May I first of all congratulate Ambassador Florin most warmly on his unanimous election as President of the forty-second session of the General Assembly, The delegation of Burma believes that the deliberations at this session will prove constructive and fruitful under his able guidance, I take this opportunity also to pay a sincere tribute to Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury for his most valuable contribution to the work of the Assembly at the preceding session.
The regular sessions of the General Assembly have always afforded us a very welcome opportunity to look at the years that have gone by and to look ahead, into the future. During past years, and particularly since the last World War, the winds of change have swept all over the world. We have seen the collapse of colonial empires and the birth of newly independent States. Science and technology - the essential key to modern progress and prosperity - have marched apace with all the attendant developments, both positive and negative, in our international environment. The world's population has been multiplying, and we have witnessed the rising tide of expectations among people throughout the world for such fundamental rights as equality and dignity, sovereignty and independence, peace and security and, above all, economic and social well-being.
It is perfectly fitting that the United Nations Charter opens with the solemn vow "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind ..." and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom". The provisions of the Charter thus continue to reflect the constantly changing mood and aspirations of present-day human society and the circumstances of our time. This surely is proof of the continuing validity of the Charter principles, which constitute the foundation of our Organization.
No aspects of human life have been spared the impact and influence of the forces generated by the constantly changing circumstances of the international environment. Consequently, the history of the post-war years is particularly one of an endless and extremely difficult process of great human endeavours to adjust and readjust to the rapidly changing needs of the time. The United Nations has indeed played a very necessary, an essential role in charting our challenging path towards a more secure and prosperous world. Notwithstanding that fact, the international scene has been clouded by tensions, instability and uncertainties which are very much in evidence wherever we look - in the political and social spheres, in trade and commerce, in transport and communications, and so on.
This brings us to the question of international peace and security. The collective security system envisaged in the Chatter is based on the recognition that, by and large, the maintenance of international peace and security depends on the big Powers which have, together or individually, the capability to make or mar its prospects. It was on the basis of that very recognition that the founding fathers of the United Nations saw to it that a special status of permanent membership was conferred upon the big Five in the Security Council, the supreme body in matters of war and peace. Indeed, the grim reality of today is also the continued dominance of the super-Powers in international relations.
Unfortunately, the harmony that marked the relationship between the big Powers when the Charter was being hammered out in San Francisco and before, diminished rapidly after the conclusion of the Second World War. Meanwhile, the problems that confront our Organization have increased many fold, broadened in scope and become increasingly complex. Any effort to promote peace and security in any part of the world can be restricted by sheer indifference or greatly enhanced by the support of the big Powers. A certain degree of understanding between them is essential before we can hope to gain tangible results in any peace-making process.
The foremost issue of international concern is the prevention of a war in which nuclear weapons will be used. This is a common danger that all countries face and no national security policy can protect States from that threat, for the dynamics of a nuclear war know no sanctuary. In past wars it was possible to destroy a village, a town or even a country. Now, nuclear weapons threaten all mankind in its planetary dimension. So long as nuclear weapons exist there can be no guarantee that they will not be used and we cannot dismiss the possibility of an outbreak of nuclear war due to accident, miscalculation or failure of communication. World peace and security cannot endure indefinitely in conditions in which the spiralling of the arms race, particularly the nuclear arms race, continues without respite. The attainment of general disarmament and the elimination of nuclear weapons are issues of paramount importance not only to the major Powers but to all other countries of the world.
The United Nations came into existence a few short weeks only before the age of nuclear weapons and the implications of the nuclear age were not fully anticipated when the Charter was constituted. However, the collective security envisaged therein, born of the realization of the Second World War, requires that nations settle their differences by peaceful means without resource to arms, and is to be realized through disarmament.
From all accounts the bilateral process of disarmament negotiations has not only been intensified but also accelerated recently. In our view, these are steps in the right direction worthy of universal acclaim and we are encouraged by the present course of developments.
The situation in the Middle East and its implications for international peace and security continue to be of concern to the United Nations. The international community has reiterated year after year that the success of the continuing search for peace in the Middle East lies in the solution of the Palestine problem. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) remain valid as embodying the principles for a just and comprehensive settlement. These, indeed, are essential prerequisites for a peaceful solution. Moreover, central to the solution of the problem is recognition of the right of all States in the region to live within secure and recognized boundaries and the right of the Palestinian people to regain their national rights, including the right to sovereignty and independence.
The viable option towards the path to peace lies in a negotiated settlement among all the parties concerned. That is why the idea that has once again been gaining ground of the convening of an international peace conference and the need for the Security Council to take initiatives on this matter is indeed a positive development.
Lebanon is still tottering under the impact of external encroachment upon its sovereignty and independence. The two major Powers in the region, Iran and Iraq  have been fiercely locked in armed hostilities. The situation in the entire region of the Middle East is really ominous. Unless timely action can be taken to bring them under control there is a very real danger of the hostilities spilling over to other areas, thereby engulfing all the countries in the region. The delegation of Burma highly commends the ongoing efforts of the Secretary-General with a view to bringing about a process of negotiation in the spirit of the Charter and in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security Council.
The Assembly continues to witness a situation in South Africa in which there is no sign of improvement as the country's regime continues, by the perpetuation of the system of apartheid, to deny the majority its rights as a people. The illegal occupation of Namibia by the South African regime continues to deprive the people of that country of their independence, and its acts of aggression against and territorial violations of neighbouring countries pose a continuing threat to the peace and stability of the region. South Africa shows no inclination to begin the process of peaceful dialogue. The international community has condemned apartheid with one voice and the need has been recognized for a concerted course of action by the United Nations consistent with Chapter VII of the Charter, to exercise pressure in a peaceful way so that the South African regime may abandon its present policies and practices.
Nearly a decade has passed since, as a result of foreign intervention and occupation, the peoples of Kampuchea and Afghanistan were deprived of their independence and the right of self-determination. The restoration of their rights has been consistently on the agenda of the United Nations. Moreover, the peoples of those two countries have suffered much, and that has given a humanitarian dimension to the problem. Although the situations are somewhat similar in their basic character, they arose out of particular developments and circumstances in the region and their solution lies in resolving the problems of each country within the regional context. The similarity is that the solutions to the problems would require the complete withdrawal of foreign forces and a negotiated settlement of a comprehensive character between the parties concerned. Despite the complexity of the issues, the United Nations General Assembly has, year after year ř adopted resolutions, with the support of the vast majority, embodying the principles and modalities for a just and negotiated settlement.
Burma has consistently supported the General Assembly resolutions on Kampuchea and Afghanistan since it believes that peaceful settlements on the basis of those resolutions would create the conditions for the restoration of the right to national sovereignty and self-determination of these two peoples.
With regard to the situation in Kampuchea, the implications for regional peace and stability are of particular concern. We believe that the restoration of the legitimate rights of the Kampuchean people would create conditions favourable to the mutual trust and understanding which are essential for the realization of regional co-operation on peace and development. At the same time a solution to the conflict in Afghanistan would also create conditions for peace within the region, which in turn would enhance the prospects for the solution of international issues with global dimensions.
The performance of the world economy has been sluggish for some time. Two years ago, three major factors - namely, the fall in the price of oil, the value of the dollar and interest rates - gave rise to some hopes for more vigorous growth in 1986 and 1987. The general assessment now is that these hopes did not materialize in 1986 and that the prospects for 1987 are also far from bright. Developing countries generally rely on their export of primary commodities to earn the precious hard currency for financing their investment projects and essential imports. The dramatic decline in the prices of primary commodities started some 10 years ago and has continued without much interruption. They have subsequently fallen even faster. This situation is true for most primary commodities, agriculture and forest products and minerals and metals alike. On the other hand, the developing countries have to pay ever higher prices for the import of manufactured goods from developed industrialized countries. These factors naturally set in motion a chain reaction of adverse effects for all developing countries in terms of their capacity to save, to import and to invest, thereby creating grave difficulties in their balance of payments and terms of trade and necessitating resort to more and more borrowing abroad.
This is how the developing countries come to be overburdened with an immense volume of international debt and debt-servicing needs, which has the effect of dissipating the most energetic efforts of the developing countries in their search for a viable economy, which proves elusive. Over-indebtedness and an increasingly deteriorating balance of payments and trade cannot be expected to be confined to any country or group of countries or to any sector or sectors of the world's economy. They cannot but be pervasive and far-reaching in effect. This has indeed been evident in the difficulties encountered world-wide by both developing and developed countries, and also in the recent upheavals caused to the international banking and financial institutions.
At this points to only one conclusion if we are to overcome the present economic difficulties - be they trade and aid, money and finance or development - all Member States must work together in a spirit of co-operation in order to explore ways and means for the effective reversal of the current trend and place the world on the path of sustained and balanced growth.
Last year the United Nations faced a crisis in its history which ostensibly was financial in nature but the root cause of which apparently went deeper. Out of such difficulties arose an opportunity for the United Nations to improve its administrative and financial efficiency, which led to a decision on a broad range of measures. My delegation believes that the agreement is the first essential step in the implementation of the measures necessary to improve the structural and financial efficiency of the United Nations. It was without doubt due to a spirit of accommodation on all sides that consensus prevailed on such a broad and complex issue. The decisions reached go far beyond organizational reforms. It can be said that they constitute a commitment on the part of all Members to the view that a viable and effective United Nations is needed if it is to serve the noble purpose for which it was intended. Such a commitment requires that Member States fulfil their financial obligations under the Charter. The decision last year to reform the United Nations system was a step in the long-term effort in which we all should persevere. What is essentially necessary is a spirit of accommodation and co-operation which should continue to prevail for the effective implementation of that reform.
The delegation of Burma fully sympathizes with the Secretary-General, who must lead the Organization at this critical phase. We wish him all success in his tireless efforts to bring about the requisite consensus and spirit of mutual accommodation with a view to resolving the current problems. The delegation of Burma hopes that the deliberations of the current session will go a long way to infuse renewed vigour into the work of the Organization.


May I join other delegations in congratulating you, Sir, on your election as President of the General Assembly of the United Nations at its forty-second session. I am fully confident that the experience and wisdom which is yours will enable you to guide us efficiently throughout the months of challenging work that lie before us. My friend and colleague Mr· Ellemann-Jensen, Foreign Minister of Denmark, addressed the Assembly earlier this week, expressing the views of the Twelve members of the European Community on some major international problems we are faced with in the world today. The Netherlands fully shares the views he expressed on that occasion.
With satisfaction we note a distinct improvement of the international climate. As a number of speakers before roe have done, we warmly welcome the agreement in principle reached last week in Washington by Secretary of State Shultz and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze on the complete elimination of longer and shorter-range intermediate nuclear forces. This significant outcome augurs well not only for relations between East and West but for the entire world community.
In this Organization a better appreciation by Member States of the limits and possibilities of international co-operation is emerging. Between North and South there seems to be a growing willingness to listen to each other and to strive for mutual accommodation and practical progress, as was recently evident at the Seventh Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). We observe a new sense of realism or - as some might prefer to call it - of pragmatic idealism. This gives us the feeling that we are gradually leaving behind the days of polarization, I hope that this will prove to be a lasting trend.
Prospects for increasing the relevance of the United Nations therefore appear favourable· As was rightly stressed in a recent thought-provoking report by the United Nations Association of the United States of America, the United Nations needs, within the framework of the Charter, "a sharper definition of goals, a more effective deployment of means and a revitalized mandate". After all, one of the main problems confronting this Organization has been its vague and often over-ambitious programmes together with limited possibilities for their implementation. Therefore, I whole-heartedly agree with the Secretary-General when he states in his annual report that pragmatism and vision can go together and that "... a vision without the definition of realistic means of approaching it can lead to disillusionment and cynicism". (P/42/1, p. 17) .
It is striking to see how the United Nations is reasserting the role envisaged for it in the Charter, both with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security and with regard to issues resulting from growing interdependence. On each of those two areas I wish to share some thoughts with the Assembly.
The Security Council has been entrusted in the Charter with the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. On the one hand we fully recognize the value of regional arrangements and initiatives for the prevention and control of conflict in various parts of the world. A recent example is the agreement signed early in August in Guatemala City during the summit conference on Central America, an agreement warmly welcomed by the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We hope that its implementation will receive support and encouragement from all quarters. On the other hand we observe that the United Nations has become a key protagonist in the search for viable solutions for the Iran-Iraq war, the occupation of Afghanistan, the Arab-Israeli conflict and the very difficult situations in Lebanon, the Western Sahara, Cyprus, Kampuchea and southern Africa. This clearly indicates the useful role of this universal Organization, in particular through the active involvement of the Security Council and the Secretary-General.
The adoption by consensus of Security Council resolution 598 (1987) testified to this and marked a spirit of harmony amongst the members of the Security Council almost unthinkable two years ago. But the momentum thus created will have to be sustained. The resolution should be implemented immediately and fully. The parties involved may be expected to exercise due restraint so as to avoid escalation and expansion of the conflict. We pledge our support for the tireless efforts of Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar to terminate this tragic conflict. There are no doubt valid reasons for raising the question of the origins of the war and of culpability. However, that in no way alters the clear injunction contained in the resolution that hostilities must cease. Insisting on the termination of the war, which has caused so much human suffering and material devastation, cannot be considered as taking sides in the conflict. We want to maintain good relations with both parties. Our insistence follows from the obligation in the Charter to respect the authority of the Security Council.
For centuries, freedom of navigation in international waters has been one of the basic principles of international law. Already in the seventeenth century a distinguished Dutch scholar, politician and diplomat, Hugo Grotius, applied his formidable intellectual talents to this legal principle pertaining to the high seas in his treatise Mare liberum. For the Netherlands, as a traditionally sea-faring nation, freedom of navigation is fundamental. It should be respected also in the waters of the Gulf. In our opinion the United Nations and its Member States should ensure that this now universally accepted principle is upheld. The Netherlands has made it clear that it would like to see the United Nations assume responsibility for the protection of international shipping in the Gulf and that my country would be prepared to contribute to a United Nations operation to that effect if one were to be undertaken. In the meantime, as the threat to the freedom of navigation persists, the Netherlands, after consulting with its partners in the Western European Union, has decided to participate in efforts to keep the waters of the Gulf free of mines, which we feel is to the benefit of all, but such efforts should in no way be considered as a substitute for early and full implementation of resolution 598 (1987).
The efforts of the United Nations to end the war between Iran and Iraq have once again illustrated the need for an improved mechanism for fact-finding. That could greatly contribute to strengthening the role of the Secretary-General in the dispatch of his responsibilities with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. We consider it highly desirable that the Secretary-General be provided with adequate means to increase the early-warning capacity of the Organization.
We warmly welcome his endeavours and those of his Special Representative to bring to an end the continuing Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The invasion of that country was brought about within a period of not more than one week. After almost eight years the time has come for a speedy and unconditional withdrawal of all Soviet troops as a prerequisite of a lasting and peaceful settlement.
Kampuchea, too, still suffers under foreign occupation. We never closed our eyes to the atrocities committed in that country in the past, but they do not in any way justify the continuing occupation of that country by Vietnamese troops.
Coming back to the so-welcome improvement in the East-West climate, the quest for new approaches in the Soviet Union and in the East European countries is creating prospects for a more fruitful dialogue. We should make full use of the opportunities which now appear to present themselves.
After years of virtual stalemate in the negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union, concrete results are now at last within reach. The agreement in principle, which I mentioned earlier, to conclude a treaty on longer- and shorter-range intermediate nuclear forces opens the way for what may well be a breakthrough of historic dimensions. This will be the first time in the nuclear era that an entire category of nuclear weapons, including some of the most modern ones, is to be abolished. We equally hope that an early agreement in this area will have a positive effect on efforts to limit strategic weapons, thus paving the way foe the 50 per cent cuts already agreed on in principle between the United States and the Soviet Union. Parallel with such substantial deductions in nuclear weapons, it should be possible to reduce nuclear testing so as to move step by step in the direction of a comprehensive ban on nuclear testing. We welcome the decision of the United States and the Soviet Union to resume negotiations on that vital issue.
These developments, un-thought of even a year ago, show that hope and realism do not exclude each other. Realism is necessary in other areas also. The further one progresses along the road towards reductions in nuclear weapons the more urgent it becomes to address the conventional imbalance in Europe. Here, too, stability is needed, which means eliminating asymmetries and reducing the risk of surprise attack. For that reason the 16 countries of the North Atlantic Alliance have put forward proposals for new negotiations aimed at a stable conventional balance at a lower level in the area from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals.
While it is obvious that certain categories of weapons can best be dealt with in a bilateral or regional context, others require a global and multilateral approach. Chemical weapons are a case in point. A ban on chemical weapons appears high on the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament, and quite rightly so. The urgency of achieving such a ban is underlined by the actual and potential proliferation of those weapons. My country will continue to play an active part in the negotiations in Geneva, where intricate verification issues remain to be solved. Looking at the ongoing arms control and disarmament efforts in general we also note a quantum leap as a result of the growing acceptance of the need for effective verification, including on-site inspection. Here, too, we see a long period of stalemate giving way to a more constructive approach.
We hope that the third special session of the General Assembly on disarmament will concentrate on achieving practical progress and avoid the grand, maybe somewhat over ambitious, designs favoured in the past.
Arms control agreements are essential for better East-West relations. But other elements are equally important. Genuine detente in Europe will, indeed, not materialize without greater respect for human rights in countries where these rights have long been neglected. The Helsinki Final Act, signed by 35 nations, clearly states that respect for human rights: "is an essential factor for the peace, justice and well being necessary to ensure the development of friendly relations and co-operation among ... all States".
Accordingly, the follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE) currently taking place in Vienna is addressing not only the military aspects of security but also human rights and contacts between people across dividing lines.. In Vienna my Government, together with its partners has proposed a consultative mechanism aimed at improving observance of universally accepted and recognized human rights. We deem it important that participating European countries can meet whenever one of them is seriously concerned about compliance and considers consultations necessary.
Respect for human rights is a universal principle to be applied everywhere in the world. We highly value the United Nations contribution to the cause of human rights. It is out strong belief that the universal nature of these tights transcends the boundaries of national sovereignty  in our view, concern about violations can never be seen as interference in domestic affairs. Universally accepted human rights pertain by their very nature to every individual, no matter where that individual lives. Their validity is unaffected by political, socio-economic and cultural diversity. That very diversity in fact increases the need for common standards.
The setting of common standards, of course, is what the United Nations and its Members have brought about. But this is, we feel, not enough. The Netherlands will, therefore, do its utmost to help strengthen mechanisms for their implementation. In this connection, I wish to mention in particular the unique system of rapporteurs of the Human Rights Commission. Moreover, we would hope that the current financial constraints of the United Nations will not diminish the effectiveness of its human rights programmes. New budget cuts in these programmes should be avoided.
While dwelling on respect for human rights, let me say in conclusion that human rights and democracy cannot be seen in isolation from each other. We are therefore happy to see the restoration of democracy in certain countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, as well as in the Philippines. We should do whatever we can to ensure that democracy becomes firmly implanted in those countries and that these examples become an inspiration for others.
The attention of the world community remains focused on the situation in southern Africa. Namibia's independence is long overdue. No justification can be found to postpone the day that the Namibian people can take their future into their own hands. Security Council resolution 435 (1978) should be implemented.
In South Africa, every day that passes without clear signs of fundamental change adds to the feeling of frustration, despair and bitterness of those discriminated against. This does not mean  in our opinion, that we can afford to give up our hopes for a new South Africa. Change will prove inevitable, but will the course of change be marked by violence and bloodshed, or by negotiations made possible by bold initiatives which will have to create the necessary confidence that is now lacking? What has become of the South African Government's earlier expressed preparedness to embark upon a broad-based dialogue involving the representatives of all sectors of the South African people? How can this ever sound credible with Nelson Mandela and his fellow companions still in prison and prominent political groupings remaining banned?
Political and economic pressure by the international community remains indispensable as long as political freedom remains the privilege of the dominating minority. But our call for justice and our deep felt abhorrence towards the system of apartheid should not be confined to condemnation, political pressure and sanctions alone.
Should we not equally try to reflect on what comes after apartheid? How can a society be brought about in which all South Africans, irrespective of their race, creed or political convictions, can live in peace and harmony and enjoy equal rights? Obviously it is up to the South Africans themselves to determine the exact shape of the new constitutional order, and it is not for the outside world to present a blueprint. But we can try to encourage and facilitate a national dialogue between South Africans. And we feel that the formulation of a number of generally accepted principles may prove helpful in this respect.
What is at stake in these negotiations is not only the removal of apartheid but also its replacement by a constitutional order which embodies the basic principles of freedom and pluralistic democracy and which takes into account the diversity of the South African people. Clearly, the legitimate political aspirations of the majority should be met. But is it not also tight to consider what steps should be taken to ensure that every South African can look to the future with confidence and a feeling that he will have a say in decisions which Affect him? It seems worthwhile to recall here that in paragraph 56 of its report the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group spoke about the need for "adequate and appropriate safeguards and guarantees for minorities" and for a "genuine approach to power-sharing'. One can think of a number of principles which seem fundamental to a just and lasting solution, such as suffrage for all, a geographically United South Africa, a democratic and pluralistic political system with adequate minority participation, respect for human rights, protection of minorities and the rule of law, guaranteed by an independent judiciary. Such principles are closely interrelated and therefore mutually reinforcing.
The raison d'etre of the United Nations does not lie only in the issues of peace, security and human rights that I have just referred to. The challenges posed by global interdependence are equally of concern to the Organization. Life on our planet is fragile and threatened by many dangers. Many developing countries are particularly vulnerable confronted as they are with an accumulation of problems, such as growing population, excessive debt and a deteriorating resource base. As is so aptly expressed in the title of the report by the Brundtland Commission, what is at stake is indeed "Our Common Future".
The United Nations has always played a leading role in promoting awareness of global issues. Experience has shown that there are many areas in which the Organization can act as a catalyst in dealing with such problems. Action on AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome), the spread of narcotics, natural disasters : and threats to the environment can all benefit, from a really international approach. Terrorism and its toll of innocent victims cannot be condoned by the world community. It should be unequivocally condemned by all nations, whatever its motives.
We applaud the outcome of the United Nations International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking, held earlier this year in Vienna, which was made possible by what we see as a spirit of co-operation demonstrated by all participants. The role of the United Nations in promoting development is of particular importance. The Netherlands has always advocated better co-ordination of activities within the United Nations system and strongly supports the United Nations Development Programme. In 1988 ray country will again provide approximately 1 per cent of its gross national product, a percentage amounting to more than ÍUS 2 billion, as official development assistance. A special effort will be made in a number of countries in Central America and the Andean region, which can also help reinforce the process of democratization.
Another essential role of the United Nations is in furthering the rule of law. The existing international legal framework ought to be strengthened. We should like to see more disputes submitted to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Our common endeavours to promote development of international law have not remained without success. The law of the sea is a case in point. We hope that the recently concluded agreement on overlapping sea-bed mining claims will contribute to the establishment of a universally acceptable deep-sea-bed mining regime under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We agree with the Secretary-General on the significance of that agreement, which was based on a realistic assessment of common interests and in the conclusion of which my country actively participated.
In today's interdependent world it is our common interest and our common responsibility to make this Organization work. One of the prerequisites for achieving this is respect for the principle of universality. This means that the Organization should be open to all States. We therefore hope that the Republic of Korea will shortly be represented in this forum. But more than universality alone is necessary to make the United Nations work, we feel encouraged to see a growing tendency towards reform in the United Nations. In the economic and social fields a start has been made on increasing the Organization's efficiency. Interesting proposals have been made in the relevant special commission of the Economic and Social Council. These efforts should not, however, be made dependent on the solution of the financial crisis of the Organization. An efficient United Nations is an end in itself; it should be vigorously pursued, regardless of the Organization's financial situation.
May I make one final remark. It has been said that in matters of foreign policy there are two kinds of problems; those which solve themselves and those for which there is no solution. The United Nations has proved this to be wrong. In quite a few cases it has brought about solutions where none seemed possible. It has succeeded in bringing about solutions where the parties involved saw no way out. I am convinced that the United Nations is an indispensable tool for forging unity where the parties are apart. The Netherlands is determined to remain actively engaged in our common endeavours to this end.


It had been the intention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr. Hayden, to be present at this session of the General Assembly for his general debate statement. It is evidence of the Australian Government's deep attachment to the United Nations and the principles which underlie the Organization that Mr. Hayden has presented each Australian general debate statement since his appointment in 1983. On this occasion, however, events in our own region compelled Mr. Hayden to return home from New York. The statement I shall now make is the statement Mr. Hayden would have delivered if it had been possible for him to attend this session.
Let me first extend to Mr. Peter Florin my congratulations on his assumption the presidency of the forty-second session of the General Assembly. At the same time I should like to express Australia's warm appreciation to the outgoing President and representative of a fellow Commonwealth country, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh.
As Australia prepares to commemorate the 200 years which have passed since the first European settlement in 1788, a feeling of celebration is naturally enough developing in my country But there is also occurring in Australia a new degree o analysis of the developments that have brought Australia to its present condition and the reasons for them. As a result, more Australians are becoming more clear about the real meaning of their past and their future.
Australia's relative advantages in the production and export of raw materials served us well in colonial times and have continued to be the mainstay of our exports until the present. The sharp decline in the terms of trade for primary commodities — something we share with many developing countries - has/ however  made it clear to us that we need to diversify our export base without neglecting our traditional strengths.
At the same time we are finding that our past policies which created a sheltered and protected environment for manufactured goods and services, have poorly prepared those sectors of our economy for competition in world markets. We are now addressing seriously the task of structural adjustment, which is needed to put our economy on a more mature footing.
Our bicentenary particularly reminds Australians of the extent of the disruption suffered by the original inhabitants of our country, the Aboriginal people, now a minority in the land. Australia, in other words, is at an especially important point in its development, seeking to understand the reality of its past and preparing for the realities of its future. Our economic and industrial structures are undergoing fundamental out necessary reform.
Australians are going through an equally stressful process towards a proper understanding of the effect of their history on their Aboriginal compatriots. That demands great change - in such matters as land rights, protection of cultural systems and heritage and economic development. It is a difficult, complex process, often frustrating, always demanding unusual understanding and new attitudes of mind. So, in their bicentenary year, Australians are going through a period both of celebration and of deep reflection. I mention this because the process gives Australians a better appreciation of many of the issues that are preoccupying the world community; because we all have a significant stake in seeing these issues dealt with effectively, expeditiously and fairly.
With such a perspective, two issues are clearly of immediate importance and pressing concern; one is our failure to agree on systematic, effective and just ways to solve the problem of international debt; the other is the distortion of world markets and the resultant hardship to innocent bystanders caused by the trade policies of the major economies.
The two issues are connected, not least in that they both threaten grave consequences for all - industrial nations and developing nations. North and South alike. In this context I commend Ambassador Yeutter's comment to members of the United States Congress last February, "Would that our grandchildren were to understand what we are doing to them."
Present international economic conditions reflect the difficult economic circumstances in both rich and poor countries. The latest world development report of the World Bank points out some of the dangers in the international economy and mentions the need for the wealthier countries to face more squarely the damage that their domestic policies are causing the developing countries. It is therefore time to ask whether or not the paralysis in economic policy-making is becoming so serious that the world economy is on the verge of sliding into an era of stagnation and protectionism.
The Baker plan set out the framework for the resolution of the international debt crisis. It was an attempt to forge an international consensus in which the different parties would all contribute to a solution and they would all gain from co-operation. Unfortunately, the plan in our view is not working, mainly because the richer parties have not been pulling their weight. Not only have the wealthier countries failed to tackle fiscal and trading imbalances, but private international banks have also failed to support the Baker plan. As a result, there is really no effective world plan to solve the continuing international debt crisis.
Although the Baker plan has in essence failed, its three original elements remain the key to the solution of the world economic crisis. These elements are, first, that heavily indebted developing countries need to formulate and implement structural adjustment plans at home, in particular by curbing excessive Government spending and promoting exports in an endeavour to service their international debts; secondly, creditor nations in turn would need to support structural adjustments in the developing countries through such institutions as the World Bank, by increasing resources flows to the heavily indebted countries thirdly, private international banks would also be expected to support such a plan.
It is important, however, to resist the notion that the first step to a solution is to allocate blame to one side or another. The great task is to find a solution that does not, on the one hand, destabilize the international financial system or, on the other hand, increase the severity of the social and political burdens which the debt crisis imposes on the people of less developed nations.
In this, each side to the issue has a great responsibility. Debtor nations should not undermine the financial system by walking away from their obligations. Creditor nations cannot insist on debt repayment pressed to the point that it destroys the human and other resources of debtor nations. Each side must therefore recognize the validity of the other's point of view.
A solution should be approached by seeking, not only to maximize the advantage of all concerned, but also to ensure that the broad economic interdependence between nations is recognized. Neither party can be seen in isolation, important interdependences must be considered, including the responsibilities of the debtor countries, the creditor countries, the private banks and the multilateral agencies. It is in the long-term interest of all parties to co-operate in overcoming these grave and continuing economic difficulties.
In the long term the solution also demands some form of broad structure that would help to invest resources intelligently and would establish, in advance, ways in which debt could be repaid more effectively, more systematically and more fairly. This requires a more supportive external economic environment, which must include adequate external financing in support of macroeconomic and structural policies in debtor countries, efforts by surplus industrial countries to maintain the maximum rate of growth they can afford, continued reductions in international interest rates, and action by the major industrialized countries to reduce protectionism, including protectionism in agriculture.
In addition to these points, another critical ingredient should be a co-ordinated economic adjustment by the major economies: a managed mixture of monetary and fiscal change and reduced trade protection along the lines emphasized at various economic summits. The alternative to such managed adjustment is the chaos which will result when the market enforces its own adjustment to the detriment of both culpable participants and innocent bystanders alike. This is an essential point: the policies driving towards this conclusion are not only endangering the interests of developing countries; they also threaten the interests of the developed countries.
The dangers to the world economy are equally serious from trade protectionism, which is such a feature of the current world trading environment. The World Bank has warned of the results of the resurgence of protection in the form of non-tariff barriers to trade in manufactures. This policy will undermine the integrity of the system of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT') even further and will impede the exports of less developed countries, which in turn will aggravate their debt problem.
Unfair trade in agricultural products is especially serious. Indeed, it is potentially ruinous. The Tokyo Summit offered not much more than a bare acknowledgement of the problem almost 18 months ago although it was the first time that the major economies admitted that there was a problem and that it needed their joint attention. Their perception of it has changed significantly since then. The change has been noticeable at such developments as the GATT meeting at Punta del Este a year ago, at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Ministerial Council in Paris last May, and at the Venice Summit last June. Indeed, the Venice Summit made an important commitment towards reforming agricultural trade by calling on all involved to refrain from actions which "by further stimulating production of agricultural commodities in surplus, increasing protection or destabilizing world markets" (ft/42/344, para. 20) would damage trade relations.
This increase in consciousness of the problem over only 18 months has been an important and, in the Australian Government's view a hopeful, development in that it injects urgency into finding ways to solve a problem which is contributing significantly to uncertainty and disorder in the global economic system.
Distortions in global agricultural trade caused by barriers to market access and subsidization policies of the major economies have seriously affected Australia, among other efficient and competitive producers. They have raised a huge impediment to the efforts of the Australian Government towards recovery from our economic difficulties of the early 1980s. Australia, therefore, attaches high priority to the Uruguay round of multilateral negotiations on agriculture. Australia's concern led it to joining 13 other non-subsidizing exporters in the Cairns Group of fair traders in agriculture in August last year. That group played an important role at Punta del Este in the successful campaign to include agriculture in the negotiating mandate and for the mandate to encompass negotiation of rules for all measures affecting market access and export competition.
These negotiations on agriculture will be a major test of the commitment of GATT members to an open, market-oriented trading system. The GATT rules and disciplines which have overseen world trade for the last 40 years have never been extended to cover agricultural products in a comparable way to their coverage of manufactures. This failure has been a major problem in the current world economic environment.
Australia put a proposal to the European Management Forum at Davos in January of this year to help solve problems in world trade in agriculture. Our proposal underlined the need to reassert the role of comparative advantage in shaping world trade in agriculture and to restore the link between market signals and production trends. Our proposal aimed progressively to reduce the gap which exists between world and domestic prices in many countries, and it called for the careful management of stocks to restore order in world markets. Acceptance of such an approach would produce a world order in agricultural trade in which comparative advantage and market signals are once more the major influences. But it cannot be emphasized too strongly that the most important and necessary ingredient in programmes to alleviate the crisis in agricultural trade is immediate action by the major agricultural subsidizers to eliminate all agricultural subsidies.
As with international debt, a solution will emerge, one way or another, to the problems caused by unfair trading. What is not so clear is whether it will be a benign solution or a disorderly one; whether it will be a planned solution by well-informed and well-intentioned policymakers; or a chaotic one forced on recalcitrant governments by market forces driven by uncertainty and frustration. If markets enforce their own solutions to the problems of international debt and unfair trading, there will be instability in foreign exchange rates and on commodity exchanges, debtor default, world recession and world tension, or even worse.
With such serious prospects threatening us all, some blunt truths need to be expressed to those who have the capacity to find and enforce sensible solutions. Unfair trading is in essence an extremely unfriendly act - even a hostile one. One should not be surprised, therefore, if its victims react accordingly.
Secondly, if developed economies' policies, particularly protectionist policies, impoverish their customers, they themselves will suffer the consequences of reduced export prospects and restricted world trade. Finally, when unfair trading reduces the capacity of countries like Australia to promote political and social stability through aid programmes, one should not be surprised if donor countries like Australia, find themselves forced to reduce these aid programmes.
This threat of economic and political instability adds weight and urgency to the third great imperative facing the world community; control of armaments, to which I now turn. Australia argued at the recent Conference on disarmament and development that security is a wider concept than a definition in purely military terms would allow. In our view, security has important economic and social, as well as military, dimensions.
Disarmament and development may not be tied together in an exclusive relationship; the abolition of arms may not lead automatically to the abolition of our economic problems. But it is a fact that military spending does take up a disproportionate share of global resources: this has been estimated to be 20 times the amount disbursed through official development assistance. Arms imports, to take another example, are responsible for roughly one-quarter of the debt burden of the nations of the South.
While Australia believes that effective and lasting disarmament should lead to larger and more predictable flows of assistance to less developed countries, we also believe that the economic benefits of the implementation of a wider concept of security will be of greater importance to all countries.
The other obvious, major reason for the urgency in dealing with the arms race, particularly the nuclear-arms race, is the destruction that it threatens. Australia warmly welcomes the prospect that the United States and the Soviet Union will reach an intermediate nuclear forces (INF) agreement, and particularly we welcome their decision to eliminate ground-based intermediate-range missiles in the Asian region as well.
If this agreement is reached, three critically important principles will have been accepted. One is that it will be the first agreement which not only reduces but also entirely eliminates a whole class of modern, front-line nuclear arsenals. It will also give concrete expression to the principle that security cannot be achieved by a build-up in weapons alone. And it will bear witness to the idea that security can be enhanced by balanced and verifiable arms reduction and disarmament assures.
Regrettably, the chances of an agreement to reduce the levels of strategic nuclear arms have not advanced far since the Reykjavik Summit last year. Discussions in the defence and space components of the negotiations between the super-Powers have also not yet achieved a breakthrough. In the strong belief that the issue is not the preserve only of the nuclear Powers, Australia has been an energetic participant in efforts by the international community to achieve nuclear-arms control and disarmament. We have urged the leaders of both the United States and the Soviet Union not to miss the opportunity apparently before them now o reach accord on all the topics under negotiation. Further progress on the issue f strategic arms would be greatly facilitated by agreements also to eliminate chemical weapons and to control conventional weapons.
In a specific field to which Australia has devoted special attention, our resolution with New Zealand last year on the urgent need for a comprehensive test-ban treaty attracted the highest support of any of the draft resolutions submitted to the Assembly on the issue of nuclear testing. We are co-operating again this year with New Zealand and our other traditional co-sponsors to produce draft resolution which reflects a practical, non-declaratory approach to a treat which we hope will receive very wide support.
We have also taken steps towards the development of an international system monitoring network so that the necessary verification measures will be ready for test-ban treaty. And we have made special efforts to contribute to the international effort to eliminate chemical weapons, efforts which appear to be close to fruition,
Australians share with other peoples good reasons for this active interest this issue: that is, the extra dimension of danger which unconstrained armament add to developments which are already unstable.
I refer in this context, to the Middle East dispute, the war between Iraq and Iran, the deteriorating situation in southern Africa and the divisions between North and South Koreans. Australia continues to support the principle that the international community has a major role in resolving such disputes.
We especially support the Security Council and the Secretary-General in the efforts to end the Iraq-Iran conflict. We support the proposal that the United Nations should contribute to reconciling North and South Korea by admitting both Members of the Organization. Both North and South Korea have, for example, recently acceded to the Antarctic Treaty.
We profoundly regret that the Government of South Africa continues to turn back on the sincere demands of the world community for genuine dialogue and peaceful change in that troubled country, that it continues to reject the legitimate aspirations of the majority black population to political rights. The actions of the international community in adopting economic and other measures against South Africa are welcomed by Australia, which understands the growing anger and frustration of African countries in the face of continuing South African intransigence.
Australia also continues to be concerned by the plight of the Kampuchean people and disappointed at the lack of movement towards a political settlement during the past eight years. We hope that the increased level of activity in recent months represents real elements of flexibility among the parties and that it might free the way to the start of talks and lead to an end to foreign occupation of Kampuchea and to the self-determination of its people. There are also some encouraging signs of progress in Central America.
Australians have a particularly compelling reason for their energetic interest in the arms issue, to which I have just referred. The region in which we live is feeling ever more strongly the pressures exerted by the clash of ideology, distortions in the world economy, the legacy of colonialism and the rivalry between the super-Powers. Our immediate neighbourhood is mercifully relatively free of the immediate military effects of these pressures. With our island neighbours, we are concerned to ensure that the South Pacific remains peaceful. This is why we are committed to the principle that the South Pacific and the Antarctic continent remain nuclear-free under the arrangements established for these zones. We believe that the disarmament provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, which ensure that the territory of Antarctica is used only for peaceful purposes and the obligations that the Treaty carries for the effective management of the Antarctic in support of the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter, continue to be in the best interests of all peoples.
That is also the reason for the concern felt by Australia and its island neighbours for a viable, peaceful political solution in New Caledonia. We believe that the people of New Caledonia should have been given a wider range of options in the recent referendum and that this referendum should have been conducted in a manner consistent with the established United Nations principles of decolonization. We trust, nevertheless, that a peaceful transition to a truly multiracial independence will take place in New Caledonia and that the situation there will not be allowed to threaten the stability of the region. This is of course a matter to which the United Nations Special Committee of 24 has been devoting its attention, in which process we are interested.
Australia also shares with its South Pacific neighbours concern over the destructive effects of the protectionist commodity policies of major economies. Small primary producers with fragile economies tend to be the first to feel the effects of these policies and the last to recover from them. The South Pacific is a region with many examples of this distressing reality. In such circumstances, the prospects of preserving its peaceful nature depend not only on fair and rational solutions to the problems of unfair trading and colonialism, but also on a realistic resolution of the arms issue. Peace in the South Pacific, after all, is connected closely with developments in the North Pacific, where there is a concentration of military forces second only to that in Europe, Australia has suggested that there would be advantage in the United States and the Soviet Union initiating dialogue on their respective security perceptions and concerns in the North Pacific area. We hope that this will lead in time to the development of greater confidence and security, mutually between the super-Powers, but also among the countries of the region. Australia offers this suggestion, once again making the point that efforts to defuse the nuclear-arms issue should not be confined to those most immediately involved. Arms-control and disarmament questions ate the legitimate concern of the whole international community.
For this reason, I wish to conclude this statement by suggesting ways in which this Organization can improve its capacity to act for the international community. I do so as a representative of a country which gives way to no other country in this Hall in its support for the United Nations.
The fact is that many countries are showing a lack of confidence in the United Nations. Worse, this lack of confidence is most obvious in those countries which contribute most to the finances of the United Nations. The lesson should not be lost on us. Several factors are working to erode the credibility of this Organization. Secretariats have grown in size. Their salaries and other emoluments sometimes outstrip those enjoyed by ministers and civil servants in the countries which fund them. Committees, commissions and special conferences have proliferated, giving the United Nations the reputation in some quarters of being an ineffective talking shop.
Dr. Herbert Evatt, as Australia's Minister for External Affairs, played a notable part in the founding of the United Nations As early as 1947 he asked the General Assembly to consider whether United Nations machinery was translating into life and reality its economic and social pledges. He referred then to the risk of the United Nations becoming "all harness and no horse". It is essential that that question be considered anew. The Special Commission established by the Economic and Social Council provides an opportunity for Member States to examine the nature of the horse and to ensure that the harness is as effective and as light as possible. In particular, the Australian Government urges Member States to use the Special Commission to review the 280 or so bodies which have grown over the years, with a view to avoiding duplication, abolishing some bodies and amalgamating the functions of others, while preserving the machinery which works well.
Australia wishes to emphasize the point that while the cost of international organizations continues to grow at an alarming rate, many Member States, including Australia itself, face serious budgetary and adjustment problems which limit their capacity to meet such costs. Our taxpayers' enthusiasm for the burden of funding the United Nations will be strained while the impression persists that the Organization is escaping the economic discipline they and their Governments are facing.
In areas where the United Nations has shown its effectiveness, Australia has this year raised its contributions to programmes it considers have priority. I mention, for example, assistance to the United Nations Development Programme, Palestinian refugees, population programmes, control of drug abuse, the environment and international health concerns. Our contributions in these areas have been increased. But the resources Australia can provide to the United Nations are not without limit. So long as the costs to us of multilateralism continue to rise so steeply, we will have to make difficult choices; whether or not, for example, we should consider membership of all United Nations agencies.
We make that point forcefully because it is centrally important to the continued effectiveness of this Organization's capacity and even to its future, make the point in the interests of the United Nations as well as of Australians. Equally forcefully, Australia emphasizes that this in no way suggests any diminution of our commitment to United Nations ideals which, after 40 years, is as profound as ever. Mr, Evatt told the General Assembly 40 years ago that the Australian Government regarded the support of the United Nations as a cardinal principle in its foreign policy. Firm support for the multilateral system and for an effective United Nations is still a central feature of the Australian Government's foreign policy.


I should like first to thank all the speakers who have, from this rostrum, expressed their concern over and commitment to Lebanon. 1 hope that this heightened attention on the part of our friends in the world community will be a harbinger of a new resolve to reverse the course of war and destruction in our land.
Mr. President, allow me to congratulate you on your election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-second session. Your election is a recognition by the world community of your personal qualities and of the role your country plays in world affairs. I wish you success in your new responsibilities.
I also take this opportunity to thank your predecessor for the leadership role he played in the past year and for the achievements of the General Assembly und r his presidency.
The Lebanese delegation has studied with great interest the comprehensive annual report submitted by the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar. His analysis of the state of the world, and particularly of the Middle East, deserves the recognition of all who are concerned with the fate of peace. I wish also express special thanks to the Secretary-General and to his able assistants for their continued efforts to implement the Security Council resolutions on Lebanon. The performance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) and the commitment of the contributing countries are of the utmost importance for peace in Lebanon and for international security in the whole Middle East.
This is my third appearance before the General Assembly. Five years ago, a month after my election as President of Lebanon, I came here with "a message of confidence" (A/37/PV.35, p. 2-5). I was hoping that my country would be allowed to engage in what I then described as a "daring adventure of peace and reconstruction4 (A/3 7/PV. 35f p. 2-5). After so many years of war, I then felt I could tell the General Assembly, on behalf of all Lebanese United as we were in a "sharpened national consensus" (A/37/FV.35, p. 2-5), of our determination to end the bloodshed, destruction, and despair that wracked our country.
Today, I stand here to admit, with candour and sorrow, that our dedication to the cause of peace was, alas, frustrated by superior forces. The Lebanese authorities were overpowered by an ugly war which caused more innocent victims among the civilian population than in the ranks of fighters.
For centuries past Lebanon had been the example of peaceful coexistence between religions, races and cultures which formed a pluralistic, yet harmonious, society devoted to the ideals of liberty and peace. Caught in the cycle of violence that engulfs the Middle East, we ask ourselves today whether those who set out to destroy Lebanon did not, ultimately, intend to destroy the Lebanese experiment and its achievements in the fields of human and political understanding. Lebanon was made to appear doomed to remain a breeding ground for war, anarchy and terror. In a country that itself had become a hostage, citizens of friendly nations were deprived of their liberty and sometimes of their lives.· These innocent individuals were used as pawns in a diplomacy of terror, their lives traded cynically as punishment or reward.
Our suffering was made worse by the assassination of Prime Minister Rashid Karame, a great statesman and a man of peace. He was brutally murdered in diabolic plot reminiscent of the assassination of my predecessor and brother, President Bashir Gemayel. To add to our woes, the resilience of the civilian population is now impaired by an economic crisis which is destroying the very fabric of our society. For the first time, Lebanon is haunted by the spectre of famine.
I remain determined, as I was five years ago, to pursue Lebanon's struggle for peace and the preservation of our territorial integrity, national sovereignty, unity and independence.
These are days for realism. In this spirit I say that what is at stake is not only Lebanon's very existence as a State, but also the ability of the United Nations to prevent the disintegration of a Member State. The history of this Organization's founding is well known. It was established precisely to prevent the destruction of members of the world community. It was founded explicitly because, in the aftermath of the Second World War, all of us recognized that, peace and security ate indivisible. It is of this indivisibility of peace that I wish to speak to the Assembly today.
Allow me to be more specific.
It is no secret that a number of Middle East wars are waged both in Lebanon and across its borders through an intricate game of surrogates and proxies. These wars have caused invasions, physical destruction and the dismemberment of Lebanon.
Year after year, the world community has heard us maintain that peace in Lebanon should not, and cannot, wait for the settlement of every conflict in the Middle East. Today it is imperative to go further and say that peace in the Middle East can begin only with peace in Lebanon. Unless we restore law and order in Lebanon, there cannot and will not be peace anywhere in the region.
We are fully aware of what is at stake in the Middle East, from the Mediterranean to the Gulf. We know of the many courageous efforts to initiate peace processes. We are also aware of the numerous resolutions adopted by this Assembly year after year. We have subscribed to all of them In the interest of peace, justice and international security. But we firmly believe that the United Nations must approach the Middle East conflicts as a whole - not just one particular aspect of the Middle East question, but all of them together. Peace in the Middle East is indivisible. Peace cannot survive in one place while a war is under way in another. Nor can we allow ourselves the illusion that containing conflicts on the borders of nations is synonymous with resolving them. Lebanon, again, is the typical and most tragic illustration of what I mean. Truce agreements and bilateral peace accords with Israel cannot solve the Palestinian problem so long as the fate of the Palestinians living in Lebanon has not been equitably determined. Similarly, Iran's war in Lebanon must be addressed and immediately resolved in order to attain peace in the Gulf.
At this point I should like to reiterate my support for an international conference to solve the Middle East question. The agenda of the conference as well as its structure should be treated as a matter of extreme urgency. Lebanon insists on being a full partner at the conference, because Lebanon has major problems to discuss in defence of its interests. For, much as we trust the international community, and particularly the Security Council, we face very high stakes. We fear that regional considerations, from which we have suffered so much over the years, might lead us to pay, for others, the price of peace. For boo long we have been paying the price of wars not of our making. Lebanon is neither negotiable nor dispensable.
Pending the convening of that Conference, Lebanon finds itself compelled to resort once again to the Security Council. Our goal is to seek implementation of the many resolutions adopted since 1978.
We are referring in particular to resolutions 425 (1978) and 426 (1978) of June 1978. Those resolutions mandated the creation of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) with the objective of confirming the withdrawal of Israel and establishing an area of peace and security in southern Lebanon. Furthermore, resolution 426 (1978) called for the reinstatement of the 1949 General Armistice Agreement, There should no longer be any pretext for not implementing it since the Cairo agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLC) has now been officially abrogated. Thus there is no longer any ground to oppose the United Nations overseeing security arrangements on the Lebanese-Israeli frontier, such arrangements, entrusted to a reinforced UNIFIL, would undoubtedly be a credible guarantee of the needed stability.
As this Assembly knows, UNIFIL s mandate has been redefined, in resolutions 498 (1981) and 501 (1982). A timetable for Israeli withdrawals and a joint programme of activities between UNIFIL and the Lebanese Government was called for in resolution 488 (1981) in order to promote the restoration of its effective authority up to the internationally recognized boundaries.
Other resolutions must be referred to, in particular resolution 436 (1978) of October 1978, which called upon "all those involved in hostilities in Lebanon to put an end to acts of violence and observe scrupulously an immediate and effective cease-fire and cessation of hostilities so that internal peace and national reconciliation may be restored based on the preservation of Lebanese unity, territorial integrity, independence and national sovereignty".
Finally resolutions 508 (1982) and 5ü9 (1982) of June 1982, as well as resolution 520 (1982), demanded: "strict respect of the sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and political independence of Lebanon under the sole and exclusive authority of the Government of Lebanon through the Lebanese Army throughout Lebanon” (Security Council resolution 520 (1982). In due course the Security Council might have to meet and devise the necessary ways and means to implement the relevant resolutions. The objective must be to ensure the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and enable the Lebanese army and the internal security forces to operate exclusively throughout Lebanon, with the assistance of UNIFIL in accordance with its terms of reference.
The failure to implement United Nations resolutions has prompted the Lebanese to resist with force continued occupation. The General Assembly has itself recognized this right. Yet we have not despaired and shall not despair of securing withdrawals by appealing to international legitimacy.
The 13 years of war that we have survived have demonstrated beyond question that there is no substitute for or alternative to the role of legitimate and accepted institutions. Hence our determination to support our appeal to international legitimacy with a consolidated internal consensus of constitutional legitimacy.
Indeed, all past attempts to bypass the legitimate forces and seek internal and external security arrangements with illegal militias have ended in tragic failures. External powers have come up against the same realities in Lebanon.
Their attempts to deal with forces outside the recognized legal institutions of the State have not only resulted in similar failures but compounded their problem.
The agony of State power, of sovereignty unable to exercise full authority, is coming to an end. People are increasingly disenchanted with the divisive sectarian forces which have brought Lebanon to the threshold of partition or annexation. A credible central Government, even if challenged by various partitionists and their foreign inspirers, remains the only rallying point for the vast majority of the Lebanese, whatever their religious community.
In this, my last year in office, I am determined to bring to conclusion a constitutional reform which should reunite the Lebanese and enable us all to save our country, secure our independence and exercise our national sovereignty.
I am calling on the international community, and in particular on the great Powers, to help Lebanon disentangle itself from violent interplay amongst the combatants. In so doing we would take the essential step, in conjunction with the international conference, towards Middle East peace. My appeal to the international community is as much in the Interest of regional peace as it is in the interest of Lebanon.
If my call is not heeded, let me tell the Assembly where Lebanon is heading. It is on its way towards an economic disaster the first phase of which we are already experiencing. The next phase is likely to be a violent upheaval that will transform not only our liberal economic system, but also the democratic political system on which it is based. When this happens many of the solutions that now seem appropriate will become obsolete. Extremism of all sorts will grow in that fertile ground of despair and the spirit of moderation will be extinguished.
The demands for sectarian partition, which now exist as contingent facts in time of war, will increase, creating havoc in the existing State system of the Middle East.
Anarchy, unchecked by the hope of order and stability, will encourage terrorism and lead to more kidnapping, more hostage-taking, more alienation from rational policies and a wider chasm between the Middle East and the rest of the world.
I have not undertaken this exposition merely to define the problem. I am here today to identify a course of action that we must undertake together. I am not making our crisis international;  it is already international, because it is regional. I am trying to define the problem, contain it and bring it to an end.
This course of action begins with a programme of organic and structural reforms which will be initiated through the constitutional process. Thus we shall be responding to the ever-growing conviction that no solution to the crisis can or should be sought outside the constitutional process of a democratic system.
A reformed constitution must enable the various Lebanese communities to fulfil an effective and extensive partnership in government. Executive power, exercised through the Council of Ministers, must be genuinely representative of the aspirations of one and all. The changes and needs of the Lebanese society as it has evolved must be accommodated in a manner that will shield us against external exploitation in our domestic affairs. Through a rigorous redefinition of powers and power-sharing any possibilities of hegemony by any group over others should be eliminated.
Although the war was not started by the demand for reforms, I am convinced that it will not end without them. A new Government entrusted with this mission will be formed. That Government will have to disarm the militias and direct strengthened and restructured armed forces to extend legal authority over the land
It is Lebanon's historic mission and a geopolitical imperative that the dialogue between Islam and Christianity should be restored and intensified in our land and among our people, for in Lebanon, and Lebanon alone, this dialogue assume its existential dimension, an interaction within the society that will serve the cause of international understanding.
Islam is today at an important crossroads. Islam should not be viewed exclusively in terms of so-called Islamic fundamentalism, expressing itself in violence. There is a rebirth of Islam which cannot be understood from the outside abstractly; it cannot be approached with fear or flattery, but only through full partnership in life, culture and government, it is Lebanon's destiny to meet this challenge. Our survival and world peace will depend on the success of the response.
Our principal partner in this approach should be Syria, with which relations have often been strained since our emergence as independent states. But there is no reason for the problems between our two countries to continue. Out relations should be normalized. Lebanon is an independent sovereign country, part of the Arab world} and Syria is our closest neighbour in the Arab community. Consequently, relations between Lebanon and Syria should be not only normal but distinctive and characterized by friendship and co-operation, as befits neighbours everywhere. It is in the best interests of both Lebanon and Syria to restore that positive relationship as soon as possible.
The principles for an agreement between Lebanon and Syria have been set.
Within the parameters of its sovereignty and independence, Lebanon is ready to go a long way to establish the closest relations with Syria. In saying that, I have the deepest interests of both Lebanon and Syria at heart.
Syria's military presence in Lebanon since 1976 has extended to over 60 per cent of our territory. This has given Syria overwhelming influence in Lebanon, which has not served the better interests of either country. Through its policy of alliances with Lebanese parties and personalities Syria has generated friendships but also enmities. Although regionally and internationally Syria is perceived as a vital actor in Lebanese affairs, it has been established that there cannot be a Syrian solution to the Lebanese question. But I hasten to add that there is no solution to the Lebanese question without Syria.
Specific covenants and treaties govern inter—Arab relations; Lebanon and Syria must see to it that they are respected to the letter, particularly in matters of mutual security and strategic interests. The withdrawal of the Syrian Army from Lebanon should and will take place in the context of those covenants.
New relationships should be developed with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)· A new Lebanon cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of old, Lebanon will not tolerate on its territory an armed group of any kind. Only the legitimate organs of the State or organized forces operating in Lebanon at the request of the Lebanese Government will be permitted to carry arms. Lebanon is prepared to grant the PLO a presence on its soil for the peaceful promotion of the cause of the Palestinian people, to which Lebanon is committed. In the context of the Arab League, Lebanon will co-ordinate policies relating to the rights of the Palestinian people. Such policies, however, should not violate law and order in our country, nor lead to Palestinian implantation in Lebanon. Vigorous work requiring close co-ordination will have to be undertaken both to repair the damage done to Lebanese-Palestinian relations and to create new and enduring ties.
Finally, the unlearned lessons of the Palestinians must not be ignored by others. Iran must be militarily disentangled from Lebanon. Iran's image in the region and in the world has not been enhanced by its policies in Lebanon or by the acts of violence undertaken by its followers in my country. Indeed, Iran's actions and continued rejection of Security Council resolution 425 (1978) and other Security Council resolutions will further endanger the Lebanese in the south.
All Iranians who are in Lebanon by virtue of Iran's self-bestowed military- ideological commitment and without the permission of the Lebanese Government should leave as soon as possible. Yet, Iran has important religious, cultural and commercial links with Lebanon; those links can be encouraged and strengthened by agreement between the two countries, in accordance with the established norms of co-operation among independent and peaceful States.
If I have digressed into what appears to be strictly internal affairs it is because, as I stated earlier, peace in Lebanon can be attained only by an encounter between the national and the international·
The Lebanese were not free to choose between war and peace. If international peace and security are to be protected against the consequences of continued chaos, violence and terror in Lebanon, the world community must secure for the Lebanese the freedom to choose. I should also like to repeat my firm conviction that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and that peace in Lebanon must be the beginning and not the end.
To those, be they friend or foe, who envision that the withering away of Lebanon is a solution to their problems, let me say this: the disappearance or dismemberment of Lebanon will create more problems, more tragedies, and greater violence, in years past my country was proud to be a haven for peace, a link between cultures. Now it has become a haven for terror; a link between wars.
But it remains my country, and no sacrifice is too great in its defence.