I should like on behalf of the Government of the Gambia and my entire
delegation to express warm congratulations to Mr. Hollai on his
accession to the high office of President of the General Assembly at
this session. His broad diplomatic experience and his distinguished
professional record admirably equip him to preside over the affairs
of the Assembly, and my delegation has every confidence in his
ability to guide the deliberations of the thirty-seventh session to a
successful and effective conclusion. May I take this opportunity to
pay a tribute to his distinguished predecessor, Mr. Kittani of the
fraternal Republic of Iraq, who with untiring dedication and
commitment discharged the responsibilities conferred upon him at the
thirty-sixth session. I wish also to congratulate the fifth
Secretary-General, Mr. Perez da Cuellar, on his elevation to his
important position and to welcome him to the first regular session of
the General Assembly that he has attended in his new capacity. In the
successive crises that have beset the world community in recent
months the Secretary- General has been indefatigable in his efforts
to promote the cause of peace, to which the United Nations is
dedicated. This formal dedication notwithstanding, and in spite of
the sacred principles to which all signatories to the Charter of the
United Nations have pledged their solemn commitment, the evolution of
the international political situation in the past year suggests that
the cause of peace has not been uppermost in our collective mind.
Instead, tensions have smouldered and proliferated, and on too many
occasions erupted into armed conflict. The thirty-seventh session of
the General Assembly is therefore commencing its important work at a
time of acute and widespread crisis ominously reminiscent of that
dark era which preceded the global cataclysm of 1939 to 1945, from
whose ashes the Organization emerged. The state of crisis confronting
the international community is epitomized by the grave situation
which has continued to prevail in southern Africa in stubborn
defiance of international public opinion. Through the policy of
apartheid, which has been rightly condemned as a crime against
humanity, South Africa has succeeded in institutionalizing racial
discrimination on a scale unique in history. Under that odious system
some 20 million non-whites are routinely and systematically denied
even the most fundamental of human freedoms. In recent years the
South African authorities have attempted to convince the
international community that, in spite of the overwhelming evidence
to the contrary, they are both willing and able to introduce gradual
though meaningful reform. However, as has been demonstrated by the
fanfare of publicity surrounding the establishment of a Presidential
Advisory Council, on which the black population is not even
represented, change is not in the nature of the beast. The absence of
any constitutional provision for peaceful change has compelled the
oppressed black population to resort to armed struggle. At this point
I wish to reaffirm my Government's unwavering solidarity with the
African population of that tortured land in its legitimate struggle
to gain those rights we consider to be inalienable. In this
connection my delegation wishes to pay a particular tribute to and to
express its unequivocal support for the African National Congress and
the Pan Africanist Congress in their just and heroic struggle for
freedom, justice and human dignity. The international community and
the United Nations in particular face another grave challenge in
Namibia, the Territory originally entrusted to South Africa under a
League of Nations Mandate in 1919. Disregarding the formal revocation
of this Mandate in 1966, the Pretoria regime has by unilateral
decision extended its jurisdiction and administration over the
Territory, whose vast mineral resources it continues, with the
collaboration of foreign economic interests, to exploit for its own
use. At the same time it has transformed Namibia into a forward base
for repeated acts of aggression against independent African States in
the region.
In spite of the clear consensus within the international community,
the competent organ of the United Nations, the Security Council, has
been unable to apply the appropriate measures spelled out in Chapter
VII of the Charter. Predictably, such indulgence, far from
encouraging South Africa to comply with international norms, has
instead prompted further breaches of international peace and
security. As a result, the independent nations of the region, from
neighbouring Angola to the far flung Seychelles islands, have become
permanent targets of the racist regime and are subjected daily to
subversion, infiltration and open invasion by South Africa. In March
1978 the Namibian people, in a commendable demonstration of
statesmanship and compromise, endorsed through their sole and
authentic representative, SWAPO, the settlement plan formulated by
the Western contact group. The plan was subsequently accepted by
South Africa and adopted by the Security Council under its resolution
435 (1978). Since that time, however, no progress has been made
towards the independence of Namibia. Instead, South Africa has
invented one pretext after another to delay its withdrawal from this
illegally occupied Territory. The latest of these manoeuvres is the
current attempt to link the independence of Namibia to certain
extraneous factors. South Africa's continued intransigence is a
direct affront to the authority of the United Nations and further
undermines the credibility of the Organization. Any modification of
the existing framework of negotiation would gravely compromise the
authority of the Security Council. In this regard the position of the
Government of the Gambia remains that resolution 435 (1978)
constitutes the sole and immutable basis for the independence of
Namibia. The situation in southern Africa is matched only by the
grave situation in the Middle East, which has now escalated to
critical proportions with dire implications for international peace
and security. Here, too, the United Nations faces an important and
historic challenge. Although the will of the international community
has been clearly articulated in the successive resolutions of the
Assembly, recognizing and reaffirming the inalienable rights of the
sons and daughters of Palestine to self-determination and independent
statehood, no progress has been made towards the achievement of these
basic freedoms. In the occupied territories, the Palestinian
population remains subjected to a campaign of systematic repression,
under which the most peaceful protests are met with brute force. This
campaign, which has spared neither school-children nor the elderly,
attained epidemic proportions in March of this year. In June of this
year the international community witnessed with indignation and
revulsion the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the latest episode in the
seemingly endless saga of Israeli aggression. My Government
reiterates its condemnation of this criminal invasion, which not only
violates the most fundamental principles of the Charter and
international law, but will remain for years a blot on the conscience
of the civilized world. Ignoring the successive resolutions of the
Security Council and the General Assembly calling for Israel's
withdrawal to the internationally recognized borders of Lebanon, the
invading army continued its relentless advance through Lebanon. The
bloody Israeli advance culminated in the ten-week siege of the
capital, Beirut, during which the civilian population was subjected
to a veritable holocaust. I wish at this juncture to express the
total solidarity of the Government and people of the Gambia with the
courageous struggle of the Palestinian people, under the heroic
leadership of its sole and authentic representative, the PLO. Still
reeling from the surrealistic horror of this murderous siege, the
world community has reacted with outrage and disbelief to the recent
Sabra and Shatila massacres, in which more than 1,500 Palestinian
civilians, mainly women and children, were murdered in cold blood.
The Gambia strongly and unequivocally condemns these genocidal
atrocities and urges a full investigation into the organization and
execution of this crime against humanity, in accordance with General
Assembly resolution ES-7/8, adopted at the seventh emergency special
session, devoted to the question of Palestine. Despite the global
consensus on the futility of armed force to resolve disputes, the
shadow of war continues to darken the horizon on every continent. The
second special session of the General Assembly devoted to
disarmament, in which legitimately high hopes were placed, proved a
major disappointment. Although successive government leaders and
plenipotentiaries expressed unanimous awareness of and concern for
the grave dangers which the accelerating arms race and the
ever-increasing threat of a nuclear apocalypse pose for the future of
mankind, the Assembly was unable, after five weeks of deliberation,
to agree upon a comprehensive programme of disarmament. The
ramifications of this diplomatic failure extend far beyond the
confines of this hallowed building. They are symptomatic of a more
global malaise. This phenomenon is characterized most notably by the
absence of the necessary political will to renounce the use of force
in international disputes in favour of peaceful negotiation. Indeed,
with disturbing frequency the established framework and procedure for
the peaceful settlement of disputes have been bypassed, while nations
have resorted to brute force to achieve political objectives. The
dispute over the Falkland Islands, which culminated in a full-scale
war with catastrophic consequences for both parties to the conflict,
is a classic example of this syndrome. Pursuant to the provisions of
the Charter on self-determination and the non-use of force in the
settlement of disputes, the position of the Gambia regarding this
dispute is that the status of the Falkland Islands should be
peacefully determined on the basis of the freely expressed wishes of
the inhabitants of the territory. In the Persian Gulf, meanwhile, the
fratricidal conflict between two Islamic States has raged for too
long, inflicting considerable loss of lives and immeasurable damage
to property, not to mention the staggering financial costs of the war
itself, now estimated to have exceeded $30 billion. As a member of
the Mediation Committee established by the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, my Government has since 1980 participated
actively in a number of initiatives aimed at achieving a settlement
of this most regrettable dispute. Unfortunately, these assiduous
efforts have not yet borne fruit. The Security Council has meanwhile
issued repeated calls for a cessation of hostilities, in favour of
negotiations. It is the earnest hope of my delegation that the
conflicting parties may respond positively to the most recent of
these appeals, launched only last week under resolution 522 (1982).
In the same region, the illegal occupation of Afghanistan by some
100,000 foreign troops has persisted, in violation of the cardinal
principles of self- determination and non-intervention, and in
defiance of the clear will of the international community in general
and the Moslem world in particular. Loyal to their tradition of
militant resistance to foreign domination, which stretches back in
history to the era of the Persian Empire, the Afghan people have
engaged in the heroic defence of their homeland from the new invader.
The hostilities have, however, precipitated the mass exodus of some 2
million Afghans who have sought refuge in neighbouring Pakistan,
placing an intolerable strain upon the economy of that country. The
Gambia has been following and wishes to commend the efforts of the
Secretary-General's Personal Representative for Afghanistan, Mr.
Diego Cordovez, aimed at a political settlement of the situation in
Afghanistan. In this connection, my Government cautiously welcomes
the "package of understandings" which is reported to have emerged
from his most recent consultations with the interested parties. In
South-East Asia, the protracted occupation of Kampuchea by 200,000
foreign troops continues to deprive the Khmer people of its
inalienable right to self-determination. The presence and operations
of this army of occupation have forced an estimated 250,000 Khmers to
die into neighbouring Thailand. In addition, the ongoing hostilities
between nationalist forces and the army of occupation have repeatedly
spilled across the Thai-Kampuchea frontier. In view of the
considerable tension which this has created on the border, the
continued incursions into Thailand by foreign troops stationed in
Kampuchea clearly pose a grave threat to regional peace and security.
My Government wishes meanwhile to register its support for the
establishment on 22 June 1982 of the Coalition Government of
Democratic Kampuchea, under the presidency of Prince Norodom
Sihanouk. It is our considered view that this crystallization of the
various Khmer nationalist tendencies will make an important
contribution towards the re-establishment of Kampuchea's
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. This is the
sinister course along which the international political situation has
evolved over the past year. During this period of acute and
protracted crisis which has shaken the community of nations to its
foundations, the Gambia has striven consistently to promote peace,
understanding and cooperation between States, both at the regional
and international levels. Soon after the Gambia became independent in
1965, in recognition of the geo-ethnic and cultural ties that bind
our two countries and peoples, the Gambia and Senegal signed a Treaty
of Association within whose framework a Senegal-Gambian Secretariat
was established to promote economic and socio-cultural co-operation
between the two countries. The agreement establishing the Senegambia
Confederation, signed by the Presidents of the two countries on 17
December 1981, evolved from the close and mutually beneficial
co-operation which has always characterized relations between the
Gambia and Senegal, since the Gambia attained nationhood. The
instruments by which the respective Parliaments of the two sister
States have ratified this Agreement have already been deposited with
the Secretary- General of the United Nations, and some of the
protocols for the implementation of the Agreement have been signed
and ratified. It is our fervent hope that this significant step in
the bilateral co-operation between the Gambia and Senegal will serve
as a shining example for other African nations to emulate in our
drive towards a united Africa. In the face of the unjust conditions
in which the present international economic system operates, the
adoption of the International Development Strategy for the Third
United Nations Development Decade did not only usher in a new era of
hope for developing countries; it represents, in my delegation's
view, an important milestone in the relations between developed and
developing countries as it incorporates, in terms of structural and
institutional changes, the concept of interdependence between North
and South. However, the alarming rate at which the world economy
continues to deteriorate, the widening wealth-gap between developed
and developing countries and the little progress that has so far been
achieved in the establishment of the new international economic
order, constitute ample testimony to the fact that our partners in
the North have still to summon the political will fundamental to the
implementation and success of the Strategy. With regard to trade and
development, notwithstanding the progress achieved in this area
within the framework of UNCTAD, including the Agreement Establishing
the Common Fund for Commodities which is still not fully operational,
and the adoption of rules to regulate restrictive business practices,
developing countries continue to contend with the serious effects of
spiralling world-wide inflation, inequitable terms of trade and
phenomenal recession, as well as escalating protectionist measures in
industrialized countries directed mainly against the finished
products exported by developing countries. We have, therefore, been
persistent in our call for the adoption by developed countries of
more liberal trade policies and the dismantling of artificial trade
barriers, so as to allow goods exported by developing countries
greater access to the markets of developed countries. The sixth
session of UNCTAD once again provides the international community
with another opportunity for effective action permanently to stem
these imbalances and we fervently hope that no effort will be spared
towards the attainment of this objective. The urgent need to
restructure the international monetary system so as to increase its
responsiveness to the needs and development problems of developing
countries not only poses a formidable challenge to the North-South
dialogue but also constitutes one of the main stumbling-blocks to the
launching of the global negotiations. The prevailing international
monetary system established at Bretton Woods after the Second World
War and prior to the "wind of change" catered exclusively to the
interests of the industrialized countries without taking due
cognizance of the needs of developing countries, the majority of
which had not yet become independent. It is no wonder, therefore,
that the developing countries continue to demand, albeit
unsuccessfully, that the international monetary institutions be
democratized and redesigned with a view to promoting the economic and
social progress of developing countries in the interests of both
North and South. Indeed, in a number of positive ways, the
International Meeting on Co-operation and Development, held at Cancun
in 1981 could not have been more timely. The developing countries,
and the Independent Commission on International Development Issues,
under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt, which proposed it, had hoped
that agreement would be reached at the Cancun meeting on the
launching of the global round, thereby breaking the North-South
stalemate and demonstrating the international community's commitment
to the resolution of the multifarious problems impeding the economic
development of developing countries. Regrettably, the disappointing
conclusions of the Cancun meeting dealt another shattering blow to
the aspirations of developing countries, as some developed countries
represented at the meeting were simply unprepared to endorse the
proposals which constitute the central theme of the global
negotiationsóthe restructuring of the international monetary system,
raw materials, and United Nations targets for official development
assistance. It is now an established fact that industrialization is a
sine qua non for the accelerated development of developing countries.
Regrettably, however, the attainment of the objective of 25 per cent
of world industrial output by the turn of the century set for
developing countries in the Lima Declaration and Plan of Action on
Industrial Development and Co-operation is far from being realized,
since the share of the developing countries in world industrial
production is only 12 per cent. It is equally disappointing that only
$15 million has so far been pledged to the United Nations Industrial
Development Fund as compared to the desired level of $50 million. The
low level of contribution to the Fund makes it virtually impossible
for UNIDO to expand its programmes and activities to a level that
would enhance the industrialization efforts of developing countries.
The Industrial Development Board, at its sixteenth session again
underlined the slow rate of industrial growth in the third world,
especially in Africa, and recommended among other things the
strengthening of UNIDO's activities, in particular in areas relating
to the transfer of industrial technologies, and in the exchange of
experience gained in the establishment of industrial infrastructures,
to energy-related industrial technology and industrial development,
and to management training. In this connection, the proposal by UNIDO
to establish an international bank for industrial development is
certainly a welcome initiative. Provided that, following its establishment,
the bank is accorded the needed support in terms of capital and
resource availability on an assured basis, it should contribute
significantly to promoting industrial growth in the third world.
Largely because of the lack of enthusiasm and political will on the
part of developed countries, developments in the field of science and
technology have been equally disappointing in terms of the slow
implementation of the Vienna Programme of Action on Science and
Technology for Development. Contributions to the United Nations
Interim Fund for Science and Technology for Development amounted to
only $50 million instead of the target of $250 million envisaged in
the Programme of Action adopted at Vienna. One cannot overemphasize
the importance of the operational plan for the implementation of the
Vienna Programme and of the comprehensive recommendations contained
in the report of the Intergovernmental Group on the United Nations
Financing System for Science and Technology for Development. The
Intergovernmental Committee on Science and Technology for Development
should therefore exert every effort to finalize negotiations on these
recommendations and on the International Code of Conduct on the
Transfer of Technology. The energy problem continues to constitute a
major factor in the present world economic crisis. The phenomenal
increase in oil prices over the past eight years makes it urgently
necessary to adopt a comprehensive world energy policy and to promote
the expansion and diversification of conventional and
non-conventional energy sources. It was with this in view and with
the intention of seeking measures to deal with the persistent oil
crisis and the attendant serious problems it poses to international
economic development that the United Nations Conference on New and
Renewable Sources of Energy was convened at Nairobi in August 1981.
The Conference adopted the Nairobi Programme of Action for the
Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of Energy
designed to ensure a sustained supply of energy from both
conventional and non-conventional sources, including small-scale
rural projects, the development of indigenous energy sources and
research into new and renewable energy technologies. The World Bank
has already estimated that on an annual basis oil-importing
developing countries would need a minimum of $50 billion to develop
their domestic energy resources. In this connection, the Government
of the Gambia welcomes the proposed World Bank energy affiliate to
finance energy development in developing countries and trusts that
the proposal will materialize in the very near future. We attach
equal importance to the work of the intergovernmental Committee on
the Development and Utilization of New and Renewable Sources of
Energy, established to mobilize the volume of resources needed for
the implementation of the Nairobi Programme of Action and look
forward to the successful accomplishment of its important task. The
problem of hunger and malnutrition today constitutes the most serious
and fundamental problem that developing countries are confronted
with. The food situation in the majority of developing countries has
become absolutely intolerable, particularly in Africa, where, because
of severe and prolonged drought conditions in the Sahel, the
situation has reached alarming proportions. This situation has been
further exacerbated by the international community's failure to reach
either the minimum target of 10 million tons of grain per year
established under the Food Aid Convention of 1980 or the minimum
target of 500,000 tons of grain to stock the International Emergency
Food Reserve. The need for a substantial increase in contributions to
the World Food Programme has never been more urgent, and the
international community should, as a matter of urgency, exert every
effort, not only towards meeting the targets envisaged in the Food
Aid Convention and for the International Emergency Food Reserve, but
also towards implementing the FAO Five-Point Plan of Action on World
Food Security." Equally important is the replenishment of the
resources of the International Fund for Agricultural Development to
enable the Fund to maintain and even expand its efforts to promote
increased food production and strengthen the agricultural
infrastructure of developing countries. The decision of the
International Monetary Fund to establish a food window to assist
low-income countries in correcting the imbalance of their balance of
payments resulting from cereal imports is certainly a step in the
right direction. Notwithstanding that, concerted efforts should also
be made towards recycling the substantial food surpluses in the
developed countries. The declining level of concessional resources
available for multilateral operational activities is a source of
serious concern to the Gambian Government. In the case of UNDP, for
example, the financial commitments made so far have fallen far short
of the minimum average annual growth of 14 per cent in voluntary
contributions envisaged for the third programming cycle, 1982 to
1986. The Administrator of UNDP revealed a few days ago in a
statement at the 4th meeting of the Second Committee that for the
first year of the cycle, the Programme will not even have sufficient
resources to enable it to deliver up to 60 per cent of the indicative
planning figures envisaged in decision 80/30 of the UNDP Governing
Council. Indeed, the entire United Nations development system is
lumbered with the same bleak prospects of resource availability and,
unless there is a dramatic about tum, the devastating effects of the
waning resource prospects on the operational activities of the United
Nations development system will hardly bear contemplation. It is
particularly disturbing that following the adoption of the
Substantial New Programme of Action for the 1980s for the Least
Developed Countries in Paris last year, the good will and enthusiasm
so amply demonstrated in Paris is yet to be matched by firm
commitments in terms of resources for the early implementation of the
Substantial New Programme of Action. Today, we are living in a world
in which some of the most basic needs for survival are virtually
non-existent for the majority of mankind as chronic poverty and
squalor become increasingly prevalent. For those of us from the least
developed countries, which constitute the world's poorest sector, the
situation has become absolutely unbearable. It is hardly necessary to
remind the international community that the problems of poverty
constitute the greatest threat to international peace and security.
Let us, therefore, through unity of action, guarantee our collective
survival by giving practical expression to our solemn pledge to the
Organization to mould a more assured and acceptable future for
mankind. In our pursuit of this crucial objective, I pledge the total
support and co- operation of the Government and people of the Gambia.


Mr. President, I join the previous speakers in extending to you, on
behalf of my Government, our congratulations on your election as
President of the thirty seventh session of the General Assembly. My
congratulations also go to your predecessor for the exemplary manner
in which he conducted the proceedings of the last session. This
session of the General Assembly is convening at a time when the very
foundations of international peace, stability and prosperity are
being assailed by global disharmony and serious economic crisis.
Hardly a day goes by without our attention being drawn to a new and
terrible flashpoint where reason and negotiation yield to rash and
precipitous conflicts under arms. Border wars rage, and nations parry
and thrust over the negotiating table with all too little concern for
the consequences of their inability to compromise. On a different
plane, where the stakes are much higher and the destructive
capabilities terrifyingly lethal the super Powers have yet again
failed to secure any meaningful agreement on nuclear arms limitation.
The impunity with which nations flout the Charter, too, gives rise to
our fears that true and lasting peace Is an impossible dream. As a
small country, far removed from these areas of conflict, Papua New
Guinea has no illusions about its position in the scheme of things.
However, we feel obligated to draw the Assembly's attention to the
perspective we hold of the deterioration of relations between
countries. Our concern also extends to the growing disparity between
the industrial and non industrial countries. We are therefore
compelled to express our concern at the indifference shown by
industrial countries in procrastinating in the implementation of
successive economic summits dealing with the world economic order.
423
Papua New Guinea believes that removing the threat of armed conflict
and establishing procedures designed to assist the economic
improvement of poor nations are the two issues requiring the urgent
attention of the General Assembly. These are not new issues in the
General Assembly's agenda. They have in fact been debated many times
both here and in other international to rums. Regrettably, on each
occasion, no satisfactory solution has been reached. My Government
believes that the time is now overdue for all of us to make some real
progress on these crucial issues. Instituting reforms to correct
these anomalies will require a degree of strength and unity of
purpose which has so far eluded the Assembly. My Government therefore
hopes that at this session the Assembly will distinguish itself by
finding common ground where these and other issues of global concern
can be resolved. I now wish to address myself to those specific
issues that my Government considers appropriate for debate in this
forum. My Government continues to consider colonialism an anachronism
of our times. We fully share the view that dependent and Non Self
Governing Territories must be given the opportunity to exercise their
inalienable right to self determination and independence as
stipulated in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960. Papua
New Guinea, like other independent Pacific island countries, is
particularly concerned with the remaining dependent Territories of
the Pacific region. Since Papua New Guinea became independent seven
years ago, we have been obliged to support independence for our
Pacific island neighbors. Our resolve in this respect today is
undiminished. We shall continue to ensure that the colonial era in
the Pacific region comes to an end. We note with satisfaction the
recent developments within New Caledonia resulting in greater
participation of the Melanesian people in the Council of Government.
We commend the French Government on the reforms which are aimed at
achieving greater political, economic and social benefits for the
indigenous Melanesian population. We trust that this is an integral
part of an evolutionary process which will eventually lead New
Caledonia to plan its own destiny towards independence. Hence,
pleased as we are at the progress made so far, we cannot be fully
content until we see the emergence of an independent New Caledonia.
These views were echoed at the South Pacific Forum meeting in August.
We urged the French Government to work closely with the Kanak people
of New Caledonia in formulating a political programme for a peaceful
transition to independence. We also hope that other French
Territories in the Pacific are given equal opportunities to determine
their own future.

I also wish to state that Papua New Guinea cannot be indifferent if
the Micronesian people of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands
are denied their right to decide their own future. We acknowledge the
efforts that are being made by the United States Government to place
before the people of Micronesia a range of options which will include
a plebiscite to enable them to determine their own future. To deny
them these options would be contrary to the principles of the Charter
of the United Nations and the spirit of the Trusteeship. Who is
better able to decide whether the Micronesian people are ready for
self determination than the Micronesians themselves? Over the past
few years we have witnessed the resurgence of a particularly
deplorable world wide phenomenon. I speak here of the tendency of
countries in recent times totally to disregard the principles of
sovereignty and independence of other States by pursuing blatant acts
of aggression and interference. It is indeed disheartening to note
that those same States, which have representatives at the Assembly,
freely abuse the principles of the Charter. The use of superior
economic and military strength to invade small countries for the
purpose of securing spheres of influence is a matter of the utmost
concern to my Government.
A prime example was Viet Nam's invasion of Kampuchea in late 1978,
and its installation of a puppet regime. The Kampuchean people have
suffered intolerably; thousands have been killed and others have fled
to neighboring and far away countries to seek sanctuary. Together
with other concerned countries, Papua New Guinea supported
initiatives to bring about a peaceful solution to the problem of
Kampuchea. We actively participated in the International Conference
on Kampuchea held here last year. 13. Last year Papua New Guinea,
along with the Association of South East Asian Nations and many
States Members of the United Nations, adopted a declaration which
advocated a negotiated settlement of the problem of Kampuchea. Viet
Nam's continued rejection of these calls has necessitated the recent
formation of a Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. We
consider this development a positive move and therefore pledge our
support, together with the member States of ASEAN, in welcoming the
formation of the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea. The
Afghanistan issue is somewhat analogous to the Kampuchea issue. Papua
New Guinea has opposed and will continue to oppose the foreign
occupation of Afghanistan. We note with regret that the Soviet Union
has not responded to Genera! Assembly resolution 36/34, calling for
the immediate, unconditional and total withdrawal of foreign troops
from Afghanistan. We believe that the situation in Afghanistan cannot
be normalized as long as foreign troops are present in that country.

While taking note of the second special session of the General
Assembly devoted to disarmament this year, we are dismayed that there
has been no real effort to reduce the manufacturing and stockpiling
of trade in both conventional and nuclear weapons. My Government,
nevertheless, commends the efforts of the Committee on Disarmament to
curb the arms race. While we have not succeeded in effecting a
comprehensive reduction in arms, the fact that both bilateral and
multilateral disarmament measures exist in the form of treaties and
conventions provides some hope for optimism. There is, however, a
great danger in the belief that armaments are causes of war. Arms do
not decide to go to war; it is human decisions that put them to war.
Arms control alone cannot remove the possibility of war, but arms
control backed by political will can prevent war and contribute to
peace and security. Another alarming aspect of the arms race is the
expansion in nuclear weaponry. For a number of years now one of the
major tasks of the United Nations has been to promote the peaceful
use of nuclear energy while attempting to deter its military
application. In spite of those efforts, however, nations still find
reason to develop nuclear weapons. Like our neighbors in the South
Pacific, we are increasingly alarmed at the continued testing of
nuclear weapons in the region by outside Powers. At this year's
meeting of the South Pacific Forum, the Pacific island leaders again
strongly condemned France for its nuclear activities in our region
and called for an immediate halt to them. Furthermore, the Forum
called on those States with nuclear capability not to store or dump
nuclear wastes in the Pacific. We object to the long  term effects of
nuclear experimentation, which could adversely affect the lives and
the welfare of our people. It is against this background that Papua
New Guinea is totally opposed to nuclear testing and to the dumping
of nuclear wastes in the region. For many sessions now the Assembly
has adopted resolutions condemning South Africa and seeking to
eliminate its abhorrent policy of Papua New Guinea finds it difficult
to understand why some members of this body continue to condone the
actions of a regime which has persistently spumed United Nations
resolutions and yet continue to support South Africa indirectly
through trade and other relations. I make particular reference here
to those countries which saw fit to veto a Security Council draft
resolution in April 1981 requesting Members of the United Nations to
impose comprehensive and mandatory sanctions against South Africa.
Their actions in this respect are indicative of the indifference of
some Members of this world body who profess to be guardians of the
rights and dignity of mankind. It is this kind of hypocrisy that
provides reason for the Pretoria Government to continue pursuing its
repugnant racist policies. The attitude so far displayed by these
countries evokes no optimism concerning the total abolition. My
delegation looks forward to the time when all Members of the
Organization can sincerely and effectively impose trade and economic
sanctions against South Africa. When that time comes, and my
Government hopes it will come soon, it will be a triumphant
vindication of the human values which have been totally repudiated by
the South African Government.

It would be remiss of me to bypass Namibia at this juncture. Papua
New Guinea has supported and will continue to support United Nations
efforts to accord Namibia the right to free itself from its
subservient role to South Africa. We shall continue to press for an
early and peaceful settlement to this long standing question, as
provided for in Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439
(1978). We find consolation in the efforts of the contact group of
Western States. However, we strongly urge all concerned speedily to
facilitate a durable solution for Namibia's independence. The Middle
East issue will continue to be of grave concern if the recent and
unfortunate events in Lebanon are not properly resolved. These events
have surely undermined the efforts of the parties concerned to find a
lasting solution to the problems of the sovereign State of Lebanon.
We are particularly concerned that Israel's action has led to the
massacre and undue suffering of hundreds of innocent Lebanese
civilians and Palestinian refugees in west Beirut. We abhor such
action, irrespective of whoever is responsible. Although we
acknowledge Israel's right to exist and thus to defend its political
and territorial integrity, Papua New Guinea also firmly believes that
this longstanding crisis can never be resolved without acknowledging
the Palestinians' right to have their own State. Papua New Guinea
recognizes that right and will support any initiatives that are aimed
at convening a conference on Palestine as a means to finding a
lasting settlement to the Middle East situation. After many years of
protracted negotiations, my Government was happy to welcome the
adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in
April this year. We, however, remain disappointed that certain
countries sought to alter some fundamental provisions of the
Convention. I feel obliged to remind those countries that the
provisions in question are there for the benefit of mankind. My
Government is especially concerned that the United States has decided
not to become a party to the Convention when it is opened for
signature. Papua New Guinea's concern stems from the fact that key
provisions within the Convention relating to sea bed mining may not
be effectively implemented, white some industrial countries
possessing sea bed mining technology fail to support the Convention.
Papua New Guinea trusts and urges other industrial States to support
the Convention as the principal treaty governing the exploitation of
resources of the world's oceans. The single most important issue
facing the world community today is the current global economic
recession, especially the adverse impact it has had on the economic
and social well being of all nations. Against the background of the
current world economic crisis, Papua New Guinea joins other nations
in recognizing that co operation at the international level is
urgently requested in order to arrest and improve the deteriorating
economic situation. We are aware that the world economy has suffered
over the past decade from problems arising from inflation, high
interest rates, exchange rate instability, deteriorating terms of
trade in commodities, rising unemployment, slow growth and
protectionism. Because of the general downturn in economic growth,
industrial countries have had to apply so called safeguard measures
in order to cope with their own domestic pressures. Thus we have seen
substantial falls in the industrial countries' demands for non
industrial country products, the proliferation of tariff and non
tariff barriers and a general drift towards protectionism. In
addition there has been, a substantial reduction m the flow of
official aid and development finance to developing countries. Trade
barriers in various forms have effectively curtailed markets for non
industrial country exports Most of the restrictions have been
concentrated on manufactured products, although agricultural products
have been subjected to similar restrictions as well. As most of the
barriers to trade exist outside international rules, efforts to limit
their restrictive and trade distorting effects have never been
successful. We in the Pacific have suffered because of a serious drop
in the demand for those agricultural commodities upon which we are so
dependent, such as copra, cocoa, palm oil, fish and timber. Our.
small Pacific economies often rely for survival on the income from
just one or two of these primary products Marginal changes in the
volume and price of agricultural imports from industrial countries
result in plummeting prices for non industrial countries like ours.
At this point I must pay a tribute to the efforts of the European
Economic Community to compensate its associated African, Caribbean
and Pacific countries for drops m export earnings. Papua New Guinea
has recently benefited from this STABEX scheme, Stabilization System
for Export Earnings, and is due to receive additional loan and grant
finance. This assistance is certainly appreciated, but let us all not
forget that relatively small loans can only be partial compensation
for the much larger drops in export earnings we have been forced to
bear. STABEX though welcome, is merely a palliative. We must all
still strive for a new international economic order in which the
small producers are not forced to bear a disproportionate share of
the sacrifices all have to make during times of economic recession.
Papua New Guinea, like many other countries, is experiencing dramatic
falls in foreign exchange earnings. Consequently, like other
countries, it has been forced with very serious balance of payments
difficulties and problems of debt servicing. Both industrial and non
industrial countries have a responsibility to help revitalize and
rearrange the current economic order. Economic recovery depends upon
a number of factors, such as the elimination of trade barriers and
the elimination of other barriers that restrict trade growth. In
this" regard, we urge GATT at the next ministerial meeting and UNCTAD
at the sixth session to establish effective proposals for economic
recovery. There is one other area of concern to my Government. This
is in regard to the way in which quotas are distributed under current
international commodity agreements. During the recent meetings of the
International Coffee Organization in London, for example, it was
quite evident that the major coffee producing nations used their
economic power to increase. their quotas, to the detriment of smaller
producers like my own country. Papua New Guinea would like to see a
fairer, a more equitable distribution of quotas so that justice not
only is done but is seen to be done. There are many problems that
beset our world today. Although I have only touched on some of them,
a!! of them need to be solved, and solve them we must. To do this,
however, we need one another's shoulders to carry the burden jointly.
But to do this effectively we need the political will to do it, a
factor which is required if most of our collective endeavors are to
succeed now and in the future. My delegation Relieves that it is
pointless discussing what can be done unless we first establish that
there is a collective will to do it. Only then can we hope to create
a world order in which States can strive to live together in peace,
stability and prosperity.


236 Sir, I should like first of all to
congratulate you and the noble country you
represent on the occasion of your well-deserved
election as President of this thirty-seventh
session of the General Assembly. We are certain
that, given your diplomatic skill, wisdom and
even-handedness, you will provide excellent
leadership for the work before us. Also, we wish
to congratulate Mr. Kittani for the skill and
tact with which he presided over the tasks of the
sessions of the General Assembly held throughout
this particularly difficult year. We extend
special recognition to the Secretary-General for
his outstanding efforts in the short, yet
troubled, period in which he has held his post.
237.	In this general discussion, it is
customary to review the most important
developments on the international scene. Year
after year, we deplore—almost ritualistically—new
and old problems that threaten international
peace and security. But this year, a new and
exceedingly grave threat has aggravated the
situation. I refer specifically to the threat to
world peace and security represented by the
fatalistic resignation by ever-growing numbers of
people and, in particular, by Governments, in the
face of genocide, hunger and misery, and even in
the face of the possibility of a nuclear
holocaust.
238.	Confronted with the most tense and
fragile international situation since 1945, at
this session the General Assembly is called upon
to reflect most profoundly. The persistence of
old sources of tension and the emergence of new
ones, in addition to symptoms that the current
structures for maintaining stability are becoming
worn out, lead us to the inescapable conclusion
that the pre-conditions for peace do not exist.
Indeed, there can be no peace if the vast
majority of the inhabitants of this planet are
without bread, education, decent housing,
security and political rights. There can be no
peace without justice. There can be no peace
while certain countries cling to outmoded systems
of domination and dependence and stubbornly
endeavour to prevent third world countries at all
costs from adopting measures they consider
imperative and necessary to overcome
underdevelopment and want in the exercise of
their right to self-determination and
independence. Peace is impossible, so long as the
powerful maintain their arrogant stance of
demanding that developing countries act in
accordance with imperial interests and in
detriment to the interests of their own peoples.
239.	How can there be peace when 40 per cent
of the third world population is denied the right
to read and write? How can there be peace when
the vast majority of mankind is struggling to
overcome hunger and misery t while a tiny
minority invests enormous resources in weapons to
be used against those demanding justice?
240.	How can we not acknowledge that we are
facing the most serious economic crisis since the
great depression of the 1930s, with world per
capita income not making the slightest advance
since 1981 and with the prospect of a decline in
1982? How can there be peace while countries and
entire continents are fighting not simply for
economic growth but for mere survival? Our
countries are calling for a new economic order
wherein the developed countries do not correct
their own problems of stagnation, inflation and
unemployment at the expense of the developing
world.
241.	In this setting Latin America has felt
the need to lay the groundwork for a strategy for
independence and security. At the eighth regular
meeting of the Council of the Latin American
Economic System, held this past August in
Caracas, our countries reasserted the sovereign
right of all nations to adopt their own path in
the economic, social and political fields in
peace and free from pressure, aggression and
external threats.
242.	In Managua, the seventeenth Regional
Conference for Latin America of FAO also urged
the creation of security machinery in terms of
foodstuffs in order to decrease the vulnerability
of Latin American and Caribbean nations with
regard to one or several industrialized
countries. And, in Toronto, on the occasion of
the Joint Meeting of the International Monetary
Fund and the World Bank, our country, on behalf
of Latin America, the Philippines and Spain,
voiced its opposition to intervention by certain
institutions in the system of economic
organization of countries in need of assistance.
Warning was given of the dangers involved in the
setting of more and more conditions, in the
rising cost of credit and in the threat contained
in the questioning of the very importance of
international co-operation.
243.	With regard to international
co-operation, we wish to go on record as voicing
concern at the tendency of some developed
countries not to abide by the commitments that
they have undertaken vis-a-vis UNDP, thus making
the progress of important projects already under
way much more difficult.
244.	Just as indicative of the current
indifference to mankind's vital interests is the
impudence of those that try to hide the
consequences of nuclear conflict. Illogically,
they try to make us believe that such a conflict
could be confined to a given geographical area.
It has reached the point where the world's most
formidable military Power is proclaiming that
there are issues more important than peace and
that force is a legitimate instrument in
attaining its objectives of domination and
political hegemony.
245.	This reckless policy of the current
United States Administration has made its own
citizens and the peoples of the world contemplate
the danger of a nuclear confrontation. In this
context, it should not surprise us that the
anti-nuclear movement has attained such massive
and broad dimensions—even in the United States
itself—although this outcry, as has unfortunately
become the rule, is not reflected in decisions of
Governments, as evidenced by the paltry results
of the recent second special session devoted to
disarmament.
246.	Just a few months ago Latin America
suffered colonialist military aggression by an
extra-continental Power, which threatens the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of a sister
nation. We refer, of course, to the British
invasion of the Malvinas Islands, the true origin
of which can be found in the United Kingdom's
stubborn attempt to perpetuate an anachronistic
colonial situation on our continent. The
aggression against the Republic of Argentina was
possible only thanks to the military, economic
and political support that the United States
supplied to the aggressor nation—support which
astonished Latin Americans, support that unmasked
the United States conception of the reciprocal
defence treaties and the true motives that led
the United States to sign them.
247.	In numerous General Assembly resolutions
and resolutions of other United Nations bodies it
has been said in clear-cut terms that the
Malvinas issue is a colonial one that must be
resolved. Twenty Latin American foreign ministers
requested that this situation be discussed at
this session of the Assembly, because they wanted
to make it absolutely clear that the cause of the
Malvinas Islands is also the cause of Latin
America, and that a resumption of negotiations
leading to a peaceful resolution of the conflict
on the basis of United Nations resolutions is
imperative.
248.	The principle of solidarity compels us to
unite with our African brothers and sisters in
the defence of Namibia's right to independence.
We reject all the manoeuvres aimed at creating a
puppet Government in Namibia. We demand full
implementation of Security Council resolution 435
(1978) and the recognition of SWAPO as the sole
legitimate representative of the heroic people of
Namibia. We denounce the campaign launched by the
Reagan Administration to deprive Angola of its
inalienable right of self-defence and to the
assistance it needs to repel South Africa's
attacks. We are certain that neither this policy
of Mack-mail nor the stationing of thousands of
racist troops along Angola's frontier, nor the
attempts to destabilize the front-line States,
especially Mozambique, nor the use of mercenaries
to overthrow Governments, as happened in
Seychelles, can weaken the clear determination of
those peoples to defend their sovereignty and to
ensure sovereignty for Namibia.
249.	We condemn the aggressive policy of the
racist regime of South Africa against
neighbouring States, a policy which is the
logical outgrowth of its own criminal apartheid
system. We reaffirm what our non-aligned movement
has stated on numerous occasions, namely, that
there can be no peace, stability and security in
southern Africa until the oppressive and illegal
apartheid regime is totally eradicated. We are as
one in solidarity with the labour leaders
imprisoned and condemned to death by the
diabolical racist regime, in flagrant violation
of the most elementary human rights. The United
Nations must step up its campaign to prevent them
from being executed and to win their release.
250. The entire world has witnessed the brutal
aggression of which the Republic of Lebanon has
been the victim, and in which atrocities
comparable only to the "final solution" policy
pursued by the Nazi regime were committed. It is
appropriate to recall, in such circumstances,
that Hitler's Germany started that catastrophe
with its policy of territorial expansionism,
which was followed by the mass extermination of
human beings, and that one of its principal
victims was the Jewish people itself. Today, to
the world's consternation, the leaders of those
who survived genocide and the concentration camps
are to be found promoting acts of genocide and
building concentration camps with the objective
of exterminating the heroic Palestinian people.
25l. The horrors which have occurred in the
Palestinian refugee camps, the indiscriminate
massacring of the civilian population of Beirut
and the denial of people's most elementary legal
rights led the Government Junta of National
Reconstruction of Nicaragua to break the only
remaining link we still had with Israel, that is,
the fiction of diplomatic relations, all genuine
ties having been severed upon the triumph of our
Revolution. It was the least Nicaragua could do
to express its categorical repudiation and total
non-recognition of the Zionist regime and at the
same time its militant support for the
Palestinian combatants and their sole legitimate
representative, the PLO, and the long-suffering
people of Lebanon.
252.	We feel it necessary to denounce,
moreover, the open complicity of a great Power in
the barbarism unleashed by the Zionist forces in
Lebanon. That Power gave the Zionist regime its
full political, military and economic support,
thus ensuring that the crimes committed would go
unpunished and, which is even more shameful,
systematically blocked the Security Council's
efforts to restore peace, proclaiming that it
alone was capable of controlling the monster
which it had itself encouraged and which it had
always defended.
253.	Those events demonstrate clearly that the
problem of the Middle East can be resolved only
by recognizing the inalienable rights of the
Palestinian people, including the right to
self-determination, to return to their homeland
and to set up their own State. The international
community must step up its efforts to prevent the
policy of force and occupation practised by
Israel from prevailing in that area of the world,
a policy which could have the fatal corollary of
the physical extermination of the Palestinian
people. Equally evident is the fact that the
Middle East crisis will be capable of solution
only when the United States abandons its policy
of protecting those guilty of crime, terrorism
and genocide and stops thwarting United Nations
efforts, in particular those of the
Secretary-General and the Security Council, to
carry out the mandate set forth in the Charter.
254.	Speaking as a member of the non-aligned
movement and as a revolutionary nation, we wish
to voice our solidarity with all the countries
and peoples fighting to win or to preserve their
independence: with the people of Cyprus, seeking
to exercise their right to defend the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of the nation; with
Grenada and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, defending
their sovereignty against imperialism; with the
sister Republic of Cuba demanding the return of
illegally occupied Guantanamo —and we condemn in
the strongest possible terms the blockade and
constant threats against that country. We join
the brother people and Government of Panama in
their just demand that the Torrijos-Carter
treaties be implemented.
255.	We rejoice with the people of Bolivia
over their nation's return to legality and
democracy. We extend our solidarity to the people
of Puerto Rico and support their right to
independence and self-determination in accordance
with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV),
recalling the fact that the problem facing the
Puerto Rican people but that it is, rather, a
matter that concerns Latin America, to which
Puerto Rico is an undeniable part. We support the
Korean people's just struggle for the peaceful
and democratic reunification of their nation free
from foreign intervention.
256.	Nicaragua reaffirms its support of the
appeal issued by the non-aligned movement with
regard to Western Sahara for the parties
concerned to enter into negotiations immediately
in order to reach a just and lasting
solution—that conflict in keeping with the
provisions of resolution 1514 (XV) and the
principles of our movement, with the decisions
adopted by the OAU and with the principles of the
Charter.
257.	We welcome the efforts made by the States
of South-East Asia to begin a dialogue leading to
the re-establishment of peace and stability in
that region. We welcome as well the positions and
appeals with regard to South-West Asia adopted by
the non-aligned movement at the Conference of
Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Non-Aligned
Countries at New Delhi.
258.	The worsening of the international
situation cannot be separated from the grave
crisis affecting the Organization. That is why we
welcome the frankness with which the
Secretary-General in his report on the work of
the Organization acknowledges that the United
Nations is being ignored by some countries, and
we support the recommendations he makes aimed at
strengthening the Organization and, in
particular, at strengthening the authority of the
Security Council to prevent conflicts and
revitalize the system of international security.
In this connection, it is worth stressing that
the use of the veto to thwart the condemnation of
terror, aggression and genocide must no longer be
tolerated, so that being in Washington's good
graces is not interpreted as a green light to
violate the fundamental principles of the Charter
and the most basic norms of law.
259.	It should be a matter of profound concern
to the international community that a permanent
member of the Security Council tends to turn
increasingly to the veto in detriment to the just
proposals for peace advanced, with a lofty sense
of responsibility, by Governments in the most
troubled regions of the world. In specific terms,
we wish to refer to the Reagan Administration's
decision to veto the draft resolution regarding
Central America submitted by Panama and Guyana on
2 April of this year, a draft resolution that
confined itself simply to reaffirming the
illegality of the use of force or the threat of
force in relations between States and that called
for dialogue between all parties concerned.
260.	Nicaragua believes there is no
justification whatsoever for the Reagan
Administration's attitude towards our country and
the Central American region. We deem it absurd to
portray us as a threat to the United States for
having chosen, in the exercise of our sovereign
rights, an independent political path within the
framework of the most scrupulous non-alignment.
It is even more absurd to try to blame Nicaragua
for all the problems Central American countries
are enduring, problems whose origins and true
causes can be found solely and exclusively in the
constant postponement of appropriate solutions.
This is a situation the peoples of Central
America seem unwilling to go on tolerating
indefinitely, despite the fact that the United
States continues to oppose any changes that might
result in greater independence for the States of
Central America.
261.	We have stressed—and we do so here once
again—that the Nicaraguan Government genuinely
desires an understanding with the United States
that would make it possible substantially to
improve the relations between our two States on
the basis of mutual respect, non-intervention in
internal affairs and, above all, on the basis of
sovereign equality, independence and
self-determination—principles that constitute the
foundation of peace and stability in the world
and that are found throughout the Charter.
262.	Guided by our unshakeable devotion to
peace, we have presented to the Reagan
Administration a number of different approaches
for initiating dialogue, reiterating time and
again our invitation to hold high-level meetings
between representatives of our States in the hope
of avoiding the putting into effect of the
threats of the use offence against Nicaragua.
263.	Unfortunately, the response of the United
States Government to date has been to attempt to
impose upon us its rigid East-West outlook, a
combination of economic pressures, accusations
and threats culminating in the financing of
covert destabilizing activities and the open use
of its territory for the training of
counter-revolutionary forces and for the
preparation of actions of a criminal nature
against Nicaragua. The financial and
organizational assistance the Reagan
Administration is lending the enemies of our
people has led to an increase in terrorist acts
and armed assaults on our national territory and
to a substantial increase in the weaponry,
personnel and organization provided to the
counter-revolutionary forces. Those forces have
been supplied with sophisticated means of warfare
used solely by professional armies—such as those
found in the wake of the evidenced blowing up and
sabotaging of two strategic bridges near the
border with Honduras and as evidenced by the use
of armed aircraft in attempts to destroy our only
oil refinery and the fuel stores located at the
port of Corinto on the Pacific coast. To round
out this distressing picture, we cannot avoid
mentioning the presence of United States warships
in our territorial waters, the overflights of spy
planes and the holding of joint military
manoeuvres with the Honduran army near our
borders.
264.	Guided by our firm determination to
consolidate peace in our region, our Government
has taken part in and promoted the search for
solutions which would permit an understanding
among the Central American countries, to which we
are united by bonds so strong that no foreign
Power, no matter how powerful it may be, could
ever permanently impair them.
265.	In this regard I should like to recall
the far-reaching importance which the meeting of
foreign ministers, held in San Jose, Costa Rica,
on 14 and 15 March 1980, had for Central American
unity. As the Declaration adopted at the meeting
puts it, it was motivated by the conviction that
direct and frank dialogue between the countries
of the Central American isthmus was the best way
to review the regional situation in the
political, economic and social fields, as the
most appropriate means of adopting positions to
benefit the peoples of Central America. The first
point in the 1980 San Jose Declaration affirms
that the peaceful and harmonious coexistence of
the States in the region requires respect for the
different political systems, for the right to
self-determination and the right to resolve
internal affairs in accordance with each nation's
historical development.
266.	Another important agreement adopted at
that meeting was the inclusion of the sister
republic of Panama as an integral part of Central
America, along with the institutionalization of
the meetings of the Foreign Ministers of the
area, which are to be held regularly three times
a year.
267.	More recently, during my visit to
Tegucigalpa in April of this year the Honduran
Minister for External Relations, Edgardo Paz
Barnica, informed me that he would immediately
call a meeting of the foreign ministers of the
region—an initiative which Nicaragua welcomed
without delay or reservations. I committed myself
to attending, and to supporting the inclusion in
the agenda of that meeting of the six points
contained in a peace proposal which the Foreign
Minister of Honduras said he wanted to submit for
consideration to the foreign ministers of
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica and Panama.
268.	Surprisingly, six months after our
conversation —in other words, in this month of
October—bypassing the still-valid agreements of
the Declaration of Central American Foreign
Ministers of 1980, another meeting of Foreign
Ministers was called, also in Costa Rica,
promoted by the United States, from which certain
Central American States were excluded. This
exclusion violated the agreements adopted
previously by the region's Foreign Ministers,
hence this meeting can be regarded only as an
unimportant and marginal event in terms of its
content, and as going against our peoples'
genuine interests of peace, stability and
development.
269.	Central America, for the reasons we have
already outlined, finds itself in the midst of
great political upheavals, exacerbated by grave
economic problems. Nevertheless, as pointed out
in the joint letter sent by the Presidents of
Mexico and Venezuela to the Co-ordinator of the
Nicaraguan Government Junta of National
Reconstruction, Daniel Ortega Saavedra, and to
the President of Honduras, Roberto Suazo Cordoba,
it is undeniable that the most critical situation
facing the region the most serious problem, is
the dangerous deterioration of relations between
Honduras and Nicaragua, which could result in a
conflict of unforeseeable proportions.
270.	The attitude adopted by the United States
Government, which must be denounced, has
decisively influenced powerful sectors of the
Honduran army, which are providing ample
assistance to the counterrevolutionary forces,
permitting the use of Honduran territory as a
base for military operations to attack towns and
posts along the Nicaraguan border, as well as the
supply of weapons, infrastructure, and logistical
support, tolerating the provocations and attacks
by soldiers of that country's army, and are even
going so far as to sign specific agreements with
the United States on the basis of which the
United States Government has increased its
military aid to Honduras, financing the
reconstruction of airports and military bases,
multiplying the number of its advisers, and
reserving the right to use these and other bases
and military infrastructure in Honduras. It is
obvious that this policy is giving rise to a
dangerous spiral of war in Central America. It
encourages the most aggressive sectors of
Honduras and other countries of the region, who
recklessly brag in public about their military
ability to defeat Nicaragua and openly call for
foreign intervention against our country,
271.	These military preparations, which amount
to a prelude to the much-advertised assault on
Nicaragua, were recently denounced by the former
Commander of the Honduran Public Security Force,
Colonel Leonidas Torres Arias, and this week by
the Mayor of Puerto Lempira, Marcial Colemann,
who told news agencies that an unprecedented
invasion of Nicaragua was approaching and that
Puerto Lempira, his own city, would be the
organizational centre for the invasion. He
reported that the counter-revolutionaries there
were being supplied by a Hercules aircraft of the
United States Air Force. He also stated that
there was a warehouse in Puerto Lempira which was
full of weapons that local residents could see,
and that there was evidence of
counter-revolutionary camps from which a silent
invasion of our country had already begun.
272.	Notwithstanding these irrefutable facts,
an elaborate diplomatic and propaganda campaign
is under way to defame Nicaragua and portray us
as a country opposed to all dialogue, when the
truth is that it is the people of Nicaragua who
are being attacked and it is Honduras that
systematically refuses to take part in a dialogue
at the highest level to find solutions to
bilateral problems. It is possible that this
reluctance stems from a recognition of the fact
that our problems with Honduras—a brother nation
with which we have close-knit ties—are really
problems with the United States, since the Reagan
Administration conscious of how absurd and
counter-productive a direct confrontation with
Nicaragua would be—the United States so big and
we so small—has chosen Honduras as the ideal
country from which to attack us with the foolish
aim of destabilizing us and overthrowing our
Government. It forgets that this objective is
impossible to attain in the light of our people's
monolithic unity and our determination to defend
and consolidate the achievements we have gained
at such a high cost.
273.	From September of last year to September
of this year our country has endured
approximately 143 attacks from Honduras. We have
detected some 23 infiltrations of
counter-revolutionary military groups and units.
There have been 10 violations of and incidents in
our territorial waters. A11 of that has left a
painful toll of more than 150 Nicaraguans killed,
30 missing and incalculable material damage,
which forced our Government at one point to
evacuate the civilian population in the frontier
region, which had become a veritable
scorched-earth battlefield.
274.	Within the framework of its many peace
initiatives, Nicaragua promoted the meeting
between the heads of State of Honduras and
Nicaragua, at the El Guasaule border post on 13
May we have repeatedly requested a meeting
between the army leaders of both States,
something agreed Co at El Guasaule; this past
April I travelled to Tegucigalpa to talk with the
Foreign Minister, Mr. Paz Barnica and present him
with a seven-point peace plan, later rejected by
Honduras down to the last detail; we worked for
the meeting between the chiefs of staff of the
respective armed forces, held this past May at
the La Fraternidad border post—as a result of the
agreements obtained at the La Fraternidad
meeting, the only meeting that has actually been
held was between the heads of the naval forces of
our countries in the port of Corinto.
275.	The rapid deterioration of the situation
along the border and the systematic refusal of
Honduras to offer the viable solutions urgently
needed in accordance with the existing situation
led Nicaragua to make yet another effort and on 6
August we extended an invitation to the President
of Honduras to meet in Managua with the
Co-ordinator of the Government Junta of National
Reconstruction of Nicaragua. It was made known
unofficially that such a meeting would require a
prior meeting of Foreign Ministers. On 24 August
I sent an invitation to the Honduran Minister for
External Relations for us to meet in Managua in
early September, an invitation I renewed on 4
October, asking him to set the date. The Honduran
response to both invitations was that an
excessive work-load made any commitments
impossible now. Under these circumstances, the
Governments of Mexico and Venezuela launched
their very worthwhile peace initiative, which
Nicaragua immediately welcomed and which we were
most pleased to accept, but which Honduras has,
unfortunately, rejected on the grounds of having
matters of a higher priority to deal with at
present.
276.	Fully aware of the delicate situation
existing in Central America, Nicaragua has
redoubled its efforts and will continue to do all
that is humanly possible in order to obtain a
peaceful settlement, through dialogue, of the
matter of the critical relations with the United
States and Honduras, as we have turned the
struggle for peace into the guiding principle of
all we do in the political realm. Nicaragua seeks
only to live in peace, to move forward with the
process of our material and spiritual
reconstruction within the most absolute respect
for the principles of the Charter and of
non-alignment.


My delegation wishes to associate itself with the compliments paid to
you, Mr. President, on your election to your high office, and we
pledge to you our continued co operation. We would also like to
acknowledge with satisfaction the outstanding leadership of your
predecessor in office. I would like to place on record my
Government's satisfaction with the excellent work being done by the
Secretary General during his first year in office. We wish to assure
him of our continued support. We extend to him our compliments and
endorse his forthright and incisive views on the major issues
confronting this planet and on the role of the United Nations in the
efforts to resolve the problems that we share as a result of our
inseparable humanity. He has highlighted not only the problems, but
the structural weaknesses of the Organization in tackling those
problems. In our view, the United Nations must, as a matter of
urgency, address both dimensions if all of humanity is to have even a
chance.
In the Secretary General's report on the work of the Organization he
alluded to the failure of the collective security system of the
League of Nations. It will be recalled that concurrently with the
failure of the League of Nations the world suffered an unprecedented
economic depression which in many ways contributed to the upheaval of
the Second World War.
It has been noted that the only thing we learn from history is that
we do not learn from history. How true that is. The present world
political and economic situation, which I need not reiterate before
the Assembly, and the inability of the United Nations to deal
effectively with issues pertaining thereto, bear an unnerving
resemblance to the events that ushered in the Second World War.
While my country, Fiji, in the peaceful South Pacific Ocean, is
thousands of miles away from the Middle East, our commitment to world
peace led to our direct involvement in United Nations efforts to
bring peace and stability to the area. Of particular concern to my
Government has been the recent resurgence of war in the unfortunate
country of Lebanon. The resultant massacres of Palestinian men, women
and children is a matter  to be deplored by all. My Government has
already condemned all those that were directly or indirectly involved
in the killings. The problem of Lebanon is part of the overall
problem of the Middle East J which has defied solution for more than
three decades. In the mean time, new elements have been injected into
the conflict and this has made peace in the area even more elusive.
My delegation continues to support the principles set forth in
Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) as a basis for
peace in the region. It is also imperative that the aspirations of
the Palestinian people to a homeland be realized, and that the rights
of all States, including that of Israel, to live within recognized
boundaries be acknowledged.
My country has always advocated the peaceful resolution of all
disputes through dialogue and negotiations. It was in this spirit
that my Government agreed to contribute peace keeping forces to
UNIFIL in 1978. In the same spirit, Fiji decided to contribute troops
to the multinational forces and observers last year in order to
further the peace agreement between Egypt and Israel that led to the
return of the Sinai.
The cost of the contribution to UNIFIL has been particularly
burdensome for a small country such as ours. For the past four years
our ability to maintain our troops in Lebanon has been seriously
undermined by the accumulated arrears of reimbursements, which amount
to millions of dollars. It is our earnest hope that all Member States
will meet their obligations and pay the assessed contributions
promptly so that reimbursements at the agreed levels can be made to
participants in UNIFIL without delay.
No one can deny that UNIFIL has proved its usefulness, but for peace
keeping forces to be effective it is essential that they have both a
clear mandate and the co operation, respect and support of all Member
States and, more particularly, of the immediate parties to the
disputes. This, regrettably, has not always been the case in Lebanon.
The situation in the Asian region has remained the same. Foreign
armed intervention and occupation continue in Afghanistan and
Kampuchea. In both cases the majority of United Nations Members have
taken an unequivocal stand, to which we subscribe. This international
concern will continue until the foreign forces are unconditionally
withdrawn. Only then will the freedom of their people and the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of those countries be restored.
With respect to Kampuchea, the recent initiatives that have brought
the resistance groups into a coalition provide a better basis for a
negotiated and peaceful solution of the problem in that country. We
hope that there will be a more positive response to this important
development.
The vexed question of the peaceful reunification of Korea remains
with us. However, we regard the recent proposal by South Korea as an
important step towards reconciliation. It is our hope that a unified
Korea will soon become a reality.
In the field of disarmament very little has been achieved. All we
hear of are new initiatives or the breakdown of talks. The recent
special session of the General Assembly on disarmament was no
exception. If anything, the arms race has been escalated. The goal is
no longer to establish deterrent forces, but rather, as one of the
super Powers has stated recently from this rostrum, to achieve armed
superiority and maintain it. We must pause to think of the logical
consequences of such a course and where the super Powers are leading
us all. There appears to be no limit to man's quest for self
destruction.
It is more urgent than ever that, as a first step, the international
community agree to the total prohibition of nuclear weapon testing.
Fiji supports this proposal, as well as efforts to conclude a
comprehensive test ban treaty. In this regard, it urges the
resumption of the trilateral talks.
We in the South Pacific find ourselves a direct victim of the arms
race. One major Power continues its nuclear testing in the Pacific,
in total disregard of the protests of the peoples and the Governments
in the region. These tests, conducted by France on small atolls, pose
great hazards to the marine environment in the region. No one can say
with certainty what the effect of those tests may be in the future.
Last August the heads of Governments of the South Pacific countries,
who met in Rotorua, New Zealand, once again condemned those tests and
urged their immediate cessation. They also expressed their opposition
to the dumping of nuclear wastes in the Pacific. We hope that those
calls will not go unheeded.
Since its inception the Organization has played an important role in
the field of decolonization. As a member of the Special Committee on
the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on
the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples over
the past 12 years, Fiji has seen the decolonization process evolve
further. Apart from Namibia, the African continent is liberated. But
there are still other dependent Territories in other parts of the
world. Some of these are in the Pacific, and we note with interest
that this process of evolution is beginning to take place in
Territories such as New Caledonia. In this connection the leaders of
the countries of the South Pacific Forum find reassuring the
determination of the French Government to introduce important reforms
in that Territory Y these reforms are followed through, they should
eventually lead to self determination and independence with the full
participation of its indigenous population. We welcome this important
development.
After years of arduous negotiation, the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea adopted in April this year a
comprehensive Convention dealing with all uses of the sea. It is a
pity that, because of a few delegations, this important milestone in
recent history could not be reached by consensus. But this cannot
detract from the significance of the achievement, given the vastness,
importance and complexity of  the subject matter, the conflicting
interests of States and the difficulty of working out an
international regime for the sea bed beyond national jurisdiction
capable of equitably balancing the interests of developed and
developing countries.
For Fiji and similar small island countries the Convention
consolidates their inherent rights to the resources in their
surrounding seas. It was therefore not surprising that the heads of
Government of the South Pacific countries, at a recent meeting,
unanimously welcomed the adoption of the Convention and urged all
States to sign and ratify it. Indeed, my Prime Minister observed that
it was an historic act and a milestone in international negotiations.
Fiji, which participated actively in the negotiations, looks forward
to signing the Final Act in Jamaica this year.
The world economy is beset by severe problems. The industrialized
countries are facing continuing recession and heavy unemployment.
Enough interest rates have tended to decline recently, they have been
at unprecedentedly high levels in the past two years. Commodity
prices are at their lowest levels and the volume of international
trade has virtually ceased to grow. Global interdependence is such
that the prosperity of the developing countries is dependent on the
performance of the industrialized countries. The recession in the
industrialized countries, therefore, has a profound impact on the
economies of the developing countries. Many developing countries
which are already struggling with large debt repayments have had
their problems exacerbated by high interest payments, adverse trends
in the terms of trade and depressed export volumes.
The conditions of weak demand and high unemployment in the
industrialized countries have led to an increasing tendency towards
protectionism. In particular, there has been an expanding commitment
in developed countries to protect agriculture through high tariffs,
variable import levies or variable export subsidies. As a result,
there is hardly a major agricultural product in which developed
countries compete with developing countries for which the world
market is not undermined or distorted by subsidized exports or
concessional sales from surplus stocks of developed countries. In
some cases, as a consequence of rising agricultural protection,
countries which were once large importers have become large
subsidized exporters. International commodity agreements are rendered
useless by large scale dumping.
A case in point is that of sugar. In 1981, for instance, the European
Economic Community became the world's second largest exporter of
sugar, after Cuba. Ironically, it is the developing countries, which
cannot afford large scale competitive subsidization of major exports,
that are forced to adjust
In the present world economic climate the plight of the small island
countries such as Fiji is a difficult one. They are vulnerable. Their
economies are highly susceptible to external economic influences
beyond their control. Fiji's expert base is Harrow, with sugar and
tourism the two major foreign exchange earners, accounting for the
major part of total foreign exchange receipts.
The unpredictable and harsh impact of external developments has
brought a number of small island economies face to face with
precarious financial situations. Their efforts to develop and
diversify their economies have been dealt severe blows by adverse
world economic developments, such as the oil crisis, high rates of
interest, protectionism and drying pools of multilateral and
bilateral loans. The smallness of island economics and their high
dependence on international trade leave these countries limited
policy options for solving the problems of low income,, high
unemployment and balance of payments deficits.
In a period when global arrangements Car trade liberalization have
not made progress, my Government finds at least two limited
arrangements of particular interest, the first being the Lome
Convention between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European
Community, and the second the South Pacific Regional Trade and Co
operation Agreement between the small island countries in the South
Pacific and Australia and New Zealand. The Lome Convention also
guarantees access to part of our vital sugar exports into the
European Community. Under SPARTEC A, certain products from the island
countries enjoy preferential access to Australian and New Zealand
markets. Both these arrangements have provided considerable economic
benefits to the developing countries concerned and are examples of
the kind of schemes required under the North South economic dialogue.
As a member of the Governing Council of UNDP, Fiji is concerned about
the general decline in the resources available to UNDP. The numerous
projects supported by UNDP in many developing countries and the
increasing number of requests regularly made for such assistance
amply demonstrate the significant role being played by UNDP. It is to
be hoped that Member States, both donors and recipients, will make
extra efforts to build up the resources of UNDP so that it can meet
the demands on it.
These and many other issues of international concern, on which
previous speakers have addressed the Assembly so eloquently, have
become the stumbling blocks in the efforts to achieve a peaceful and
secure world. They have to be resolved, and this world body cannot
abdicate this responsibility. Like others, my delegation knows only
too well the magnitude of this responsibility. The task before the
United Nations in ensuring peace and security in the world and in
promoting development is not an easy one. We represent an
organization in which diversity is the norm rather than the
exception. However, many of the achievements that we as an
organization have registered and hope to continue to register have
been and remain possible only through a commonality of purpose,
accommodation of differences and understanding. The issues before us
at this session of the General Assembly reflect this diversity and
call for much greater understanding than has been demonstrated in the
past.
I wish to conclude my statement by drawing to the attention of the
international community the plight of the very small communities
micro States, as they are called most of which are islands. I do not
pretend to be a spokesman for them, but it is clear that their
special needs are not being adequately addressed and that so far as
the United Nations is concerned such countries, including my own,
appear to be nobody's baby.
The economic situation to which I referred earlier, which is so well
known to representatives, bears particularly harshly on small,
scattered communities. Their fragile economies are often tied to a
single crop and they are susceptible to natural disasters. These are
the harsh realities of their daily existence. We experience major
disadvantages as we try to modernize, and find ourselves caught in
vicious circles in our interaction with larger, more powerful
countries. For example, it is not relevant to use per capita income
as an index of our status. Its use inevitably denies us access to
concessionary finance with which to advance our development. Those of
us that make a little headway through our own efforts appear to be
penalized for doing so. It is as if whenever we think we are making
ends meet someone moves the ends.
There is no point in preaching to us that we should pull ourselves up
by our own bootstraps when , those who give that advice keep standing
on our hands.
Yet let us not abandon hope. Huxley's  Brave New World  may not have
anticipated a world in which islands come closer to center stage, but
that world is not far off. For the first time in human history, small
States are finding themselves expanded almost overnight as their
jurisdiction encompasses millions of square miles of ocean. How to
utilize
that space, how to explore and exploit it to improve the lives of our
people and, indeed, all mankind, poses a challenge that we cannot
face alone. No longer will the development models of the 1930s and
1960s, based on large land masses, as inAfrica, Asia or Latin
America, distract or delude us.
I do not imply that islands will soon be the inheritors of untold
wealth or that all our problems will be overcome. My point is that
the day is dawning when a new order of importance must be attached to
us, our needs and our potentials, for in that process interdependence
itself will be made more manifest and achieve a real meaning beyond
today's fashionable rhetoric.