changes in Eastern Europe, the imminent reunification of Germany, and the progressive integration in other parts of Europe, that entire continent stands at the threshold of another renaissance.
A pervasive spirit of change is sweeping the globe. Protracted and festering regional disputes in distant and disparate lands are moving towards settlement in Cambodia, Central America and Western Sahara. The dream of independence for Namibia has at last become a reality.
Together with these developments, there is a growing recognition that problems must be resolved through consultation and compromise. There is increasing recourse to the United Nations for the resolution of regional and international problems. The Organization has once again come into its own as an instrument of international peace and security.
There are nevertheless other areas that remain inflamed and embattled. The State of Jairanu and Kashmir is torn by strife and repression. For decades the people of Jammu and Kashmir have struggled and fought for their right to self-determination - a right persistently disregarded by India, which has resorted to massive use of force to suppress their struggle. Almost 300,000 Indian military and paramilitary forces have been engaged in an attempt to crush the spontaneous uprising of the Kashmiri people. Thousands of innocent people, including women and children, have been killed, injured and incarcerated. Houses have been burnt down, women have been molested, and major cities in the Valley have been placed under curfew. The Indian Government has banned foreign correspondents and is not prepared to allow any international agency to monitor the flagrant violations of basic human rights and fundamental freedom in Kashmir.
These repressive measures have failed to break the will of the people of Kashmir, or to dim their courage or to weaken their spirit of self-sacrifice for: upholding the right of self-determination. The roots of the dispute lie in the forcible annexation of Jammu and Kashmir by India in 1947 against the wishes of the Kashmiri people. The Security Council, in several resolutions, maintained and enjoined that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be made in accordance with the will of the people, expressed through a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations. Both India and Pakistan accepted those resolutions and are bound by their provisions which remain valid and operative.
Through its early resolutions, 91 (1951) and 122 (1957), the Security Council rejected the Indian claim that the people of Kashmir had exercised their right of self-determination by participating in the elections conducted in the territory by India. The Indian contention that elections in Jammu and Kashmir had obviated the need for a plebiscite was manifestly rejected by the fact that the turnout of voters in the 1989 elections was a mere 5 per cent.
In the Simla Agreement of July 1972, India recognized Kashmir as an outstanding issue that remained to be settled and it agreed that the final settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute was essential for durable peace and complete normalization of relations between Pakistan and India We urge our Indian neighbours to respect the letter and spirit of the Simla Agreement, which they never tire of repeating, and to come forward to discuss with us the substance of the dispute.
Let me state that the popular unrest in Indian-held Kashmir is entirely indigenous in character. India has, however, sought to raise the question of alleged interference by Pakistan as a smoke screen to mislead the international community. We have rejected those allegations as baseless and unfounded. As a further demonstration of our good faith, we have proposed to India the establishment of a neutral mechanism, such as the stationing of impartial international observers to monitor, observe and investigate such accusations and to reach independent conclusions. India has regrettably rejected our offer. Pakistan stands by its proposal and we would be prepared to accept any fact-finding mission or other neutral mechanism for this purpose. We cannot accept - in fact we reject outright - the Indian pretension that they can arrogate to themselves the right to act as judge and prosecutor at the same time.
In its efforts to deny Pakistan its right to extend moral and political support to the struggle of the Kashmiri people, India has sought to intimidate us by minatory statements and a threatening concentration of troops in Kashmir along the Pakistan-India border. While we remain committed to the preservation of peace in South Asia, we will not be intimidated or deterred from our quest for a peaceful settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and in the spirit of the Simla Agreement. We have therefore repeatedly expressed our willingness to enter into a constructive dialogue with India to defuse tension and to seek a peaceful settlement.
Although two rounds of talks at the level of foreign secretaries were held in July and August, no substantive results were achieved. The Indian side evaded the core issues, namely, the discussion of the Kashmir dispute and the redeployment of forces to peace-time locations. While we intend to persist in our efforts for a peaceful settlement, the international community must exert its moral and political influence to support the struggle of the people of Kashmir.
Last month the 19th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers adopted by consensus a resolution which called for a peaceful settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions, and as agreed upon in the Simla Agreement. It expressed deep concern over the violations of human rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and urged the redeployment of forces to peace-time locations. In this resolution, the Conference also expressed its willingness to send a good offices mission to ease tensions and to promote a peaceful settlement. The Indian Government has yet to respond to this positive proposal.
The long night of repression of the Kashmiri people who have endured tyranny and unspeakable sufferings must surely see the light of day. Their trial and agony must be brought to an end. How long are they to be denied the exercise of their right to self-determination?
Pakistan remains committed to a peaceful settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute through negotiations and dialogue on the basis of the United Nations resolutions. This is in consonance with the terms and the spirit o£ the Simla Agreement.
The unwavering and consistent support of the international community for the heroic struggle of the Afghan people against foreign military occupation was largely instrumental in the signing of the Geneva Agreements in 1988, and the withdrawal of the Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989. The Geneva Agreements addressed only the external aspects of the problem. The framework for the internal settlement was provided by the General Assembly resolutions which called for the establishment of a broad-based government acceptable to the people of Afghanistan, the voluntary return of over 5 million Afghan refugees to their homeland, and the free exercise of the right of the people of Afghanistan to choose their own form of government.
The Kabul regime continues to deny the people of Afghanistan their legitimate right to form a government of their own choice. No representative group or segment of the population is willing to enter into negotiations or to share power with the Kabul regime, which is held responsible for the death and destruction that have occurred during the past decade.
Pakistan has an abiding interest in the restoration of a peaceful, sovereign, non-aligned and Islamic Afghanistan. The festering conflict prolongs the stay of more than 3 million refugees on our soil. We have, therefore, consistently encouraged Afghan efforts to develop a political consensus for an internal Afghan settlement. Accordingly, we had welcomed the formation of the Afghan Interim Government (AIG) in February 1989. The AIG is now poised to hold elections with the participation of diverse Afghan political elements. This move augurs well for a united front of all Afghans who had valiantly struggled for the liberation of their homeland and in the defence of their faith and traditions.
The recent decline in the international humanitarian assistance has aggravated the hardship of the millions of Afghan refugees. They have chosen to face the rigours of exile rather than to expose themselves and their families to the insecurity and uncertainty of conflict in their homeland. Over the years, Pakistan has borne nearly half of the financial cost of providing the Afghan refugees with the bare necessities of life. But our limited resources make it virtually impossible for us to make up for the shortfall in the shrinking international commitment. The international community should not neglect these displaced Afghans and must continue to fulfil its humanitarian obligations towards them until they can return voluntarily to their homes.
I should like to pay a tribute to the United Nations Secretary-General and his Personal Representative for the efforts undertaken in the guest of a comprehensive settlement of the Afghanistan problem. I should also like to express our appreciation of the important role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and also of the United Nations Co-ordinator for Economic and Humanitarian Assistance, Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan.
Pakistan shares the deep concern of the international community over Iraq's invasion, occupation and annexation of a small neighbouring Islamic country. The Government of Pakistan deplores the use of force by Iraq against Kuwait in violation of the Charter of the United Nations. It is imperative that Iraq unconditionally withdraw its forces, and that the sovereignty and independence, as well as the legitimate Government, of the State of Kuwait, must be restored.
In the profound belief that international difficulties must be resolved through negotiations, we have supported the actions taken by the Security Council to counter Iraqi aggression against Kuwait and will extend full co-operation in the implementation of the Security Council resolutions.
We estimate that the crisis in the Gulf will result in an extra burden for Pakistan of over a billion dollars because of trade suspension, increase in the price of oil and the loss of remittances from our nationals employed in Kuwait and the Middle East. Our difficulties would be compounded by worsening terms of trade on account of enhanced prices of imports and reduced income from exports. These factors have compelled Pakistan to invoke Article 50 of the Charter, but we remain committed to adhere to the decisions of the Security Council. In the Middle East, Israel has systematically undermined all initiatives aimed at a just and lasting solution of the problem. An urgent effort by the international community is required to promote an equitable and comprehensive solution encompassing the withdrawal of Israel from all occupied Arab and Palestinian territories, and the restoration of the rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and to establish a State of their own in Palestine.
Pakistan has been following with interest the initiative of the five permanent members of the Security Council on the issue of Cambodia. We hope their efforts and those of the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) will prove fruitful.
The Cyprus issue remains unresolved after 27 years. We believe that the recent Security Council resolution which calls for a freely reached and mutually acceptable solution to be arrived at through negotiations on an equal footing, provides the right framework for the conduct of inter-communal negotiations. This should lead to the desired goal of the establishment of a bi-communal bizonal Federal Republic of Cyprus.
Recent developments in South Africa are a step in the right direction but all far short of the eradication of apartheid. The changes instituted by the Pretoria regime would not have been possible without the courage, determination and perseverance of the people of South Africa. Mr. Nelson Mandela symbolizes the indomitable spirit of that people.
The Government of Pakistan fully supports the valiant struggle of the people of South Africa for freedom, equality and justice. We believe that the sanctions imposed against the racist Pretoria regime should continue to be applied till the complete elimination of apartheid and the establishment of majority rule in South ; Africa.
Pakistan has always been in the forefront of endeavours to promote international peace and security and to eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons. We hope that the dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union will culminate in an agreement for substantial reduction in their nuclear arsenals and eventually lead to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Pending the achievements of the ultimate objective of nuclear disarmament, legally binding international arrangements must be worked out to assure all non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The conclusion of a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty, which is an essential first step towards halting and reversing the nuclear arms race, has eluded us in the past. It is for that reason that we welcome the decision to convene in January 1991 a conference to consider converting the partial test-ban Treaty into a comprehensive nuclear-test-ban treaty,
Pakistan supports global negotiations for general and complete disarmament. Progress towards this goal has been slow. It is essential to consider measures for disarmament at the regional level in order to strengthen peace and security. The insecurity of non-nuclear States emanates from regional threats arising from territorial disputes, ambitions of dominance and interventionist policies of larger neighbouring States. Furthermore, the security concerns of States vary from region to region depending upon the nature of their threat perceptions. Therefore, a regional approach offers the most realistic prospects for rapid progress towards disarmament. We are gratified that such an approach is gaining wider acceptance, and we urge that disarmament negotiations should be pursued simultaneously at the global as well at the regional levels.
Pakistan is fully committed to the objective of nuclear non-proliferation. It calls upon the nuclear Powers to move towards nuclear disarmament and to promote international co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and technology. The concept of nuclear non-proliferation must not be used as a pretext to prevent the developing countries from acquiring nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. I should like to reiterate that Pakistan would be willing to accept any equitable and non-discriminatory agreement with effective verification arrangements that would commit the countries of the South Asia region, in a legally binding manner, not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons. Furthermore, we have proposed that, pending the adoption of a global treaty, regional or bilateral test-ban agreements may be concluded. Pakistan has also made a proposal for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia, which has been repeatedly endorsed by the General Assembly.
Pakistan supports all steps to prevent an arms race in outer space. We attach equal importance to the early conclusion of a comprehensive convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons.
Negotiations on conventional disarmament at the global and regional levels must also be pursued vigorously, especially because of the increase in the sophistication and destructive power of conventional weapons. Similarly, naval disarmament has become an equally important objective because of the rapid augmentation of the naval power of some States. The acquisition of aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered submarines is a cause for grave concern.
During most of the past decade the international economic environment for the developing countries has been marked by negative resource flows, proliferation of trade barriers, a crushing debt burden and high interest rates, all of which combine to create devastating consequences for the economies of a large number of developing countries.
Official development assistance remains a major component of development financing. A substantial increase in the flows of official development assistance would be essential to meet the target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product, as reaffirmed by the Declaration adopted at the special session of the General Assembly in April this year. Multilateral institutions should also be provided with sufficient resources to support development and to facilitate structural reforms in the developing countries. For their part, those countries must take appropriate measures to mobilize domestic resources and effect structural adjustments to make their economies responsive to the impulses of growth. Needless to say, an equitable and conducive external environment is indispensable for the success of their efforts.
A solution to the debt problem, which has serious implications for the developing world, should take into account considerations of growth and stability, it is equally important to ensure that a solution to the problem of external debt should provide relief to countries that have been prudent in managing their economies. It is becoming increasingly difficult to service debts in the climate of imbalances in external payments.
In order to ensure the creation and distribution of world liquidity on an equitable basis the exports of the developing countries must have easy access to world markets and their exports must be guaranteed reasonable prices. We hope that the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations will create a free international trading system with preferential treatment for the developing countries. We are gratified that the international development strategy for the fourth United Nations development decade, to be adopted at this session, incorporates the necessary guidelines to redress the serious economic problems confronting the developing nations.
We welcome the growing international awareness of the need to preserve the global environment. Pakistan has consistently supported efforts to achieve that shared objective. It remains our belief that in the developing countries the improvement of the environment is closely linked to the eradication of poverty. It is imperative that developed countries should provide additional financial resources and technology to the developing countries to combat environmental degradation. We hope that the 1992 Conference on Environment will address the complex dimensions of the problem in its entirety and will find credible answers to the effects on the environment of unbridled industrialization, on the one hand, and abject poverty, on the other.
The problem of narcotic drugs has assumed alarming proportions and is threatening the fabric of contemporary society. The special session of the General Assembly on narcotic drugs in February this year underlined the need for the global community to act in concert. The guidelines provided in the Political Declaration and Global Programme of Action adopted at the special session need to be implemented in full, and we believe that reduction in the demand for narcotic drugs is as important as reduction in the cultivation, production and supply of narcotic substances. It is also necessary to provide the cultivators with alternate sources of income through crop substitution.
The events of the past year have demonstrated that the United Nations has a central and vital role to play in the maintenance of international peace and security. The Organization has an equally pivotal role in solving problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Pakistan will continue to support, in the fullest measure, all the activities of the United Nations, confident of success and determined in its efforts to realize the cherished objectives of international peace and progress enshrined in its Charter.


This is the third time I am speaking before the Assembly, and I feel that this is an honor both for my country and for me personally.
I congratulate you, Mr President, on having been chosen to guide the debates of an Organization which since its creation has perhaps never had such heavy responsibilities. I hail the country you represent.
I now turn to the Secretary-General, Mr Peres de Cuellar, and I thank him for the talent, strength of conviction and tireless activities he has been devoting to the United Nations and which have contributed so much to its renewal.
Two years ago from this rostrum I referred to the prospects for freedom. How much headway has since been made. I many countries, on all continents, democracy has won out, in places where it was often thought that it would be kept away for a long time to come. Borders can no loner contain its radiating strength.
Think of the dramatic changes that occurred in Europe and throughout the world in 1989, of the deep popular movements which, like the French Revolution 200 years ago, overcame everything: structures, systems, ways of thinking and , powers and fears  '97 and all for the sole, compelling need to live differently, in keeping with the requirements of the spirit.
When the walls that separated peoples came tumbling down  '97 walls built in the mistaken belief that the order they were protecting would forever escape the great winds of space of dreams and of ideas  '97 I remember saying to my compatriots in France that, in these happy hours of which there are so few in history, the end of an order did not necessarily mean that another order would immediately be born, and that it would be very difficult.
I ask the Assembly: What are we to make of this new era which is at once so promising and so perilous? Yes, what shall we make of it?
The confrontation of military blocs long ensured peace, while maintaining conflicts in a geographical context. After the Second World War, we witnessed more than 100 regional conflicts. What we call the South had become the theatre for battles which were no longer taking place in the North. The gain for one camp was perceived as a loss for the other. Although this summary arithmetic is now outmoded, one sees how for almost half a century it blocked evolution towards settlement and lessening of tensions, how it prolonged the suffering and mourning of sorely tried peoples, how it served as a laboratory for power relations and how it prolonged the dependency of millions of human beings who once thought they were masters of their destiny.
The end of the East-West conflict should be hailed as the triumph of reason and of a sense of responsibility. And this conquest is due to the courage and the clear-sightedness of certain men who were able to change the courage of history and overcome immediate interests and the clash of ideology in order to conceive of a new balance which would no longer be based on universal terror. Here, I wish to say that mankind owes them a great deal of gratitude and respect.
However, I would refrain from engaging in premature optimism. Like everyone else, I know how much illusion there can be in a vision of the world that had, all of a sudden and without any difficulty, found its way. There remain numerous flagrant, intolerable violations of human rights. Ethnic and religious minorities are still persecuted. Interests are as brutal as ever: the strong still lie in wait for the weak, and the oppressed entertains revenge. Nevertheless, henceforth the confrontation of blocs can no longer serve as an excuse for those who fear risking democracy, for those who believe that they can postpone until later what is expected of them today. In saying that, I have in mind  '97 and you have understood it  '97 North-South relations.
In a world where no one, not even the most powerful, can escape the interdependence of destinies, one is tempted to look inwards to find a way out, as if the only way to affirm one '92s identity and differences would be to deny those of others, as if this need could find an answer in xenophobia or nationalism.
A good example of this will be the conclusion to be found to the crisis brought about by the Iraqi aggression, just as the tragedy in Liberia serves as a warning. If we are not careful, the unique opportunity offered by the demise of blocs will become a bad dream.
To prevent anarchy, disprove the theory that might makes right and avoid the imposition of an alliance of the powerful of an order in which others have no voice, I know of nothing but the rule of law. Yes: law. No one - no State, no philosophy - has a monopoly on law. Law reflects the general will. And is it not remarkable that we are now witnessing the emergence of a nearly universal agreement on the simple values: freedom  '97 freedom to speak, to act, to travel and to elect one '92s leaders  '97 equality, justice, respect for human rights, tolerance, and the acceptance of differences. All these are values that stress the value o dialogue over force. We all know that there can be lasting peace and freedom in relationships between peoples only if States agree to follow common rules, which it is your responsibility to lay down.
With the North Atlantic Treaty Organization paralyzed, the United Nations - 45 years - is now coming into its own as a genuine judge, defining and trying to implement the law; it is beginning thus to fulfill its mandate under the San Francisco Charter. On that basis, everything will - or at least can - change.
We must all understand that the dawning of the rule of law concerns us all. What country can feel safe from violence, high-handedness and domination by others? The time has come for international law to reign. We need only take decisions and actions on that basis.
In recent years, in fact, the Organization has increasingly been successfully involved in the settlement of conflict: Namibia, Nicaragua, the Iraq-Iran war and, soon I hope, Cambodia. United Nations efforts to eliminate the hateful apartheid regime have finally been met by the good will of two men, both South Africans, both having the ear of their respective communities: Nelson Mandela and Frederik de Klerk.
But we must go further. We are faced with a choice between the law of the jungle and the rule of law. What will happen if we refuse to choose? The alternative is between those who want law to triumph and those who are content with the dictates of violence.
I am thinking now, of course, of the Gulf crisis. The conflict initiated by Iraq against Kuwait showed that the Security Council could act quickly and with one voice. From the onset of the crisis, my country, a permanent member of that body, voted for and at times initiated successive resolutions adopted there. We continue to stand in full solidarity. Let me explain why.
Kuwait is a sovereign State member of the international community. On what basis can it be decided that that State has ceased to exist? On the basis of the  '93law '94 of aeroplanes, tanks and cannon?
I should note here that France has long had friendly relations with Iraq; we supported it at the time of greatest danger, during its war with Iran, with a view to preserving, on the age-old border, the historical balance between Persians and Arabs, the destruction of which would have had a chain reaction in the entire Arab world right to the shores of the Atlantic. I do not deny the links of friendship forged in this circumstances between the Iraqi and French peoples, and I hope that in spite of everything they will survive this trial.
But France is first and foremost in the service of the law as defined by this arbiter between nations: the Organization. We are implementing the embargo decreed by the Security Council, and we are helping ensure its general implementation. To that end, we have sent air and naval forces to the Gulf region, but in doing so we have made no threatening or provocative gesture. Our policy is the policy of the United Nations. Moreover, we have informed the Iraqi authorities that we will stand by anyone who is the victim of new aggression in the region.
Our actions are defensive, not offensive, but they will be neither accomplices nor idle observers. When their mission was accomplished, our forces will leave the area and return home.
How can we not be disgusted at the taking of thousands of hostages, including more than 500 of my compatriots, until recently welcomed by Iraq - as it has itself admitted - as guests, as friends trusting in the hospitality of a noble people, among the oldest and most illustrious on Earth. How can we accept that some of them are serving as human shields in a fight which is not their own? How can we accept the violation and looting of the residence of our Ambassador in Kuwait and the arresting of its occupants? If this was really done in error, why did it take so long to admit it, and why was the number of hostages swelled with these new victims?
In the face of these repeated acts, I took the decision dictated by honor and solidarity, and sent land reinforcements to threatened countries neighbors of Iraq. My doers remain as they were: to ensure the success of the embargo and thus to impose the implementation of Security Council resolutions, to contain all aggression, to serve peace with respect for law, giving no quarter to violence. I add that France is acting in close agreement with its 11 partners in the European Community and the Western European Union, and in co-ordination with United States, Arab and other military forces deployed in the Middle East for the same reasons. That co-ordination in no way affects our autonomy of decision.
We continue to be prepared to pursue and search for any possibility for peace, for ours is a logic of peace, standing against the logic of war that Iraqi policy has imposed upon an anguished world and that seems to prevail. To date, not one action, not one word by the President of Iraq has held out even a glimmer of hope for conciliation. He ignores or rejects the supreme body, the United Nations, an Organization which was created in the wake of the Second World War by nations that knew the cost of bloodshed and death, having been twice unable to triumph over the inevitability of disaster.
What will Iraq say if the conditions set forth in the Security Council resolutions are imposed? They were agreed upon unanimously and cannot be revoked. Is this the end of hope? Is there no room for peace? We do not wish to pronounce such a verdict.
Several plans, now including that of Heads of State and Government of the Arab States, have opened up new prospects. I am pleased by this. France had hoped the countries of that region would arbitrate among themselves to solve disputes that pit them against each other. I should like here to state that that is still our hope. It is desirable that there be an end to any doubt or suspicion about any armed intervention by Western Powers. But the Arab nation has not yet overcome the divisions that have separated it, and thus far it has only expressed desires.
In the absence of such a solution, it would be my preference that we see in what context diplomacy might still prevail over confrontation. Let us be clear about this. I say there can be no compromise so long as Iraq does not comply with the views of the Security Council and withdraw from Kuwait. That country '92s sovereignty is not negotiable, any more than any other '92s. Think of the men and women living under foreign occupation who must choose exile, and of neighboring peoples which, if things get out of control, will be at the mercy of the expansionist determination of one man, of one warlike State. If, on the other hand, Iraq were to affirm its intention to withdraw its troops and free the hostages, everything might become possible.
At the second stage, as I perceive things, the international community, which has condemned the aggression, would be able to guarantee the withdrawal of military forces, the restoration of Kuwait '92s sovereignty and exercise of the democratic will of the Kuwaiti people.
Then the third stage, which the whole world is anticipating without much hope, would begin - a stage that today seems to be beyond our reach, or is feared because it will be a time for choices when we must replace confrontation in the Middle East with the dynamics of good-neighborliness and security and peace for each and every country.
I have in mind Lebanon, which has been unable to regain full sovereignty over its territory and is still occupied by foreign troops and divided by opposing forces. I have in mind the Palestinians who are prey to despair and tempted by all kinds of adventures to meet their legitimate aspirations to have their own homeland in which they can create State structures of their choice. I have in mind Israel, which is living in constant insecurity. In a word, I have in mind all those countries where war, declared or not, has become their daily lot.
I am not talking about a mixture of different kinds of conflict. Nor do I claim to be able to solve all these problems through any magic recipe, because any comprehensive step would be unrealistic and dangerous and give an excuse to do nothing.
Our initiative implies dialogue, direct dialogue between those concerned, agreement with neighboring States, and finally the irreplaceable approval of this Assembly. And at the end of that road we must take up the idea of an international conference as the catalyst and the qurator of the implementation of any successful negotiation.
Above and beyond this, we might think of a fourth stage, with a mutually agreed reduction of armaments in the region, the beginning of co-operation from Iran to Morocco, from the Middle East to the Atlantic, and stability and prosperity in a region that, because of its history, culture and invaluable contribution to humanity, is called upon to play an important role in human affairs.
But let us now look at ourselves. We too must ask questions and answer questions that are arising everywhere. So many previous resolutions of the Security Council have remained dead letters  '97 the result, I like to believe, of the mutual neutralization caused by the East-West antagonism, which condemned the Near and Middle East to a kind of war of positions - a ruinous, desperate war. That situation has today, and with some reason, nourished the Arab worlds '92s criticism of the sudden diligence of the United Nations in regard to Iraq. And it is true that n this shortcoming there is an unfortunate element that somewhat undercuts the real authority of our recent decisions. But we are united in our belief that law and justice should be the same for all - in principle and in effect.
Now I should like to emphasize a crucial point that has always been of concern to international bodies and is now brought into sharp focus. If the Middle East conflict is not a North-South conflict because it does not pit a rich country against a poor one, the fact remains that the embargo, the reduction of oil supplies and increased prices have worsened the already difficult living conditions in the developing countries. If we come to the assistance of those close to the conflict, which are those most directly affected by it - and with this I fully agree - above and beyond that, we must renew the unfinished debate on North-South relations between the rich and the poor, between the highly industrialized countries and those that lack the means to pay their debts or to revitalize their anaemic economies. The year 2000 is approaching, and each day some 40,000 children the world over are still dying from hunger and sickness for which treatments and vaccines are available.
In a few days a World Summit for Children will be held here in New York to consider such problems. But we must also be aware that there are other injustices which in themselves constitute unbearable violence and that violence gives rise to still further injustices. How can those hundreds of millions of human beings who live in the direct poverty, deprived of everything including a future, be expected to have an awareness of a society based on the rule of law? Who, denied and rejected, can honor a law from which he himself is excluded? Like it or not, North and South are partners in a common history. It is high time that both sides understood that fact. Some progress has been achieved in recent years, but it still falls far short of what is needed. Is it normal that countries that have gone into debt in order to develop their economies should find themselves crushed beneath the burden of that indebtedness, or that people should work and produce more only to receive less, solely to repay the interest on their country '92s loans, subject to fluctuations in foreign exchange? Is it normal that Africa and Latin America, to mention only those continents, should have experienced a constant drop in export earnings throughout the past decade or that, notwithstanding the large amounts of aid it receives, the South continues to finance the North, because the net transfer from South to North has increased, as of this year, by another $10 billion, thus reaching the sum of $43 billion?
We can, of course, note some progress. At the Conference of Least-Developed Countries held at paris this month we noted a fortunate but insufficient trend. At Toronto in 1988, at the summit meeting held at the Grande Arche in Paris in 1989, the larger industrial countries came up with various methods designed to bring about a reduction in world indebtedness. Some States, including France, forgave the debts of the poorest countries. At for the European Community, through its renewal of the Lome agreements with 60 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and a large increase in its contributions it has dealt forthrightly with an inherently explosive state of affairs and has laid the ground for a first step towards making exports more feasible.
Other initiatives have been undertaken with a view to redressing the imbalance, which nevertheless cannot but increase. But how can such steps withstand the increased speculation in raw materials? I look forward to the long-announced and long-hoped-for discussion of a comprehensive plan for assistance to the developing world, a plan that would be fed by new resources and that would lath the ground for an in-depth consideration of the subject by all the participants in what could well become a tragedy to end all tragedies if we do not make up our minds to change our ways, to step up our pace and to rethink our goals.
In spite of all I have just said I believe that an era of hope is dawning for mankind if all peoples can agree to overcome their perception of history as unalterable and their interests as unchangeable. And yes, I do believe that that is possible. After having engaged in destructive combat with each other three times in less than a century, France and Germany are now reconciled. How rare this is! Today they are joined in a special relationship; they are members of the same Community, they meet regularly, they are joined in mutual respect and they are establishing a friendship. As I speak today, a few days prior to German reunification, far from dwelling on the tragedies of the past our peoples are looking together towards the future. From New York, I salute the Germans, who are preparing to celebrate this great event in their history, and I send them France '92s best wishes.
Today, French-German understanding is a fact, as you know, within the framework of the European Community, the Twelve, and there too how many agreements, how many battles and how many conflicting, age-old ambitions moved towards a solution when, 40 years ago, in a daring and almost unbelievable move, European countries - first 6, then 9, then 10 and finally 12 - joined their destinies so closely that soon their borders will disappear and soon there will be a single, common market, a monetary union and a political organization without precedent in the world, with a population of some 340 million persons.
We wonder at the determination and imagination of those in the post-war generation who have led us to this result. And yet there is an even broader plan to come, a plan that has just begun to take shape, an even vaster plan that will cause us as Europeans to look beyond the Twelve and off to the distant horizon to take in all the historical and geographical continent of Europe. The meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to be held in Paris on 17 November of this year will define the content of that plan and set up permanent bodies to work towards that Europe. What would our old continent be like today if bold action had not prevailed over generally accepted ideas, if its peoples and their leaders had not determined to build a future that would be different from the past?
A part of that Europe are the so-called Eastern countries, countries that yesterday belonged to another, competitive and adversary system. Today they are the masters of their own fates. And how, by what means? Surely they should draw closer to the European Community, either by associating themselves with it or by seeking ways in which they can eventually cove together. We must think of them, for they are our brothers, and their actions will influence and affect ours, until all the countries of Europe are more solidly linked together, the countries of the East and those of the Community, the free-trade countries and those without allegiance to any system, in what I have called a confederation, in an organization with its own rules and in which other country can build its future together with its neighbors, each able to act on its own behalf.
In building the future we must also pursue disarmament, an area in which Europe has provided the first actual providing-ground. But as all present here today are aware, disarmament is a world-wide necessity, and in our region the task is far from complete.
The Vienna Talks on so-called conventional disarmament must be concluded as soon as possible, but in the other areas, of biological, chemical and strategic weapons, the new balance in the world can no longer put up with the ruinous cost of the arms race.
We are at the crossroads of two centuries, and we can express our dreams in three words: disarmament, arbitration and collective security. There has been disorder, dictatorship and war all at the same time. Let us see to it that through the United Nations, right, solidarity and peace finally govern in these new times.


Allow me to congratulate Mr. de Marco on his election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-fifth session. I am convinced that by building upon the achievements of his predecessor, he will guide this session to a fruitful outcome.
I should like to express my deep appreciation for the major contribution of the Secretary-General to the cause of peace and co-operation among nations.
I wish to extend a warm welcome to Namibia and Liechtenstein which have just joined our ranks.
The most outstanding feature of the world situation today, as has been widely stressed by delegations, consists of the extremely profound and contradictory changes that have taken place throughout the world at an exceptional pace and in a manner unexpected to everyone. These historically unprecedented developments herald still greater changes in the coming decades. The current changes are giving rise to diverging interpretations. Whatever the interpretation, however, the two million years of human history show mankind's constant progress towards peace, national independence, democracy and social progress.
There is a unanimous view in this forum that cold-war confrontation is drawing to an end giving way to a new situation of conflict and co-operation between countries coexisting peacefully. Almost all countries have expressed deep concern about a number of global issues - peace, national independence, human rights, development, the environment, demographic explosion and social matters related to the family and to women and children, as well as the debt burden, unequal economic and trade relations, the drug problem, the rise in crime, and so on. Viet Nam fully shares this common concern and supports legitimate demands in this respect. It will do its utmost to contribute, together with the international community, to the solution of those global issues.
I should like now to touch upon the encouraging developments around the Cambodian issues, which for the past 10 years has been one of the most controversial at the United Nations.
Since 1987 the countries of South-East Asia and the Cambodian parties have been engaging in talks with a view to reaching a peaceful settlement of the Cambodian issue. The two Jakarta Informal Meetings and the talks, in Paris, Bangkok, Jakarta and Tokyo, between Chairman Hun Sen and Prince Sihanouk have provided a broad basis for a comprehensive political settlement. At the Jakarta meetings the countries of the region agreed unanimously on the need to solve the two key issues - namely, the total withdrawal off foreign troops, and the elimination off the genocidal Pol Pot regime. The participants in the two Jakarta Informal Meetings have also called on other countries to commit themselves to respecting Cambodia's independence, neutrality and non-alignment. Chairman Hun Sea and Prince Sihanouk have agreed on the creation of an interim authority based on national reconciliation and the holding off truly free and democratic general elections. In particular, through successive talks is Bangkok, the two sides have reached agreement on the establishment of a Supreme National Council, whose 12 members would be equally divided between the two aides. The countries of the region are also unanimously of the view that eventual agreements on Cambodia will have to be guaranteed by an international conference, and their implementation subjected to international control.
On the basis of those agreements, the Paris International Conference on Cambodia was convened in Paris in mid-1989. The Conference, under the co-chairmanship of France and Indonesia, having taken an important step forward in the search for a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian issue, had to be suspended temporarily. However, it will reconvene once the countries concerned and the Cambodian parties have settled their outstanding differences.
The unilateral total withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia in September 1989 settled one of the two key questions with regard to solution of the Cambodian issue, This has opened up the way to a comprehensive political settlement.
With the unilateral total withdrawal of Vietnamese troops, the Khmer Rouge and its allies nurtured the illusion that they could take advantage of the major shift in the military balance of forces in Cambodia in order to step up their military operations and thereby reverse the situation in that country. There is widespread public concern over the Khmer Rouge's extensive preparations, especially its accumulation of weapons caches that should enable it to wage war for another 7 to 10 years, with the ultimate objective of restoring its genocidal rule.
Since the beginning of 1990 the five permanent members of the Security Council have been actively building upon the very significant results achieved at the two meetings of the regional countries, at the talks between the Cambodian sides, and at the Paris International Conference on Cambodia, as well as upon the major efforts made by Australia. The five permanent members have thus succeeded in working out the framework for a comprehensive political solution of the Cambodian issue. Viet Nam greatly appreciates their important contribution.
However, the document of the five permanent members of the Security Council fails to mention the question of the elimination of the genocidal regime in Cambodia. The international community cannot tolerate crimes against humanity; it must uphold the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Moreover, Viet Ham holds that the Charter of the United Nations should be scrupulously respected with regard to matters pertaining to the sovereignty of Cambodia, which is an independent country and a Member of the United Nations.
At the Informal Meeting in Jakarta last September, under the co-chairmanship of Indonesia and France, the Cambodian parties accepted the recommendations of the five permanent members of the Security Council as the framework for a political settlement of the Cambodia issue, and they set up the Supreme national Council.
Viet Ham hopes that a delegation from the Supreme national Council will soon legitimately represent Cambodia at the United Nations. The process of setting up the Supreme national Council is a reminder that no action by any external authority or group of countries can take the place of the determined efforts of the Cambodian parties themselves to solve Cambodia's internal problems.
In the course of the past 45 years, the 1954 Geneva International Conference on Indo-China, the 1961-1962 Conference on Laos and the 1973 Paris International Conference on Viet Ham have resulted in the ending of three wars, in the restoration of peace and in recognition of the national rights of the peoples of the Indochinese peninsula. In mid-1989, the Paris International Conference was convened for the purpose of finding a solution to the Cambodian issue. For reasons that are known to everyone, all crises on the Indochina peninsula over the past 45 years have been settled outside the framework of the United Nations, but with the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
This time we are heartened by the very important contribution of the five permanent members and of the Secretary-General, nevertheless, in Viet Ham's view it is most auspicious that the settlement of the Cambodian issue, which was started in Paris, should be concluded in Paris. Viet Ham also holds that the participants in the Paris Conference should finalise the international agreement on Cambodia before the end of October, and that the Conference could be reconvened in November or December to adopt and sign it.
One prominent question of great concern to Viet Han as well as to the entire world community is the Gulf crisis. Viet Han holds that this crisis should be solved through peaceful means, within the sphere of the Arab countries and on the basis of respect for the United Nations Charter. For its part, Viet Nan, is complying with Security Council resolution 661 (1990).
After suffering from wars of aggression for the past 4S years, the Vietnamese people, as well as the other peoples of the Indo-Chinese peninsula, earnestly aspire to peace and good relations with all other countries in the world on the basis of mutual respect. It is Viet Nam's hope that a peaceful settlement of the Cambodian issue will open the way towards a new era for the peoples of the Indo-Chinese peninsula, an era of peaceful reconstruction and development, and will help promote co-operation in peaceful coexistence among South-East Asian countries.
Since 1987 Viet Nam has begun a renewal process with a view to transforming its economy from a system of bureaucratic and centralised management based on State subsidies into an economy of commodity production with a socialist orientation. The year 1989 witnessed major changes in the economic, social and political life of Viet Han. For IS years our economy had been beset by increasingly serious Imbalances between supply and demand, budget revenue and expenditure, monetary quantity and commodities, imports and exports, and so on. The process of reform and restructuring has allowed the gradual restoration of balance within the economy. By the end of 1989 the annual inflation rate had been lowered from about 1,000 per cent down to below 40 per cent; once a country that ranked third in the world among rice importers, Viet Ham had become a rice exporter; and the gap between exports and imports had been very considerably narrowed, with exports boosted from one quarter to three quarters of imports.
On the other hand, the investment law of Viet Nam introduced in 1988 is one of the most beneficial to foreign investors and has already helped Viet Nam attract more than $1 billion of foreign investment capital. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has positively appraised the bold measures taken by Viet Nam in its process of economic reform and restructuring. She IMF has stated that Viet Nam has fulfilled its commitments to it, and Viet Nam hopes that the IMF will keep its commitment to Viet Nam. Viet Nam is still groping its way at the macro-economic level in converting a highly centralised planned economy into a socialist-oriented market economy. The initial achievements are still modest but the decisive factor is that the renewal process is on the right track and has yielded results beyond our expectations. It is possible to affirm that the policy of all-round renewal has become an irreversible process.
These modest achievements should be appraised bearing in mind the impact of the destruction of 40 years of war on the country's economy and the fact that the renewal process in Viet Nam is taking place in the context of the extremely complex and unexpected developments taking place in the world. These initial achievements in our policy of renewal have laid bare our fundamental errors. Our aim is to build a society for the people. Our error lay in the fact that ours was in practice a society of the State and by the State. The initial success of the renewal process stems from the readjustment of our policy so as effectively to build a society of the people, for the people and by the people. It is clear that a society for the people cannot be of the State and by the State. Obviously the building of a society of the people, by the people and for the people calls for renewal not simply in the economic field but in all spheres, including economic, social, cultural and political.
In tandem with the reform and restructuring of its economy, Viet Nam is undertaking a gradual and steady process of political renewal. Viet Nam is determined to take the renewal process forward and at the sane tine to integrate its economy into the world economy. Viet Nam is resolved to preserve its independence and at the same time to develop relations of friendship and co-operation with all other countries on the basis of mutual respect. Such is the basis of the renewal of Viet Nam's foreign policy, a policy of peace, independence and friendly co-operation with all other countries.


It is a source of particular pleasure for me to see Mr. de Marco, the representative of a fellow Mediterranean country, presiding over this session of the General Assembly. I congratulate him on his well-deserved election to this high post and I am confident that under his able guidance, this session will tackle the problems before it with vision and wisdom, thus making an important contribution to peace and stability.
I also wish to pay a tribute to Major-General Joseph Garba the President of the Assembly at the forty-fourth session, for his outstanding competence in guiding the work of the General Assembly during a hectic yet fruitful period.
I wish also to thank the Secretary-General of our Organisation, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his singular contribution to the success of the United Nations during this fateful period.
The current session of the General Assembly has been convened against a background of the momentous events that have taken place during the past 12 months. Indeed, until the invasion and occupation of Kuwait by Iraq in August, this was a time in which tidings of hope and joy were the predominant note. The trends which were gaining momentum as we met last year have started to bear fruit. Having witnessed the crumbling of the Berlin wall, the disintegration of the iron curtain, the collapse of totalitarian regimes and the birth of a new Europe, we can confidently talk about the end of the cold war. I should like to extend my Government's warm congratulations to the two German delegations present here on their having achieved in a smooth and successful way the unification of the German nation under the roof of a democratic and peaceful German State, which will certainly contribute to stability in Europe.
It has been encouraging to observe that the dramatic and positive chain of events remoulding Europe has also helped lessen some of the tensions elsewhere on our planet. In that context, it inspires further hope in us to see that the process of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) has made remarkable headway in Europe by achieving new milestones in the monitoring of human rights, the strengthening of co-operation on environmental issues and the reinforcement of confidence-building mechanisms, along with increased conventional stability measures.
The world at largo has also benefited from the opportunities offered by a Europe at peace with itself. Arms control efforts now proffer a more promising future. Turkey believes that those efforts can be useful only if they are pursued without diminishing the security of the countries concerned. The disarmament process can be beneficial to the extent that it does not reduce the security attained through defence and deterrence. As a corollary to its peace-oriented foreign policy, Turkey will continue to contribute to the ongoing endeavours in search of success in both of these processes. Moreover, recalling the confirmation at the Copenhagen meeting of the CSCE of the commitment to abide by the ideals of democracy, pluralism and the rule of law, we believe that respect for human rights, which constitutes the pedestal of this edifice, will assume a higher priority among the domains in which the United Nations is increasingly active.
As international tensions ease and a more favourable climate emerges, the standards and goals set in Copenhagen will not remain confined to Europe and North America but will serve as a paradigm for the whole world in helping promote the cause of human rights.
Running against the tide of history by committing a pre-Second-World-War type of aggression, a Member of the United Nations, itself only recently disengaged from an eight-year war, invaded and occupied the territory of another Member of the United Nations nearly two months ago. That deplorable event occurred in an already volatile part of the globe and has further aggravated a precarious and delicate situation. The United Nations has passed the initial phase of this severe test with remarkable success. The Security Council resolutions promptly adopted in the wake of the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait clearly demonstrated the firm determination of the United Nations to establish the principle that such acts contrary to modern norms of international behaviour shall not be tolerated.
Turkey, situated as it is adjacent to the Middle East and having close historical ties with both of the countries involved in this deplorable affair, attaches the utmost importance to the careful fulfilment of the goals and objectives set out by the Security Council. We also subscribe to the measures foreseen in the relevant Council resolutions and to their strict implementation. My Government is deeply concerned that there is the danger of a conflagration that might engulf the entire Middle East unless Iraqi forces are completely and unconditionally withdrawn from Kuwait and the legitimate Kuwaiti Government is restored. Naturally, such a withdrawal and restoration should be coupled with the immediate release of all foreigners held hostage by Iraq. Turkey firmly believes that United Nations sanctions should be fully enforced and holds the opinion that this course of action has the greatest chance to end the current crisis peacefully. It is in that spirit that Turkey will continue to make heavy sacrifices to secure full compliance with the Security Council's resolutions.
Despite many discouraging signs, Turkey hopes that the Gulf crisis can be settled without degenerating into armed conflict. While anticipating a peaceful settlement, we nevertheless consider it imperative that the lessons the crisis has taught should be underlined. First of all, the international community must redouble its efforts aimed at curbing the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technology. Secondly, the determination to work together against threats to peace which has manifested itself between the super-Powers and the other permanent members of the Security Council in the aftermath of the cold war must be maintained.
The cease-fire in the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, the setting in motion of the process which culminated in Namibia's independence, the arrangements that led to the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, and efforts now under way to resolve conflicts in Cambodia, Central America and Western Sahara could not have been realised had the United Nations not been strengthened by the increasing harmony among the permanent members of the Security Council.
Last year my predecessor had to draw the attention of the Assembly to the tragic situation of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria. Since that time, the regime in that country has changed, and we are hopeful that the positive developments taking place in Bulgaria, will make possible the full affirmation of Minority rights very soon.
Turkey's firm stand on the question of Palestine, which constitutes the crux of the Middle East dispute, has been expressed from this rostrum on many occasions. The uprising in the West Bank and Gaza is a direct result of the frustration of the Palestinians. The attempts to suppress the rebellion by force and violence are bound to prove futile, especially in the long run. The Palestinians must take due care not to tarnish their image by being provoked into acts that could be construed as a relapse into terrorism. Israel, for its part, must cast aside its intransigence so that the current stalemate in the peace process can be broken. Furthermore, Israel should also halt its systematic attempts to modify the demographic composition of the occupied Arab territories.
The situation in Afghanistan continues to be a source of concern for Turkey. In spite of the fact that much has been accomplished in bringing the conflicting parties together, the need for a broad-based government fully ¡representing the Afghan people still stands out as an essential component in the search for a lasting settlement of this problem. Pakistan's generosity and patience in bearing the brunt of the burden of providing shelter to the Afghan refugees also continue to deserve much praise; the international community's indebtedness to Pakistan is assuming ever-growing proportions.
The recent unrest in Jaimu and Kashmir is a source of anxiety for us. We are especially concerned about the threatening movement of forces from their peace-time positions. We hope that all the necessary efforts will be made to defuse the tensions in that sensitive part of the world, and we welcome the dialogue between Pakistan and India designed to achieve this end. We are of the opinion that the 1972 Simla agreement and the relevant resolutions of the United Nations may be the framework for a peaceful solution of this issue.
The accession to independence of Namibia in March this year has been a source of great pleasure for us. We have been deeply gratified to recognize this new member of the family of nations, one with which we have promptly established diplomatic relations. Coupled with the developments that began with the freeing of Mr. Nelson Mandela in neighbouring South Africa, and with the progress towards the dismantling of apartheid in that country, we hope that we may, after all, be witnessing the dawning of a batter and more promising era in the southern part of the African continent.
Moving back to Asia, we welcome the positive developments in Cambodia. If the trend of the last few months is maintained, an end to the ordeal of this long-suffering nation may be in the offing. Turkey is prepared to support United-Nations-sponsored endeavours to assist Cambodia's return to the democratic process. Turning to the Korean peninsula, we support the initiatives undertaken by the Republic of Korea for a meaningful dialogue with its northern neighbour. We hope that the recent high-level contacts between the two States will facilitate the finding of a peaceful solution to the issues between them, thus leading to their eventual representation as full Members of our Organisation.
The abuse of and illicit trafficking in narcotics has now become a deadly scourge menacing the social fabric of all countries. In some of them, this evil has assumed the dimensions of a destabilising force that even undermines political and economic structures. Often linked to arms smuggling and, thereby, to international terrorism, the issue has acquired increasingly disturbing proportions. At this point I should like to express again our firm solidarity with the Government and people of Colombia in their valiant struggle against the merchants of death. Other countries engaged in similar struggles also have our full sympathy.
International terrorism still casts a dark shadow over relations between nations and, as a major source of tension, continues to be a global problem. Experience gives adequate proof that even tolerating, not to mention supporting, terrorism is counterproductive, and those who condone such activities have always had reason to regret their short-sighted policies. Turkey condemns all forms of terrorism, regardless of their origins, causes and purposes, as criminal and unjustifiable. We remain attached to a policy of firmness via-à-vis this evil.
After 27 years the Cyprus problem still awaits a negotiated settlement. On several occasions the Turkish Cypriot side has made constructive proposals and accepted negotiated ideas for a solution. The Secretary-General himself has also exerted considerable effort towards the same end. Nevertheless, a mutually agreed solution continues to elude us. The determining element in the Cyprus issue is the political equality of the two sides in the island: this is the single most important fact about Cyprus. Independence and the state of affairs created in 1960 were founded on the principle of equality and the partnership of the two peoples. While the 1960 order was soon destroyed by the Greek Cypriots through the use of force to establish their hegemony and annex the island to Greece, the principle of the equal status of the two communities has continued to guide all subsequent developments.
Indeed, the negotiating process and the Secretary-General's mission of good offices have over the years been based on the fact that there is a political dispute between the two peoples in Cyprus and that, as the parties to the dispute, these two peoples are political equals. The most recent confirmation of this principle is to be found in Security Council resolution 649 (1990), adopted unanimously on 12 March this year. In that resolution the Security Council calls for a freely reached and mutually acceptable solution to be arrived at through negotiations on an equal footing. Full respect for the status of equality of the two communities is a sine qua non for progress in Cyprus.
The Greek Cypriots must recognize that the object of inter-communal negotiations is to create a new partnership that would bring together the two peoples and their respective administrations within a new political association based on equality. The reason why the Cyprus question remains unresolved today is the Greek Cypriot refusal to accept the Turkish Cypriots as their equals. This is the attitude that underlies their application to the European Communities for full membership: they claim that they can act unilaterally in a matter that concerns the future political and economic status of the whole island. This claim has no legal, moral or factual basis, but it does show the true nature of Greek Cypriot perceptions.
The Greek Cypriot mentality views the Turkish Cypriots as adversaries who must be forced into obedience by whatever means possible. This is a far cry from the notion of equality. This mentality is also responsible for one of the most serious cases of human rights violations against the Turkish Cypriots, whose lives and well-being were in constant danger until 1974, were forced to survive in small enclaves for many years. Since 1974 they have been subjected to a ruthless and pervasive embargo by the Greek Cypriots, and are faced with an incessant Greek Cypriot campaign to isolate them from the rest of the world. Today the Turkish Cypriots have to overcome Greek Cypriot obstacles to their trading and travelling freely. They cannot send or receive letters directly. Their young people cannot compete in international sports. Foreign ships and aircraft are prevented from operating to and from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. What have the Turkish Cypriots done to deserve this? Nothing except to defend their equality and their rights. This unacceptable situation must be brought to an end» and the rights of the Turkish Cypriots must be respected. Only when relations between the two sides take a turn for the better can the efforts of the Secretary-General have a real chance of making progress in the direction indicated by Security Council resolution 649 (1990).
Notwithstanding the sombre cloud created by the ongoing Gulf crisis, the positive and encouraging elements of the evolving international scene need to be reinforced by sound economic and social development. After a decade of missed opportunities the prospects for the world economy today appear brighter, provided that the inflationary trends spurred by the increase in oil prices and the recessionist pressures that are becoming more visible can be held in check. The opening of Eastern Europe to a market-based economic development, although difficult in the transitional phrase of restructarization, is a good sign for the future. None the less, the fears of the developing countries that Eastern Europe will divert already-limited financial flows away from them deserve to be addressed as a legitimate concern.
On the threshold of the last decade of the twentieth century we observe that economic and social problems related to population, poverty, unemployment, uneven income distribution, environmental degradation and the over-exploitation of natural resources not only have grown worse but have become more interlinked and globalized. These problems are especially acute in the developing world, and the debt burden in that world renders the task of surmounting poverty and its interrelated issues all the more difficult.
Despite all odds, the developing countries are bravely going through readjustment efforts to break out of stagnation and to make up, through resumed growth, for the assets created by the recession of the 1980s. These efforts need to be supported by an appropriate international economic environment. Emerging trade blocs have fuelled fears of protectionism, which need to be overcome through the adoption and implementation of realistic policies. We believe that healthy growth depends on freer trade rather than on aid. In this respect we hope that the Uruguay Round negotiations will have a successful outcome by the end of the year.
On the other hand, despite the importance of trade unhindered by import barriers, financial flows are still necessary. The present trend of flows in the opposite direction has to be corrected. To that end the policies to be adopted by the developing countries themselves, as well as those pursued by international financial institutions, will play an equally significant role.
The least-developed countries have even more pressing issues confronting them, and we welcome the result of the second United Nations Conference for those countries, which ended just two weeks ago. The various aspects of environmental degradation have now become more evident and call for different, but complementary and co-ordinated, responses. We believe that without an adequately preserved environment there can be no sustained long-term development. Therefore, the importance of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, to be held in 1992, as well as its preparatory process, cannot be overestimated. This, we believe, will be a timely meeting, since new environmental questions continue to arise, while existing problems require more attention and concerted action.
In concluding my statement I wish to express the view that this session of the General Assembly will be crowned with success and that our common endeavours will contribute to reinforcing peace and increasing prosperity throughout our planet. The Turkish delegation pledges to co-operate with you, Mr. President, and to do its part to secure that outcome.


On behalf of the Ethiopian delegation and on my own behalf, I join those who have extended sincere congratulations to Mr. de Marco of Malta on his unanimous election to the presidency of the General Assembly at the forty-fifth session.
In addition to expressing its sincere appreciation to Mr. Garba, who presided with great skill over the deliberations of the General Assembly at the forty-fourth session and the three special sessions, the Ethiopian delegation wishes also to welcome the admission of Liechtenstein as the newest Member of our Organisation.
Heartfelt gratitude is also due to the Secretary-General, Mr. Peres de Cuellar, who, ever since his election eight years ago, has with foresight and painstaking efforts rekindled the hopes and confidence of the international community in the United Nations.
This session of the General Assembly comes in the midst of historic developments on the world stage and, in a sense, forms a watershed between two different epochs in international relations. The era of the cold war, with all its attendant tensions and threats, is coming to a close, and a new world order, whose major features are not yet clearly evident, is gradually emerging. While this new order appears to be mainly characterised by greater international understanding and co-operation, we must guard against certain tendencies which could give rise to uncertainties.
The political implications and effects of recent events and trends have obviously given high hopes for a better system of international relations, we are already witnessing a rapprochement between the super-Powers and a certain reduction of international tension. Confrontation is giving way to accommodation and competition to co-operation. The prospects for the dissolution of the cold-war military and political structures also seem quite bright.
Europe, which epitomised the division of the world, is undergoing profound changes, ushering in an era of co-operation and possible integration. Indeed, we are today on the eve of the historic unification of Germany, an event on which we warmly congratulate the entire German nation.
In other regions of the world, too, we see nations pooling their energy and resources to form larger economic and political groupings. The reunification of the two Yemeni States, which we welcome heartily, and the emerging prospect for better understanding between the two Korean States are but a few instances of a growing trend, which must be encouraged and supported.
With regard to Korea, the international community must support the realisation of the noble and long-cherished goal of the Korean people for peaceful reunification. The steps we take and the positions we adopt within the United Nations on this question must enhance and promote, and not vitiate, this process of reunification of Korea.
The perceptible improvement in the international scene, especially in the relations between the super-Powers, has also resulted in some modest advance on the question of disarmament. Despite this, however, the arms race is yet to be definitively halted and reversed and vital resources for human development and progress released. The international community, therefore, must continue to give this issue priority attention and must further strengthen its efforts towards A world free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
The current atmosphere of better understanding and greater co-operation is also contributing towards the resolution of the many regional conflicts that have been endangering peace and stability in many parts of the world. The first and so far best example of international co-operation in the resolution of conflicts in the recent past is the long and fruitful process of negotiation that resulted in the accession of Namibia to its long-awaited independence. Namibia's independence and its admission as a full-fledged Member of the United Nations is a source of immense gratification and pride to all of us, especially to the Namibian people, which has for so long waged a heroic and difficult struggle. The United Nations too must be proud of the unprecedented role it played in Namibia's peaceful transition to independence.
The overall positive changes in international relations coupled with Namibia's independence also seem to be having some impact on the situation in South Africa. We all acknowledge that, as a result of measures taken within South Africa, hopes for a peaceful and early demise of apartheid are rising. However, the conditions for the commencement of substantial negotiations, set out in the Harare Declaration of the Organization of African Unity and the Declaration of the sixteenth special session of the General Assembly, are yet to be completely fulfilled. More importantly, the main pillars of the racist system are still intact, and the regime itself has not declared a non-racial, united and democratic South Africa as its ultimate goal.
In the circumstances, it would be very unwise, indeed counter-productive, to ease the pressure, both economic and political, against the Pretoria regime. Ethiopia, therefore, urges the maintenance of all the sanctions currently in effect against South Africa until the process of change reaches an irreversible stage.
As regards other regional conflicts, the easing of global tension and the rapprochement between the super-Powers have opened new avenues for the peaceful resolution of hitherto seemingly intractable problems. Of particular significance in this context are the situations in Central America and Cambodia.
In our own subregion, too, a process of peace and better understanding among the States of north-eastern Africa has recently been launched, in which my country has played a very active role. Inasmuch as the responsibility of finding peaceful solutions to regional conflicts and problems rests primarily with the Governments of the region concerned, the Heads of State and Government of Djibouti, Ethiopia. Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda have recently taken concrete measures that are of major significance for relations among their States.
In their July 1990 meeting in Addis Ababa, the Heads of State and government of the sis countries, after a thorough analysis of the prevailing situation in their sub-region, adopted the historic Declaration of Peace, Stability and Development.
In one of the most important provisions of that Declaration, the SIX Governments committed themselves to co-operate towards the peaceful resolution of internal conflicts prevailing in the sub-region by supporting each other's peace and reconciliation efforts, Furthermore, they reaffirmed their position that any peaceful resolution of internal conflicts in the sub-region shall invariably be sought within the framework of the national unity and territorial integrity of the affected State.
Following this important conference, and pursuant to the Addis Ababa Declaration, the Foreign Ministers of the sis States met in Nairobi on S7 and 28 August 1990 and held useful discussions on the modalities for implementing the objectives contained in the Declaration. While this regional effort is still in its initial stages, the parties are, none the less, confident that it will enhance the prospects for peace, stability and development in the sub-region. Convinced that it is only through such dialogue and co-operation that lasting peace and stability can prevail in our countries, the Ethiopian Government and people are determined to extend full support to this regional initiative. Cognisant also of the fact that peace in Ethiopia is closely related to peace in our sub-region and vice versa, and in line with the discernible international trend towards peaceful resolution of conflicts, the Government of Ethiopia will continue to pursue, unilaterally and through the regional forum to which I have just referred, as well as through other channels, its declared policy of resolving peacefully the internal conflicts in Ethiopia. My Government is confident that its declared policy of peace and the measures it has taken so far in this regard will enjoy the increased support of the international community.
The significant exception in this otherwise happy trend of resolving regional conflicts through peaceful dialogue is the situation in the Middle East. Complicated as it is now by the current situation in the Gulf, the Middle East crisis continues to pose a serious threat to regional peace and security. In this regard, my country will continue to support the realisation of the legitimate aspirations of all the peoples in the region as well as the right of all the regional States to live within recognised and guaranteed borders. Ethiopia will also continue to encourage peaceful dialogue between all the parties concerned within the framework of Security Council resolutions 242 C1967) and 336 C1973).
Notwithstanding all I have just said, we have no illusion that peace on Earth is about to become a pervasive reality, ka we all realise, the threat of nuclear confrontation still hangs over humanity. Many conflicts, both internal and international, remain unresolved. Kb a result, the danger of small conflicts triggering off a major conflagration is still a distinct possibility.
The invasion and annexation of Kuwait by Iraq seems to have justified our serious concern at the precarious nature of world peace, in spite of all the salutary events at the global level. With regard to the Gulf crisis, Ethiopia has taken an unequivocal stand against aggression and for respect of the principles of the United Nations and, as a member of the Security Council, has been actively involved in the deliberations and decisions of the Council on this issue. Committed as It is to the purposes and principles of the Charter, and having itself been a victim of aggression and of the failure of the community of nations to live up to collectively assumed obligations.
Ethiopia is very much heartened by the latest unanimous and universal condemnation of the Iraqi action and the collective enforcement measures taken thereafter.
The kind of solidarity extended to Kuwait and the single-mindedness of purpose manifested, particularly among the permanent members of the Security Council, augurs well for the maintenance of world peace and security. Based on this solidarity, we must all persevere in our efforts and take appropriate measures to ensure that aggression and lawlessness do not succeed in this case and in others. For if they do, the new world order that could emerge would be one where the law of the jungle, and not the precepts of justice and legality, would reign supreme.
As I indicated earlier, the current international situation has fostered positive developments in many fields of international endeavour. Unfortunately, this same situation has also given rise to certain anxieties, especially in international economic relations. With the negative trends of the 1980s still continuing, new tendencies have also arisen which could impede international economic co-operation.	.
As we all recognise, most of the factors which were instrumental for the economies of the developing countries to stagnate, and for those of the least developed among them to regress, are still prevalent today. Commodity prices are continuing to plummet, while the external debt burden of developing countries is growing at an alarming pace. With the fast decline in the flow of concessional and other forms of finance, international interest rates, the price of industrial goods and trade protectionism are all rising. The recent steep increase in the price of oil has further battered the economies of oil-importing developing countries. All these and the existing structural trends, such as population growth and environmental degradation, are thus compounding the plight of the developing world.
To halt and reverse these dangerous trends and alter the unjust international economic environment, developing countries had over the years spearheaded many multilateral initiatives aimed at establishing a new international economic order. Regrettably, however, the response of the developed countries to these initiatives has been far from supportive. Even the programmes which we have jointly embarked upon under the aegis of the United Nations have not given the desired results owing to lack of wholehearted support from our developed partners. Neither have the policy prescriptions of the major international financial institutions - the so-called traditional structural adjustment programmes - proved to be a panacea for the chronic economic ills of our countries.
Worse still, the recent changes at the global level are dimming the prospects for international development co-operation. With the apparent decline of the importance of strategic considerations, development co-operation is losing much of its attraction and impetus. As a result of preoccupations with internal reconstruction, Eastern Europe is virtually ceasing to participate in the efforts towards the development of the third world. The industrialised West in also preoccupied with events in Europe as well as with the consolidation of economic blocs among its members. Furthermore, financial resources are increasingly being allocated to countries of Central and Eastern Europe, while resource flow· to the third world are being burdened with onerous political and economic conditions.
In the face of all these unhealthy trends, developing countries are doing their best to meet the challenges of the present-day world. Africa, which is threatened most by the process of marginalisation of the third world, has embarked on fundamental socio-economic reorganisation. Accordingly, most African countries are taking painful measures to reform their economies and enhance productivity and efficiency.  At the international level too, a number of initiatives have been taken aimed at promoting international economic co-operation in the 19908. In this context, the second United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, held in Paris last month, has, I believe, sufficiently highlighted the very grave situation facing those countries, the large majority of which are African. The programme of action adopted by the Conference represents a solemn commitment to assist the least developed countries overcome their severe developmental problems, and its successful implementation will depend on shared responsibilities and strengthened partnership between them and the donor community.
Convinced as we are that the efforts being undertaken at the international and regional levels to extricate the third world from the quagmire of underdevelopment are merely a complement to national efforts, we in Ethiopia have, despite our difficult situation, embarked upon a process of reform and restructuring. These reform measures include, inter alia, promoting and encouraging the full participation of the private sector in the economy, managing the operations of State enterprises on a competitive basis, and encouraging foreign investment in various fields. These, and the related legal measures that make up the profile of our new economic policy, are primarily intended to stimulate economic growth and national productivity; but, again, we can achieve these objectives only within the context of a supportive international economic climate.
We therefore hope to see generous increases in concessionary assistance, especially to the least developed countries, and the adoption of bold measures to alleviate their debt burdens. We also hope that the regional and economic groupings taking shape among the developed countries and the policies they pursue will not lead to protectionism and restrictions but, rather, to openness and international economic co-operation. International co-operation must also be extended to the protection of the environment, which is becoming a burning issue of our time. While environmental degradation in the North is the result of industrial progress, the problem in the South is mainly caused by poverty and underdevelopment. Though both the North and the South must follow environmentally sound development policies, the South would need the increased assistance of the North in order to halt and reverse the deterioration in the environment of our common habitat.
I should like at this moment to express our gratification at the successful conclusion of the World Summit for Children, and reaffirm my Government's determination to improve the well-being of all Ethiopian children by implementing fully the Declaration and the Plan of Action adopted by the Summit.
It is my delegation's considered view that unless the relative amelioration in the international political scene is matched by progress in international economic co-operation, the promise of peace will be a mere mirage. Indeed, if some current trends are not reversed soon, widespread poverty and deprivation in the poorer countries, especially in Africa, will generate social unrest, tension and instability as well as mass displacements of people, with dangerous implications for international peace and stability.
The developing countries, and particularly those in Africa, cannot and will not accept relegation to a perpetual marginal existence. In this small planet of ours, we cannot continue to have two worlds, one characterised by degrading poverty and deprivation, the other by affluence and plenty. Also, we must not allow the East-West confrontation to be replaced by a North-South divide, with the North, at best, attempting to impose its own models of general development and economic growth on the South or, at worst, totally neglecting it.
This session of the General Assembly is, in many ways, the first post-cold-war convocation of nations to deliberate upon all the major issues facing our planet. This makes the present session a unique opportunity to review and assess the world situation from a new perspective and with a fresh approach. Though most of the issues on the agenda of the Assembly have been with us for many years, we must now approach them in a spirit commensurate with the imperatives of the time. Reiteration of old positions and persistent adherence to failed formulas will not suffice to meet and overcome the challenges of today. A new vision and a bold approach which would shape the future of international relations is what the peoples of the world expect from us.
We must therefore nurture and promote the positive trends already developing in the relations between States, big and small, for these should constitute the foundations of the new world order. We must also ensure that the beneficial effects of the improving situation at the global level permeate the entire gamut of international relations, so that the encouraging changes we see today do not carry latent seeds from which new crises may emerge. Let us also extend our unreserved support to the United Nations so that this unique, universal Organisation, which embodies the ideals of multilateralism, will attain the purposes and principles enshrined in its Charter.