Sir, I should like to begin by congratulating you on your unanimous election to the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly at the fortieth session. You are a distinguished son and eminent representative of a country with which India has close and cordial relations, and your association with the United Nations goes back many years. We are confident that you will provide this Assembly with able stewardship.
I should also like to place on record our appreciation of the effective and statesmanlike leadership given to the Assembly at the thirty-ninth session by your predecessor, Mr. Lusaka of Zambia.
I wish also to pay a tribute to our Secretary-General for his untiring efforts in the cause of peace and for his patience, perseverance and wisdom. He has won our admiration for his skillful handling of several crisis situations. We wish him continued success and reiterate to him our support.
Before proceeding further, allow me to express cm behalf of the people and Government of India our profound grief at the heavy toll in human and material terms claimed by the earthquakes which so tragically struck Mexico last week. We express our solidarity with and support for the people and Government of Mexico in their hour of travail and in their heroic efforts to overcome this unprecedented calamity.
Mr. President, you preside today over a historic session. The United Nations has completed 40 years of its existence. These have been years not only of tribulation but also of promise and even achievement. The world is surcharged with suspicion and uncertainty, with incipient as well as overt conflict, but the ideals of the United Nations continue to instill optimism. The dawn of independence and freedom for the overwhelming majority of mankind, particularly in the erstwhile colonial and imperial domains in Asia, Africa and Latin America, has been a significant and welcome development of our times.
The generation that launched the United Nations also saw the launching of the nuclear age. While conventional attitudes towards this world Organization are still shaped by the memories of the Second world War, there is today a new specter that haunts our civilization, the specter of a nuclear catastrophe. Hostile military blocs are poised against each other with an armada of nuclear weaponry that could wipe out all life on this planet many times over. Survival in this nuclear age has become the key issue of our times.
The United Nations today is the hub of diplomatic activity for the nations of the world. Whatever their divergence in political systems, economic structures or cultural mores, they come together in almost daily contact on a variety of bilateral, multilateral and global issues. Yet this so-called democratization of international relations is only part of the story. On the other hand, the pressures and divisions that characterize contemporary international relations seriously hamper the Organization and reduce its capacity for effective action. As Jawaharlal Nehru stated at the United Nations as early as 1948:
"We have got into a cycle of hatred and violence, and not the roost brilliant debate will get you out of it, unless you look some other way and find some other means. It is obvious that if you continue in this cycle and have wars which this Assembly was specially meant to avoid and prevent, the result will be not only tremendous devastation all over the world, but the non-achievement by any individual Power or group of its objective." In his thought-provoking report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General has very aptly characterized the United Nations as an essential element in the historic choice before humanity - between a world of technological promise and one of potentially terminal danger. He has rightly stressed the need to strengthen the concept of international authority embodied in the United Nations as one that should serve as a substitute for "unilateral action, exclusive alliances end spheres of influence" (A/40/1, p.2). His specific suggestions deserve careful study and reasoned application.
We in India and in the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries believe that the United Nations represents, in a real sense, the best hope of mankind. As the late Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, stated in her address to the United Nations General Assembly at its thirty-eighth session, "Firm faith in the United Nations is central to the non-aligned" (A/38/PV.9, p.3). Our affinity for the United Nations is rooted in our world view. We cherish peace. We believe in the equality, sovereignty and independence of States. We have a fundamental conviction in the dignity and worth of the human person. The United Nations embodies in itself these lofty principles and more. It constitutes a unique international forum where nations can resolve their differences and work together for the common good of humanity.
Throughout the years of India's freedom struggle, our leaders viewed independence not in narrow national terms but as part of the struggle of oppressed peoples everywhere for justice - political, social and economic. Following India's attainment of independence in 1947, our democratic institutions have stabilized and given to our people a deep sense of participation and commitment in determining the nation's priorities in the political and economic fields, as well as in the building up of its social and cultural ethos. In our international relationships, the commitment to the policy of non-alignment has been both instinctive and inevitable. As the Prime Minister of India, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, has stated:
"We have inherited a well-tested and consistent foreign policy which serves our national interest. We have always believed in working for peace. Our policy is to be friends with all countries on the basis of reciprocity and mutual benefit. Our commitment to non-alignment and a new world economic order based on justice means a total dedication to the twin causes of peace and development. He also believe in safeguarding the independence of States and upholding the principles of non-interference and non-intervention."
Only a few weeks ago we marked the fortieth anniversary of the dropping of the first nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Memories of that catastrophe make us even more acutely aware of the devastating potential of nuclear arsenals today. As we begin this fifth decade of the nuclear age, the attitudes of nuclear-weapon States towards the possession and use of their nuclear weapons have not undergone any basic change. There is a wide gap between public fears of a nuclear war and the calculations of statesmen and strategists of the efficacy of the nuclear balance of terror. Ever increasing expenditures are being undertaken for the qualitative development of weapons. New generations of weapon systems have come into existence and the militarization of outer space appears imminent. Indeed a whole range of new strategic concepts are being built which seek to smother any sense of moral outrage that humanity may feel over the politics of nuclear confrontation among the most powerful States of the world.
All nations stand to suffer to a greater or lesser degree from the impact of the arms race. No one can predict with certainty the devastation that would be caused by a nuclear war. When the immediate effects of the blast and fire- are combined with the long-term effects of the fall-out, the erosion of the ozone layer and the damage to all our planetary life support systems, it is clear that another world war might well bring an end to human history.
It is time for us to go the roots of our predicament. If the States most responsible for creating this threat are as yet unprepared to suggest urgent measures for preventing the outbreak of a nuclear war, others should take the lead. There is clearly today a rising tide of protest all around the world against the wasteful and dangerous arms race. The political climate generated by the spontaneous popular movements against the accretion of armaments, against the testing of nuclear weapons and against the use of science and technology for
purposes inconsistent with humanitarian principles, makes it imperative for us to take bold action now.
The tendency towards the legitimization of nuclear weapons should be reversed. The process of reduction of nuclear arsenals should be commenced as the only way to build up confidence and trust among States. A commitment by leaders of the major nuclear-weapon States to follow a path of arms limitation rather than arms build-up is the need of the hour. The evolution of healthy national societies in the world can only be ensured if the pervasive influence of an armaments culture, particularly of a nuclear armaments culture, is curbed and the massive expenditure now being directed towards perfecting and modernizing the instruments of war is channeled towards securing more equitable and better conditions of livelihood for the peoples of the world. Even a token reduction in arms expenditure can produce dramatic results if channelized into the development of the less affluent sections of the world. In this context we welcome the convening of the International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development next year.
We have welcomed the resumption of negotiations in Geneva between the United States and the USSR on a complex of questions concerning space and nuclear arms, to be considered and resolved in their interrelationship, with the declared objective of working towards the complete elimination of nuclear arms everywhere. All nations have a stake in the success of the Geneva negotiations and it is, therefore, with some concern that we note that these talks have not produced any concrete results so far. We hope that the forthcoming summit meeting between the leaders of the two countries will give a significant impetus to this process.
I should like at this stage to refer to the Delhi Declaration issued at the end of the meeting of the Heads of State or Government of Argentina, Greece, India, Mexico, Sweden and Tanzania who, in January this year, issued a fervent appeal to the nuclear-weapon States to halt all testing, production and deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, to be followed by substantial reduction in their nuclear forces. The Delhi Declaration specified two steps for special attention - the prevention of an arms race in outer space and the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty. These leaders from five continents called for a continuing program of arms reduction leading to general and complete disarmament accompanied by measures to strengthen the United Nations system and to ensure the urgently needed transfer of substantial resources from the arms race to economic and social development.
In determining our international political and economic policies we, the non-aligned countries have consistently refused to tailor our responses to the dictates of cold-war predispositions. We do not mortgage our decisions to foreign dictates, we do not seek confrontation. But we urge the necessity of change as the key to the transformation of the world community. India does not believe, however, that such a transformation can be achieved merely by resort to strident rhetoric or by destructive criticism. The test for the international community consists in managing change by peaceful and co-operative means, recognizing the objective imperatives of our situation in the present-day world. Therefore, we seek the widest co-operation of all nations of the world. But we ask that such co-operation be based on equality, justice and a genuine recognition of our mutual interdependence.
As nations subjected to colonial domination and racial discrimination we stand firmly committed to the complete elimination of the pernicious practice of apartheid or racism in any form. The situation in southern Africa is an affront to the conscience of mankind. The policies of apartheid of the racist regime in Pretoria constitute a source of tension, instability and conflict, endangering both regional and international peace and security. The recent tragic developments in South Africa, as a result of the fresh wave of terror and repression unleashed by the racist regime following its imposition of a state of emergency, testify to Pretoria's determination to continue its repressive policies. Mr. Botha's statement in Durban of 15 August provided ample proof, if proof were indeed needed, that Pretoria remains wedded to apartheid, that it will continue to turn a deaf ear to the legitimate aspirations of the oppressed majority in South Africa and to the voice of the entire international community, that it will persist in its attempts to divide the struggling majority in South Africa, and that it will show no scruple in killing, maiming and detaining arbitrarily those who dare raise their voice in protest.
Recent events make it clear, at the same time, that the people of South Africa will not be cowed into submission. As the special communique on South Africa, adopted by the non-aligned countries at their recent ministerial Conference in Luanda, stated: "The countdown to the collapse of apartheid has started in earnest". We call once again for the immediate and unconditional release of Nelson Mandela and other valiant freedom fighters under detention. We are convinced that the struggle for a united, democratic and non-fragmented South Africa will, before long, find culmination in final victory. We reiterate to our brothers and sisters in South Africa the assurances of our total solidarity and support.
Equally, our hearts go out to the suffering people of Namibia who have now completed a century under oppressive colonial occupation. The same abhorrent regime that persecutes its own people persists in its illegal occupation of Namibia, now close to two decades after the United Nations assumed direct responsibility over the Territory. The attempts by that regime to set up another puppet administration in Namibia through the so-called Multi-Party Conference, have met with the universal contempt and repudiation that they deserve. The Extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement on Namibia, held in New Delhi from 19 to 21 April this year, reaffirmed the clear and consistent support of the Non-Aligned Movement for the cause of Namibia and set out a concrete Program of Action to advance that cause. During that historic meeting, India took an important step forward by according full diplomatic status to the representative of the South-West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) in New Delhi, thereby reaffirming its firm support for the Namibian cause. The United Nations Security Council, convened in response to thQ call made by the non-aligned countries at New Delhi, has once again called for immediate and unconditional implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which constitutes the only basis for a peaceful settlement of the
Namibian question. Once again. South Africa has spurned that call. It is incumbent on the Council to meet again.
It is clear that South Africa could not have persisted in its defiance of the will of the international community for so long but for the diplomatic and moral support and the wide-ranging collaboration in the economic, military, nuclear and other fields that-it has been receiving from its friends and allies. The pursuit of apartheid, the occupation of Namibia, and the repeated acts of aggression against independent African States, jointly and severally, all constitute threats to peace. Yet the Security Council has, time and again, been paralyzed into inaction on account of vetoes cast by one or more of its permanent members against mandatory measures aimed at the total isolation of South Africa. The Pretoria regime is beyond persuasion. Clearly, policies such as those of "constructive engagement" have failed. Comprehensive mandatory sanctions under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter are the only answer. Meanwhile, States have a moral duty to sever all links with Pretoria. The recent upsurge of public opinion in many parts of the world for more resolute action against South Africa is a welcome development. My country is proud to have led the way in 1946, when we became the first voluntarily to impose comprehensive sanctions against South Africa.
Nearer to our own shores, the destabilizing and escalating great-Power military presence in the Indian Ocean causes us great concern. Only the elimination of such presence can enable the nations of the area to shape their own destinies without hindrance or military tutelage from beyond their territorial boundaries. The 1971 Declaration adopted by the United Nations laid down the objective of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean area, which is universally supported by all non-aligned States of the region. These States now call for the early convening in 1986 of a conference on the Indian Ocean in Colombo in order to achieve the realization of the objectives of the Declaration. The participation of all the great Powers at such a conference is crucial, indeed indispensable, to its
all the great Powers at such a conference is crucial, indeed indispensable, to its success. The presence of military bases, command structures and other forms of military presence against the express wishes of the countries of the area only add to the tensions already prevailing in the Indian Ocean littoral and should be progressively reduced and eliminated.
Meanwhile, in our own neighborhood, the countries of South Asia have embarked on a process of regional co-operation which holds out significant prospects for the betterment of our peoples. It is important that these developments are not adversely affected by the political and military factors involving the introduction of sophisticated arms serving external strategic interests. As we have repeatedly stressed, it is necessary that the existing thresholds are not crossed or new elements of controversy introduced which could adversely affect the security environment in our neighborhood. We, for our part, are committed to promoting good neighborliness and harmonious relations in the area. It is in this spirit that we look forward to the first summit meeting of the South Asia Regional Cooperation organization in December this year in Dhaka.
Our solidarity with the struggle of the Palestinian people under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to secure the establishment of an independent State in Palestine and the return of the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied by Israel has been a well-recognized plank in the non-aligned platform. The plight of the Palestinians today is indeed one of the supreme tragedies of history. Few people have been more systematically brutalized, oppressed or humiliated in their own lands. The dispersal of the heroic Palestinians will not weaken their will to fight for their inalienable rights. Nor will it bring peace to the area. Occupation of land belonging to its neighbors will not guarantee Israel its security. There is now an increasing understanding of the fact that no comprehensive solution of the problem in the Middle East is attainable without the active involvement of the PLO, the sole and authentic representative of the Palestinian people. A comprehensive solution of the question can only achieved by a forward-losing approach based on a recognition of the realities of the Palestinian right to an independent State and the right of all the States of the region to live in peace within secure international frontiers. Any such solution must comprise the total and unconditional withdrawal of Israel from all Arab territories occupied since 1967 and the exercise by the Palestinian people of their inalienable national and human rights, including the right to establish an independent State in their homeland. The situation does not brook delay.
We underscore once again the importance of the early convening of the proposed international conference on peace in the Middle East, under the auspices of the United nations and with the participation of all parties concerned, for securing a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region in accordance with well-established principles. India is ready to extend its full support and co-operation in this connection, and is appreciative of the efforts being undertaken by the Secretary-General.
The tragic conflict between Iran and Iraq, two valued members of the non-aligned fraternity, continues to be a matter of concern and anguish. India, along with other non-aligned countries, has taken repeated initiatives to resolve this conflict. Our efforts continue, along with the efforts of the Secretary-General and others.
In spite of the valiant efforts of the Contadora group to bring about a peaceful negotiated solution to the problems in Central America, the situation in the region continues to be marked by instability, tension and conflict. Policies of interference and intervention and the threat of the use of force imperil peace and security in the region, complicating its serious social and economic problems. The Government and the people of Nicaragua live under constant threat, harassment and intimidation. The problems of Central America can be resolved only by peaceful means, through political dialog and negotiation. The Contadora group must intensify its efforts to overcome the obstacles in its bid to bring lasting peace to the region. We are distressed by the last-minute impediments which prevented the signing of the revised draft Contadora Act for Peace and Co-operation in Central America of 7 September 1984. However, we have noted with satisfaction the presentation of a further revised draft, following the meeting in Panama earlier this month. It is our earnest hope that the meeting of plenipotentiaries scheduled for next month will finally pave the way for durable peace to return to this troubled part of the world. The endeavors of the newly constituted Lima group will no doubt strengthen Contadora's hand.
We have always affirmed the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of States, as also of the introduction of foreign troops into any country. The situation in South-West Asia can be resolved only through an overall political settlement based on the principles set out in the New Delhi Declaration. India's own efforts have been directed towards this end. We support the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-aligned status of Afghanistan. We have closely followed the efforts of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, which deserve the fullest support of all concerned.
Tension, conflict and instability afflict other parts of the world, including South-East Asia. Cyprus continues to face travail and threats to its sovereignty, independence, unity, territorial integrity and non-aligned status. Tension continues to prevail in the Mediterranean, the South Atlantic and the Pacific region.
Colonialism, as I observed earlier, persists in its most virulent form in Namibia. In other parts of the world as well, the task of decolonization remains incomplete. In this twenty-fifth year of the United Nations Declaration on decolonization, tribute is due to the commendable role the United Nations has played in the field of decolonization. We must also reaffirm our Lesolve to eliminate the colonial phenomenon altogether.
The world economic environment continues to cause grave concern. At the Seventh Summit Conference of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March 1983, our Heads of State or Government stressed that
"the international community cannot be assured of durable peace so long as the economic disparities between nations are widening".
The Foreign Ministers of non-aligned countries, meeting at Luanda earlier this month, were constrained to point out that the world economic situation had not improved since 1583.
The limited and fragile recovery achieved in some of the industrialized countries, whose spread has remained uneven even amongst; them, is now faltering, because it has been based on unsustainable macro-economic policies. The projections for the rate of growth of the economies of industrialized countries for 1985 and 1986 remain low. The 1985 rate of growth may not exceed 2.8 per cent; it may well be lower.
At the same time, the economies of the developing countries remain under heavy pressure. Their overall growth rates remain well below levels which would offset population growth, let alone secure development gains. Combined with the severities of the adjustment process which marked the first three years of this decade, this decline in growth rates has brought into sharp focus the constraints on their economies, threatening wider social and political strife. The developing countries have been making adjustments without any parallel improvement in the world economic environment and in the face of serious resource constraints, the growing menace of an increasingly intolerable debt burden, reverse transfer of financial resources and intensifying protectionist barriers against their exports to developed countries. Against this background, the weakening of the commitment to the spirit of international economic co-operation and an erosion of the multilateral system is a deeply disturbing trend. It is paradoxical that this should be happening when there is an increasingly wider recognition that the world economy has become more interdependent, calling for a greater need to sustain and further the international consensus in favor of development.
We have also seen with growing concern the increasing resort to bilateralism or selective multilateralism with the adoption of policies and practices which run counter to the agreed goals and objectives of international economic co-operation. This is a negation of the consensus which the developed countries themselves had helped to achieve.
It is apparent that the prevailing international economic crisis cannot be explained away as a cyclical phenomenon. It has its origin in structural inadequacies which have been working to the particular detriment of the developing countries. It calls for a fundamental review of the existing structures.
It is essential that the international community renew at this fortieth anniversary session its commitment to the resumption of international negotiations with the objective of stimulating world economic recovery and ensuring sustained growth, particularly of developing countries. This requires in particular an integrated approach in the interrelated areas of money, finance, debt and trade, and a restructuring of international economic relations.
The Luanda Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Countries reaffirmed the strategies for international economic negotiations adopted by the Seventh Summit at New Delhi. The Conference also defined a framewoiU for the commencement of a dialog.
I would like to suggest that our immediate efforts should concentrate on the following:
First, rectifying through appropriate measures and actions the "inadequacies and malfunctioning" of the international monetary and financial system.
Secondly, the adoption of policies and actions to implement the agreements on rollback and standstill with a widening o! the access to exports from developing countries and the removal of all infringements on principles, rules and regulations of the international trading system.
Thirdly, the adoption of methodologies which would ensure multilateral co-ordination of macro-economic policies pursued by developed countries and the placing of their monetary and financial policies within the purview of international discipline.
Fourthly, the increase of financial flows to the developing countries, in particular concessional flows to the low-income countries.
Fifthly, making the international adjustment process symmetrical and equitable.
I would also like to propose that during this session high-level discussions be undertaken to achieve understandings that would commence the process for the convening of an International Conference on Money and Finance for Development.
The critical economic situation in Africa and the drought and famine conditions have evoked a spontaneous response from the international community, including many non-aligned countries. The leaders of the African countries at the twenty-eighth summit Conference of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) have adopted a bold and courageous Declaration in which they have expressed Africa's determination to deal with the challenge of development. It is incumbent on the international community fully to support their efforts. As a token of solidarity, the Non-aligned Movement has adopted a Plan of Action. India has, on its own part, made a contribution of 100,000 tons of wheat, followed by another contribution of $US 10 million to the OAU Special Fund. Under the Plan of Action, India has already identified nine agricultural projects in Africa. Our participation in these projects, which is in an advanced stage of preparation, shall assist in priority areas for the rehabilitation of the agricultural infrastructure. The efforts by India that I have mentioned are additional to the bilateral program that my country has on an ongoing basis with the African countries as a part of which a large number of African experts are undergoing training in Indian institutions, and Indian experts are working in several areas with their African brethren in African countries. This, too, is a contribution to the priority areas of socio-economic development in Africa.
As one of the original signatories of the United Nations Charter, India has remained steadfast in its commitment to the values and ideals enshrined therein. To quote once again the words of India's first Prime Minister,
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, from a speech he made in 1946 even before we attained our independence:
"Towards the United Nations, India's attitude is that of whole-hearted co-operation and unreserved adherence, in both spirit and letter, to the Charter governing it. To that end, India will participate fully in its various activities and actively play that role in its Councils to which her geographical position, population and contribution towards peaceful progress entitle her."
By the same token, the United Nations and its system of specialized agencies have been a valued partner for India in the task of nation building and economic development. For the assistance and co-operation that the United Nations has given us, we are deeply grateful. That, however, is not the only vindication of the trust, hope and confidence that we repose in the United Nations. The importance and utility of the United Nations for us, for the non-aligned and other developing countries, indeed for the entire international community, is to be measured not only by the material assistance the United Nations provides in bettering the quality of life on this planet, but by the higher and more noble aspirations of humanity embodied in this remarkable institution. The greatest tribute that we can pay to the United Nations on this occasion is therefore to rededicate ourselves to the Purposes and Principles of the Charter and to reaffirm our commitment to give them full effect. As this Assembly proclaimed last year, let 1985 "mark the beginning of an era of durable global peace and justice, social and economic development and progress and independence for all peoples". We hope indeed that we are on the threshold of such an era.


First of all I should like to convey my congratulations to you. Sir, on your unanimous election as President of this fortieth session of the General Assembly. He are greatly encouraged to see our proceedings conducted by a diplomat of such deep knowledge, skill and tact, a son of Spain, a country with which Argentina is linked by the strongest historical ties of solidarity and fellowship.
I should like also to extend my gratitude to Ambassador Paul Lusaka, who so effectively presided over the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly.
I cannot refrain today from expressing the profound grief of the people and the Government of Argentina over the tragedy that has afflicted the fraternal Mexican people. He offer them our sincere condolences and convey our feelings of solidarity. He have mounted an operation to give the Mexican Government all possible assistance and we hope that the difficult and tragic situation confronting it today will be swiftly remedied.
The post-war international system, which includes as its center-piece the United Nations, is now 40 years old. Over such a long period of time our Organization has had time to find its place in the functioning of that system, and observers have had an opportunity to consolidate their views of the achievements and failures of the resulting system.
It is an axiom that the United Nations from its beginning was not able to establish an efficient system of collective security. He also know the causes of this failure. The fact is that responsibility for the maintenance of global peace and for the territorial integrity or political independence of the smaller nations does not lie solely with our Organization. But even with regard to the objective of peace - and indeed the other objectives of the United Nations, in particular international co-operation - it is worth restating the oft-repeated observation that everything would be much worse today if the Organization did not exist and that, undoubtedly, if it had not been founded in 1945 it would have had to be founded today.
It is worth stating that, 40 years after the founding of the United Nations, the picture is one of great achievements and - why hide the fact? - deep disappointments.
Among the most positive achievements of the day, we must, undoubtedly, include the process of decolonization, in which the United Nations played a leading role. The important impact of our Organization on that process was due-to the fact that it provided for the colonial countries and peoples the forum of the General Assembly, where they could create an awareness of the inherent evils of colonialism and the injustice of the situation of which they were victims.
As a result of the process of decolonization, we have almost fully achieved the ideal of universality in the membership of the United Nations. It is to be hoped that this universality will become complete. That principle has always been fostered by Argentina, since the time of the League of Nations itself, and it was precisely out of loyalty to that principle that our country temporarily withdrew from that body in 1920.
But this great achievement of our Organization is tarnished by the persistence of colonial situations in various parts of the world. Namibia continues to be a tragic victim of an anachronistic system aggravated by the inhuman practice of apartheid. Other peoples and territories are still suffering under the colonial yoke.
We must also fight against new forms of colonialism that have arisen from the vast inequality that continues to exist between the technologically advanced and the developing countries. This new kind of dependence, aggravated with every passing day by the widening of the technological gulf, is reaching dangerous extremes. An increasingly important element in international co-operation within the framework of the United Nations is everything relating to the transfer of technology, so our Organization can assist the efforts of developing countries to achieve more satisfactory levels of efficiency.
In the field of human rights considerable progress has been made as a result of collective action. Apart from regional agreements, including the inter-American agreement signed by Argentina recently, action by the United Nations has succeeded in reducing the number and magnitude of violations of human rights in a number of parts of the world, and it is clear that international public opinion is turning against governments that engage in such violations. In so far as concerns my own country, the intervention of international organizations contributed decisively to the easing of the situations of numerous victims of political persecution and helped save others from a grim fate during a recent dramatic period of our history.
Nevertheless there is still a great deal of ground to be covered. The practice of apartheid in South Africa is an outrage in our century. Torture, imprisonment and political persecution in all its forms are in many parts of our planet deplorable daily realities.
Disarmament has received particularly great attention from our Organization. My country has done a great deal to that end in United Nations disarmament organs, in accordance with an ancient national tradition favoring the rule of law in international relations and the peaceful settlement of disputes between States. The establishment in Argentina of a democratic regime has meant a genuine return to those traditions, of which we are so proud. Accordingly the national Government has bent every effort in its attempts to help curb the arms race and to continue with the development of exclusively peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
Because of this concern, our President, together with the Heads of State or Government of the countries of a number of continents, took part in a series of concerted efforts, culminating in the New Delhi Declaration, in which we expressed the intention to heed the demand voiced by millions who expect their leaders to represent them in their concerns and anxieties in the face of the vast capacity for destruction of existing nuclear arsenals.
Since that time my country has attempted to remain true to the content of that message. On every possible occasion we have highlighted the importance of keeping public opinion informed and alive to the threats it faces as a way of influencing the political will of those who bear primary responsibility for the production of effective disarmament agreements.
In order to take action at the national level in keeping with international obligations, Argentina has substantially reduced its military expenditures. In particular we have reaffirmed our determination - which is repeatedly proclaimed -to use nuclear technology exclusively for peaceful purposes. In a recent message to the disarmament Conference, President Alfonson stated that:
"with regard to the nuclear question, my country will be a civilian nuclear State. This was supported when the Argentine people approved, in the course of national elections, a program supporting the use of nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes."
Almost 25 years ago, to avoid the consequences of the bi-polarization of the world, the Non-Aligned Movement was founded in Belgrade. I should like to mark its relevance to this fortieth anniversary of the united Nations, because in fact the principal arena for the activities of that movement is none other than our world Organization because we understand that its original principles, in so far as they are respected and enforced, make it an important force for moderation between the positions of the two military major alliances. But they should always be guided precisely by true principles of non-alignment: equi-distance between the blocs, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries, the peaceful settlement of disputes, the juridical equality of States, and rejection of all forms of domination.
My country is going through a difficult hut exciting stage of its history marked by the Argentine people's recovery of its rights and freedoms within the democratic system of life and government necessitated by our evolution as a nation and our characteristics as a society. The Government I represent emanates from the genuine will of the Argentinians and is leading the reconstruction of the country, and its foreign policy reflects the same values that guide its internal policy. Argentinians have made sacrifices to ensure peace, the right to self-determination, the dignity of man, the right to life, the rational and peaceful settlement of disputes. These are the specific needs of every Argentinian and the lasting aims of our nation.
But history has shown that not only efforts and the passage of time produce the true consolidation of political independence. One hundred and fifty years before our Asian and African brothers, we in Latin America formally achieved our liberty. Nevertheless, like them, we remain subject to many different forms of dependence which limit our political capacity to decide on our own destiny.
It is not just a matter of material or economic conditions. The Latin American experience has shown how much we are affected by the confrontation between the major Powers, which even limits our capacity to control our own affairs. In Latin America, many phenomena destructive of the political system cannot adequately be explained by domestic causes, nor by flaws inherent in our political systems. In fact, those internal weaknesses are exacerbated because of external influences and the conflict between the super-Powers.
Latin America is now affected in one way or another by the grave situation in Central America. The constant incidents in the frontier region between Nicaragua and Costa Rica have brought about a serious worsening of relations between those two countries, creating such serious tension as to result in a marked decline in efforts to create the necessary atmosphere of trust between the States involved in the conflict, the essential prerequisite for achieving a comprehensive agreement to put an end to the crisis.
We should be aware of the risk involved in postponing a balanced and realistic solution to the points of disagreement. The Argentine Republic believes that positions based on intolerance will only lessen the possibility of bringing about an agreement that is just and honor able for all the parties in the conflict; they will, on the other hand, encourage the use of military options.
The Foreign Ministers of the member countries of the Contadora Group met on 24 and 25 August in Cartagena, where they were joined by the Foreign Ministers of Brazil, Peru, Uruguay and Argentina, countries which have constituted a support group, whose objectives are to support and give effect to the peace-making activities of the Contadora Group. We are absolutely convinced of the importance of that initiative, which reflects the political will and capacity for concerted action of Latin America to achieve, from its own standpoint, a negotiated and lasting solution to the Central American conflict.
I should like to repeat my Government's concern over the situation in the Middle East and to endorse the statements made on that serious matter by the Argentine Democratic Government, particularly with regard to the extent to which it is possible to find a just and lasting solution if, on the basis of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, the following conditions can be effectively met: first, respect for the right to existence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all the countries of the region; secondly, the eight of all countries of the region to secure, internationally recognized frontiers; and, thirdly, the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories.
The Palestinian question is another cause of great concern to my Government. We again repast that it cannot be resolved properly and equitably without support for the actions and initiatives originating at the United Nations, based on international law and the Charter of our Organization. The essential objective of those actions and initiatives is that the Palestinian people should be able to exercise its inalienable right to self-determination and independence, the establishment of its own national State and its own legitimate representation in the negotiations that must be begun to that end.
My Government is also following with growing concern the development of events in Africa, and has given practical effect to its rejection of the policies of racial discrimination, aggression and domination which have been imposed upon the peoples of southern Africa.
The need for a rapid and just solution to that grave conflict is perhaps the most urgent and real challenge facing the United Nations today. It is a challenge that has already existed for 40 years, and its continuation damages the credibility and efficiency of our Organization. For four decades now South Africa has violated with impunity fundamental principles and concrete provisions of the Charter, obstinately refusing to eradicate apartheid totally and for ever, persisting in its illegal occupation of Namibia and carrying out repeated acts of aggression against neighboring States. The grave events that have been occurring daily in South Africa confirm that the policies of Pretoria are a threat to peace and security in the region. An appropriate reaction to that behavior is essential,
not only to put an end to racism and South African expansionism, but also to preserve the political and social order represented by our Organization.
Argentina repeats its strong condemnation and repudiation of apartheid and its unswerving support for the right of the Namibian people to self-determination and independence in a united Namibia. Together with the vast majority of the international community, we believe that the time has come for the United Nations to adopt, through the Security Council, urgent and effective measures to increase the effective pressure on Pretoria.
For our part, during the past year we have taken concrete steps against South Africa in the diplomatic, economic, cultural and sporting fields. Most recently, the Congress of my country ratified the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. As long as apartheid and the illegal occupation of Namibia continue. South Africa can only expect our support to grow for the legitimate struggle of the oppressed peoples of South Africa and Namibia to establish free, democratic and egalitarian societies in southern Africa.
My Government once again denounces the continuation of the illegal occupation of part of Argentine territory by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In spite of the repeated appeals of the international community to the parties to find a just, peaceful and final solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas Islands, the united Kingdom continues to refuse to engage in serious and comprehensive negotiations, in its attempt to consolidate an anachronistic colonial situation. In systematically opposing the implementation of specific United Nations resolutions on the question of the Malvinas Islands, it is also opposing the whole policy followed by the international Organization to put an end to colonialism in the world.
The Argentine Democratic Government has on many occasions expressed its firm determination to solve the controversy by peaceful means. It has therefore made concrete offers for the resumption of negotiations, but so far there has been no positive response.
Furthermore, the British Government has made public its refusal to include in any negotiations the subject of sovereignty, which is the very source of the dispute and to which are linked all the other questions affecting relations between the two countries.
In addition to that intransigence, a factor worsening the situation is the excessive British military presence in the south Atlantic. That militarization not only poses a threat to Argentine territory, but affects the whole region, as was recently established by the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States.
The construction of a strategic airport in the islands and the extraordinary naval build-up jeopardize the stability of an area that forms part of the Latin American nuclear-weapon-free zone. No one can deny today that those British actions have transformed the Malvinas Islands into an area of strategic interest, drawing in the global conflict between East and West.
Without prejudice to what I have just said, as a clear demonstration of my Government's desire for peace and its negotiating spirit, a little over two months ago we once again proposed to the British Government the start of conversations, in response to the lifting of the commercial restrictions unilaterally imposed by the United Kingdom in 1982.
The fact is that for us relations between the two Governments and countries can be developed on a solid basis only to the extent that the central problem between us - the sovereignty dispute over the islands - is not ignored. To ignore that subject would be to base any restoration of relations on a fiction.
Furthermore, the Argentine Government, which does not consider it necessary to make a formal declaration of the cessation of Hostilities, sines there was Raver a declaration of war, and the cessation has been recognized in a number of resolutions of the United Nations, nevertheless declared, on 10 July this years
"if this matter" -a formal declaration of cessation of hostilities -
is viewed by the united Kingdom Government as the remaining obstacle to the initiation of negotiations, the Argentine Government would be prepared to make the declaration as soon as the united Kingdom Government agrees to initiate the general negotiations repeatedly recommended by the international community." (A/40/478, p. 3)
In the circumstances, I should like to repeat here, in this hall, our invitation to the Government of the United Kingdom to resume negotiations to find a solution to the sovereignty dispute between our two nations, a dispute which is obstructing the normalization of our relations.
In this connection, and as clear evidence that we have no conflict with the country but with the Government, just a few days ago in Paris President Alfonsin met with the leader of the Labor Party and the Parliamentary opposition in the United Kingdom, the Right Honorable Neil Kinnock, HP, and they both agreed:
"... on the need for the re-establishment of diplomatic and commercial relations between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom. To that end, they expressed their desire that negotiations should be initiated to explore the means of resolving the outstanding problems between the two countries, including all aspects of the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
"They also jointly stressed the importance for the inhabitants of those islands of effectively guaranteeing the preservation of their customs, their ways of life and traditions, as well as respect for forms of administration, education and social and economic organization. In that connection, Mr. Kinnock stressed the fundamental importance of taking fully into account the interests of the inhabitants of the islands, and President Alfonsin pointed to the range and the extent of the rights guaranteed by Argentina's democratic constitution." (A/40/662, p. 3)
That is the position of the Argentine Government with regard to a question which calls for a prompt and final solution. For that to happen we need a substantial gesture on the part of the Government of the United Kingdom which would demonstrate a genuine wish to put an end to the controversy.
The crisis which has been affecting the economy of the developing countries has grown worse. This situation is fraught with the most serious consequences, particularly for the peoples of our countries because the right to peace is indissolubly linked to the right to development.
We have been vigorously advocating a total restructuring of the international economic relations, a structure governed by equality and justice. Nevertheless, only a few countries in the North understand that sustained social and economic progress of the South would be of benefit to them. In contrast, there are many countries which maintain an attitude of historical short-sightedness which is reflected in the persistence of protectionist policies, in the substantial reduction of the flow of capital for financing development and an increasing deterioration in the terms of trade. Therefore, we repeat that we are not looking for charity, but for the concrete will to find solutions which would be to our mutual advantage and which could put an end to this world recession.
The situation is particularly serious in some countries represented here because they have suffered from extremely severe climatic conditions which have caused hunger and disease. In other countries, difficulties have been compounded by payment obligations deriving from an external debt that was contracted in a chaotic international market and at real interest rates which have been the highest in history.
In Latin America, together with the Central American crisis, the other major question of concern to our region is precisely that of the external debt of the countries of our region. Of course, this is a subject which affects almost the whole developing world, but the form it has assumed in Latin America has probably hit that region harder than other regions. Indeed, a large proportion of our external debt is connected with floating rates of interest. In practice, this has meant for my country, for example, that over the last four years the external debt has increased by 50 per cent as a result of changes in the rates of interest which, as is only too clear, are entirely outside our control and independent of our will.
In recent years our region has seen exceptional political change. Almost all our countries have put authoritarian regimes behind them and, after a prolonged struggle for freedom and dignity, democracy is now flourishing in our part of the Americas. But if this experience of ours shows that the people are mobilizing in the name of liberty to achieve democracy, history teaches us that they are also mobilizing in the name of well being to maintain democracy. In other words, growth is directly linked with the stability of this hard won democracy. The truth is that this growth is seriously jeopardized by our capacity to generate resources. This is particularly .true if a large proportion of those resources are swallowed up precisely by payment of the interest on the debt.
Our countries are now being asked to put into effect internal adjustment programs, which are frequently necessary for the proper organization of our economies. But those programs, which call for austerity and effort, to be successful also require prospects of growth, and hence well being. It is the expectation of growth which makes sense of the current efforts. Therefore it is impossible to conceive of a stable situation in which austerity would not be accompanied by growth, or at least by the hope of growth. Thus, the question of resources for development is something today which has a clear cut political corollary, because the ultimate stabilization of our democracy would depend on our obtaining those resources. In the circumstances, the problem of external debt becomes an eminently practical and political problem, and by that I mean to say that although it is vital to continue the debate with regard to the need for a new world economic order, keeping alive our demand for international justice, no one can reasonably suppose that we shall achieve immediate results from sum a debate. However, our countries need urgent solutions which, while supporting our general demands, will make it possible to solve the specific and very serious blockages which exist today to our growth. In other words, there is a time for global debate and a time for exploring immediate measures. We think those two approaches are not contradictory and that, furthermore, they are actually complementary. But what does seem a problem to us is the fact that general discussion prevents us from making progress in the search for solutions which would make it possible to retrieve a proportion of the resources which today are earmarked for the payment find external debt servicing. It is vital, therefore, that the industrial countries should also shoulder some responsibility and undertake to eliminate the disruptive factors which have caused the present crisis of indebtedness. This was the sense of the appeal issued by the 11 Latin American countries which subscribed to the Cartagena consensus of June 1984.
The General Assembly has decided to adopt on its agenda of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations an item entitled "The United Nations for a better world". Therefore, we should ask ourselves on this occasion what is this better world to which we aspire and how would we like to see it brought about.
We are convinced that the peoples of the world aspire to a future of peace which would mean more than the absence of war and conflict. What they want above all is a situation which would make it possible for them to enjoy the fruits and benefits of peace, which is to be understood as a condition for the attainment and affirmation of the rights of the individual. Without the guarantee of those rights, efforts to improve standards of living would be incomplete and limited. We therefore believe that commitment to an ethical system free from strategic concepts should be the source of concerted political action. The better world to which we all aspire depends internally, upon the building of democratic societies, the rule of law and tolerance.
Hence, we should like to see a just and stable international order without the distortions of power politics and without the imbalances generated by a purely financial view of economic interaction.

The better world we see is based on three fundamental principles of civilized coexistence: juridical equality of States, non-intervention in internal affairs and the self-determination of peoples.
The better world we all hope for requires a new consensus for development which would make possible mutual benefit from trade and promote the well-being of the peoples.
The ways and means of achieving this better world remain today, as they were 40 years ago, the elimination of the arms race, particularly the nuclear-arms race; recognition of the right to independence of peoples under colonial domination and foreign occupation and the right to territorial integrity and social and economic development; and the peaceful solution of disputes between States by means of dialog and negotiation.
These are the principles of the Charter, whose fortieth anniversary we are celebrating.
We understand the difficulties in achieving the objectives of the Charter and we are not unaware of the fact that we have not been able to succeed in this over the last 40 years, but we are mindful of the invaluable contribution of the united Nations to the cause of peace, decolonization and the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The political determination of the Argentine Government to help ensure that this contribution is greater and more profound, to the benefit of all, constitutes one of the reasons for our firm commitment to the United Nations. The other, even more important reason is our commitment to the value system based on the Charter, without which it would not be possible to ensure a future of dignity for all the peoples of the international community.


My delegation wishes to add its congratulations to those already tended to Mr. de Pinies on his election as President of the fortieth session of the United Nations General Assembly.
My delegation thinks it fitting that with his long and distinguished service to the international community he should have been chosen to be President of the General Assembly at this crucial moment in the history of the Organization. We look forward to his guidance and my delegation pledges its wholehearted support.
The Government of Barbados also wishes to take this opportunity to commend his predecessor, Mr. Paul Lusaka of the Republic of Zambia, for the skill with which he guided the deliberations of the thirty-ninth session. Our congratulations are tinged with a sense of pride because of the special relationship which exists between him and the people of Barbados.
At this point our thoughts turn to the agony of Mexico. Hardly had the business of this session begun when the people of Mexico suffered a most tragic experience involving substantial loss of life and extensive damage to property. The Government and people of Barbados extend their deepest sympathy to the Government and people of Mexico.
Forty years ago five great States of the world, bruised and chastened by the collective savagery that was the Second World War, drew on the last remnants of human hope to create the organization which we specially honor this year. The
Charter they prescribed called for a new world order, noble in concept, edifying in its reach, "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
Many of us here today represent the first of those succeeding generations to whom this promise was directed. Our verdict could well be influenced by the view that time appears to have stood still; that for today, despite the promise of 1945, this body stands almost neutralized by the events of the past 40 years and that, chastened in our turn, the members of my generation feel considerable diffidence about making promises to those who are to succeed us. Forty years after the Treaty of San Francisco, the scourge of war continues to carry pain and terror to many areas of the world.
However, given the fact that those born at the end of the First World War matured just in time to offer their lives to the Second World War while those born at the end of the Second World War have been able to mature without the experience of a third world war, we might reasonably conclude that the United Nations has achieved much more than its critics are prepared to admit.
In addition this generation has benefited from the eradication or control of several serious diseases as a result of the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO); from improved education, scientific advances and cultural expansion resulting from the efforts of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); from increased yields, better food production and a greater appreciation of nutrition as a result of the work of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); and from a generally improved quality of life as a result of the collective efforts of this Organization and the specialized agencies.
What has not materialized, however, is the co-operation among the great Powers so confidently anticipated by the founding fathers. We ask ourselves: what explains this?
Writing under the darkening clouds of the Second World War, a young American, Thomas Wolfe, had these words to say:
"I think the enemy is here before us... I think we know the forms and faces of the enemy... and in the knowledge that we know him and must eventually conquer him is also our living hope. I think the enemy is single selfishness and compulsive greed."
lit similar vein a famous American cartoonist had one of his characters say, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us".
In the President's inaugural address to this session he struck this very note, reminding us that the crisis of the United Nations is not to be charged to any delinquency in the Organization but rather to the selfishness of Member States.
For all-this, the Organization has had an impressive record over the past 40 years. This anniversary would be a fitting occasion to rededicate ourselves to the noble aims and ideals which motivated the founding of the Organization. Barbados will continue to give strong support to the Organization and to identify with those who see it as the conscience of the world.
One of the most striking developments in world affairs since the end of the Second world War has been the emergence of the mini-State. Their noble precepts
notwithstanding, the founders of our Organization could scarcely have intended that within two decades, of indeed at any time, a country of 200,000 souls would stand beside another of 200 million to pronounce itself itself with equal sovereignty and authority on all matters that most concern us as members of the world's community. This, coupled with the fact that many more States now demand a fair share of the world's resources, constitutes the greatest challenge facing this Organization and the Charter on which it is based.
We who speak for the small States know that the idea of the sovereignty of nations like Barbados has not yet taken firm root in the minds of some of the larger and older members of this body.
By permitting the amplification of our voice to the level of those who would overwhelm us, the united Nations helps to preserve for small States the sovereignty which they have so recently won. As Dag Hammarskjold noted so very perceptively in a statement to this Assembly on 3 October 1960, 25 years ago to the very day, it is the snail States that need the United Nations for their protection.
"In this sense" he continued, "the Organization is first of all their Organization and I deeply believe in the wisdom with which they will be able
to use it and guide it." (A/PV.883, para. 11)
Medical science informs us that on the approach of the fortieth year the human system undergoes certain physiological changes which may sometimes result in erratic behavior. It would appear that the international system is also subject to this form of adjustment.
The Caribbean has learned from harsh experience that multilateral co-operation is vital to the survival of small States. The Government of Barbados is alarmed at what appears to be a growing tendency among some of the most powerful members of the international community to resile from the commitment to multilateralism which is the very foundation upon which the United Nations rests. The signs are many and ominous: hesitancy on the part of some developed States to accede to the Convention on the Law of the Sea despite its potential for enormous benefits not only for small States like those in the Caribbean but indeed for all mankind; the decision of some governments to withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the failure of the international community to match their stated commitment to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) with the required level of pledges and contributions; the willingness, or indeed the determination in some quarters, to witness the demise of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) - an institution that has served and continues to serve small developing countries with credit in the areas of training and research.
a large number of countries, among them my own are persuaded that it is necessary for institutions to adapt to changing times in order to carry out their mandates effectively, and the international community should periodically initiate reviews of all of the multilateral institutions which serve it. It is one thing, however, to undertake an examination and diagnose an illness, but quite another to administer a potion, the result of which is likely to be death.
Then there is the North-South dialog. Discussions and consultations have so far been disappointing. This is due in large measures to the lack of genuine willingness and honest commitment on the part of some governments to find an acceptable approach to redressing the inequities in the international economic system. He can only hope that recent efforts by the richest nations to solve problems among themselves will result in a greater appreciation of our difficulties and the need for a new international economic order.
One of the most striking of the phenomena - or symptoms, if you like - of what I might call the new international malaise is what is known as "graduation". It refers, as members of the Assembly knew, to the process by which countries that have reached a certain point in their development are called upon to shoulder a proportionately greater responsibility for that development.
Nothing would appear to be more reasonable. There is not a country represented in this Organization which would not willingly, indeed joyfully, welcome its own evolution towards self-sustained development.
But the problem is that this "admirable principle" is now being applied according to a set of crude arithmetic formula, invented and applied unilaterally, rather in the manner of the infamous Procrustes, who stretched or broke the limbs of his guests to fit them to the length of his bed. Thus, regardless of the paucity of a country's natural resources, regardless of the fragility of its economy, any country that makes the mistake of managing its affairs with a modicum of prudence is in grave danger of being "graduated".
In practical terms this means that it is excluded from access to most forms of concessional financial aid, even though its total budget may be less than that of a large department in a metropolitan city. It bespeaks an insensitivity to reality that is unworthy of our international fraternity.
But what is perhaps the most important feature of this policy of graduation based on the automatic application of an arbitrary formula is the implied suggestion that whenever a State is seen to rise above the level of its barest minimum it should be repressed and thus discouraged from aspiring to become a donor rather than a recipient.
As has been made clear by many of the speakers who preceded me in this debate, the international community is faced with a major crisis relating to the massive debt which is owed by developing countries to institutions, both public and private, in the developed countries. There is a growing consensus that the very nature of the problem transcends the realm of simple profit-and-loss accounting. The idea of default offends many governments, including my own, despite the role which default has played in the growth of a number of countries now among the world's wealthiest.
It is our fear that should the developed countries not hearken to the pleas of their poorer neighbors, initiatives not hitherto contemplated may be taken by those who become desperate. What some in the developing world may, with good reason, interpret as acts of economic aggress ion could lead to acts of economic retaliation, and to a cycle of behavior which can only place in jeopardy all that we have come to accept as the norms of international conduct.
Developing countries want to earn whatever benefits there are to be derived from the international system. Their primary interest lies in the availability of more open and dependable avenues for trading. They are concerned about the rush by some States to adopt protectionist policies which are counter-productive since they arrest the commercial potential of developing States and must in the end render them more susceptible to the state of dependence from which developed States would profess to deliver them.
The potential of small inland developing countries is circumscribed. It has not been their fortune to have at their disposal the abundance of resources, human and material, with which their larger neighbors have been endowed. These countries, the peculiar nature of their problems notwithstanding, are unable to convince the industrialized world of the need for an appropriate regime. It is difficult, and in some cases perhaps impossible, for such countries to advance when arguments for special consideration in the light of their very special and difficult circumstances continue to be ignored.
This fortieth anniversary also coincides with International Youth Year, now being observed by the United Nations. It is important that the attention of the international community should be redirected to the interests of the world's youth, particularly at a time when for many of them the international traffic in narcotic drugs, and drug abuse, threaten to destroy their future or, at the very least, stunt their development.
Concern for the menace posed by drugs is being expressed in many forums. Already in this session we have heard the anxiety of many representatives. Indeed resolutions 39/141 and 39/143 are evidence of a firm intention on the part of the General Assembly to confront and eradicate the problem of illicit drugs.
The Caricom Secretariat is now in the process of compiling, for use by all regional governments, information with respect to drug trafficking, transshipment, abuse and rehabilitation as it relates to the Caribbean.
The problem of illicit drugs is an international problem and can only be resolved through co-operative effort, particularly in the sharing of information among all members of the international community.
Another serious problem that requires attention is the problem of terrorism.
Small countries like Barbados have perhaps less to fear from terrorists than from mercenaries, for unless they are prepared to support large military establishments they are always exposed to the risk of destabilization by a band of efficient and well-armed mercenaries. However, no responsible member of the international community can fail to view with abhorrence the wanton acts of terrorism which are visited from time to time on innocent by-standers. No comfort should be given either to the terrorist or the mercenary, and the time has certainly come when the nations of this world should act resolutely to eliminate both these scourges.
Four years ago my predecessor, speaking from this podium, called on the Organization "... to end the charade, to close ranks and to move with dispatch to bring the South African Government to its senses, or to its knees ...". (A/36/PV. 11, p. 57)
The racist regime has left no doubt in anyone's mind that it will not come to its senses. Recent events have clearly demonstrated that it is on its way to its knees. Internal unrest and external pressure are now showing what concerted action on the part of the international community could achieve if influential friends and allies of the South African Government would tailor their actions to suit the views that they profess.
Public protestations of abhorrence of apartheid must be matched by concrete action to end the barbarous and brutal methods used to entrench the evil system of apartheid.
My delegation notes with relief the recent actions taken by many democratic countries to show without the shadow of a doubt that it is completely inadmissible to do business as usual with South Africa. My delegation also hopes that those misguided apologists who have defiantly boasted of their determination to launch a quixotic campaign in support of apartheid will not only fall flat on their faces, but in the process arouse such indignation among civilized people everywhere as to lead to the speedy dismantling of the odious system of apartheid.
My delegation expects the struggle against apartheid to receive a significant boost with the adoption at this session of the draft international convention against Apartheid in sports, it is a source of great satisfaction to us that the Ad Hoc Committee has finally been able to complete its mandate and to recommend adoption of the draft convention. The Committee, in which Barbados played a very active role, has worked for many years on this important and difficult undertaking. By dint of hard work, serious consultation and negotiation, and goodwill the draft convention (A/40/36) has emerged, to help the international community tighten the stranglehold on apartheid.
We utterly reject the notion that a man should be considered less than a human being because the color of his skin is black.
And in Namibia, the racist regime of south Africa continues to ignore the will of the international community and to deny the people of that country the right to self-determination. My delegation regards the liberation of Namibia from its South African oppressors as an urgent matter and hopes that no further comfort will be given to the oppressive South African regime by confusing the rights of the Namibian people with extraneous political issues.
As if this were not enough, neighboring countries continue to suffer violations of their territorial integrity at the hands of that hateful regime. Nothing perhaps better demonstrates the need for co-operative effort by the world's powerful nations, as envisaged in the Charter, than the fact that the illegal and racist regime in Pretoria with its mighty war machine need fear no retaliation from the relatively unarmed States within its reach.
The situation in Central America is of obvious concern to Barbados. The Government of Barbados has joined its Caribbean neighbors in reaffirming its support for the Contadora process and once more calls upon all parties concerned to refrain from any action which would undermine this vital initiative, rooted as it is in the principle that the problems of the region should be resolved in a manner conducive to peace and stability in the hemisphere. To this end, the freely exercised co-operation of the countries immediately concerned is indispensable.
As regards the Middle East, the Government of Barbados reiterates its conviction that the question of Palestine is central to this conflict and that lasting peace in the region cannot be established until the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to a homeland, are respected. We reaffirm our support for Security Council resolution 242 (1967), which cites as essential to a viable settlement the withdrawal of Israel from occupied territories and recognition of the right of all States to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.
My delegation is happy to report that Barbados participates in the Regional Plan for Action for the Integration of Women in the Economic and Social Development of Latin America and the Caribbean and the Plan of Action of the Inter-American Commission of Women. Our participation in the raid-decade Conference in Copenhagen and the end-of-the-decade Conference in Nairobi further demonstrates our commitment to the integration and development of women at the regional and international levels.
On the domestic front, my Government has employed legislative and other measures to ensure that women enjoy the same rights and privileges as men within our society.
We must not forget that this fortieth anniversary coincides with the tenth anniversary of the signing of the Helsinki accords on human rights or that, despite the lofty Helsinki promise, much of the world's population today enjoys no real political rights. The question of human rights is the question of human tolerance and reflects what is too often the consequence of our refusal to compromise. Thousands of men, women and children in every corner of the globe suffer because of their religious or political views, the color of their skin, or even the spelling of their names. Torture, imprisonment and executions without due process are still too prevalent in our world.
We regard it as an essential purpose of this Organization that the world community should be assisted in identifying, establishing and maintaining a universal regime of human rights. It is not an easy task. Among the 159 nations which this body comprises many cultures are to be found, many values, many perceptions of the nature and purpose of man, of society and of government. In its attempt to bring together the diversity that is this universe, the founders of this Organization set themselves and their successors a daunting responsibility, one that can only be accomplished through persistent and painstaking dialog. We cannot afford to tire. We cannot afford to fail.
There is no question but that much that is good has occurred in the world during the past 40 years. In the sciences - in industry and agriculture - in the arts, the human mind has risen to unprecedented heights. He have split the atom) we have created the computer and the satellite; we can plumb the depths of the ocean; we have outstripped the speed of sound; we have put to flight many of the lethal diseases which stalked and shortened the life of man; communications technology makes it possible for virtually every corner of the world to establish contact with another.
Moral excellence has not always been wanting. Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther Ring confirmed to us that transcendent quality of the human spirit and its capacity for courageously confronting anything that imperils our welfare.
In our material and spiritual spheres, therefore, we have demonstrated an ability to find the answers and the solutions to problems with which mankind has long been burdened. Yet, despite this knowledge, selfishness and greed continue to poison our lives. Despite the enormous riches of this world, millions are impoverished; despite the abundance of food produced, thousands die daily from hunger.
Billions of dollars are each year committed to the perfecting and storage of weapons for meaningless war, while small countries are bowed down with debts in their efforts to bring their people a modicum of human integrity.
The fact is that, despite our magnificent and commendable achievements, we seem unable to discern the rudimentary fact that we are our brothers' keepers.
We all know that as long as injustice exists there will be no peace. As long as there is an unfair distribution of this world's resources; as long as one race dehumanizes another; as long as innocent men, women and children remain homeless and stateless; as long as one country exploits another; as long as one-half of the world is free and the other shackled, whether it be by hunger, by disease or by terror of arms, there will be no peace. As long as the large and the strong regard the small and the weak with contempt there will be tension in this body and disorder in the world.
Against this gloomy canvass, we feel impelled to paint the words of our esteemed Secretary-General, a man who has devoted untiring energy to the welfare of our Organization. In concluding his report dated 4 September 1985, he exalted us: "Let us above all, on this occasion, look at the United Nations as its founders looked at it, as the practical hope for the future and not merely as the unhappy bearer of the burdens of the past." (A/40/1, p. 16)