My task as head of the delegation of the Soviet Union to the General Assembly has been greatly facilitated by two fundamental statements made by Mikhail S. Gorbachev concerning the place and role of the United Nations in building new international relations at this crucial stage of world development for mankind, at time when it is moving out of the cold war into a period of peace in its development and affirming a new political order resting on a comprehensive approach to security.
The profound analytical report of Mr. Perez de Cuellar on the work of our Organization over the past year has impressed us with its convincing evidence of the expansion of the role of the United Nations as a global peace-maker. Addressing the Assembly, its new President, the representative of Nigeria, Mr. Garba, also referred to that.
The heads of many delegations have put forward some far-reaching and original ideas at this session. Yesterday we listened with close attention to the statement of President George Bush of the United States, which, in our view, contained a number of very important and interesting ideas.
As always, during these days of the General Assembly's regular session representatives of the world community have together been recreating a panorama of the past year in the life of mankind. Its overriding idea is that of peace and security, its ideal composition is harmony of universal human values and national interests.
In making our own national contribution to this grand agreement each of us, I am
sure, wants it to become a part of an organic and unitary whole. Unfortunately, in some places the overall composition is still marred by cracks that impair its integrity. Over the past 12 months we have seen a rather contradictory picture of the state of the world.
Of course, the central concept remains the same and the theme, a product of mankind's thought and suffering, as we were appropriately reminded by the fiftieth anniversary of the outbreak of the Second World War, has not changed: it is the piloting of our common ark towards a new shore and our common desire to chart its course so as to avoid a storm that might destroy it. Nevertheless, there have been some new developments which have aroused concern. It is not just that the ship of the world has not yet negotiated the dangerous straits; it is encountering new threats that could give it a critical lurch.
The twentieth century has released the tremendous energy of nations and peoples, and this has become a major factor in the development of universal civilization. It is capable of and has been working miracles by extricating entire national communities from backwardness and poverty in what is historically an amazingly brief span of time. It is adding to the mosaic of the world more and
more bright and clear-cut elements of progress and prosperity. However, the same national energy, when it takes the form of inflated egotism and self-interest, often makes for aggression and expansion, a grasping for one's own good at the expense of others.
Here the problem of the self-defence of nations arises, the problem of their Physical survival, preserving their unique historical and cultural identities. Action provokes counteraction, which assumes some highly ambivalent forms. Centrifugal tendencies are prevailing over centripetal ones, thus upsetting the balance of world relationships, which is so hard to build.
This diverts the focus of our attention from traditional international issues to domestic and inter-ethnic conflicts. It has now become quite clear that internal strife in some countries extends the process of their destabilization to vast areas and that regional upheavals convulse the whole world. Lebanon is a case in point. It is often much easier to resolve the external issues in a settlement than to deal with its internal conditions, and this is clearly evident in Afghanistan and Cambodia.
Today the notion of "inside the country" often has a bearing on that of "outside". The trouble, however, is that the isolated fragments of the world which yearn for a better life fail to see beyond the mountain ridges, jungles, dunes and other features of their own national landscapes, the threat to their own existence, that might objectively result from such a fragmented view. Equally, those who want to prosper at the expense of others do not see that their own existence is also threatened.
This leads us to the question of the responsibility of the part vis-à-vis the whole and of nations vis-à-vis mankind. This places on our agenda the problem of harmonizing universal and national interests.
Some clarifications and explanations are in order here.
The supremacy of universal human values and observance of universal rules of the world community are the imperatives of our time. The objective requirements of the age we live in, its trends, character and circumstances leave mankind no other choice but to reject the traditional polarization. This is the axiom which underlies both the concept and the practical policies of the new thinking. Of course, it cannot resolve the existing contradictions overnight, but as a start it can alleviate them.
On the question of the primacy of universal human values, we are also implying the mature readiness of nations to accept this. Where that maturity has not yet been attained, and where the national idea is being juxtaposed with the common interest, domestic conflicts directly complement and impel global destructive processes.
Now I should like to stress this: freedom of choice continues to crown the hierarchy of a nation's supreme values. Every nation is free to choose the ways and means of its own development, but to do so in a responsible manner. It must not lock itself in the dark rooms of national selfishness or ignore the interests of other peoples and of the entire community of nations. Freedom does not mean irresponsibility towards others, for in the final analysis that would mean irresponsibility towards oneself.
The time has finally come to realize that not all means are good for attaining even the most noble ends.
The international community has become aware of the danger of narcotics traffic, of terrorism, it condemns and outlaws both phenomena. We need equally determined action against any kind of violence, whatever the motives or excuses for it. Violence by the State against its own people must be totally excluded. Violence on national, ethnic or religious grounds can no longer be tolerated.
To repeat, we advocate freedom of choice. However, we reject its interpretation as the licence to use any means, to commit any violence or to shed blood. Freedom must not be sought at the expense of others. No support or sympathy should be extended to so-called movements that countenance actions"
humiliating to other nations or use terrorist, barbaric and inhuman methods in waging their struggle. It is to be deplored that. 50 years after the Second World War. some politicians have begun to forget its lessons. Let us remember that political and ideological differences did not prevent Comments and nations from joining forces to defend universal human values from nazism and fascism. The dividing line in that battle was drawn not by ideology but by the rules of and attitudes towards morality. The Soviet Union, the United States. Great Britain and other countries and peoples found themselves in the same camp and. fighting side by side, saved civilization.
Fascism, which started the war is the extreme and ugliest form of nationalism and chauvinism. German nazism marched under the banner of revanchism. Now that the forces of revanchism are again becoming active and are seeking to revise and destroy the post-war realities in Europe, it is our duty to warn those who, wittingly or unwittingly, are encouraging those forces. The revanchist movement is dangerous and inimical to the march of peace, to which President Bush referred here yesterday.
While expressing respect for healthy national movements, let me refer to one modern concept of nationhood. it defines a nation as a collective personality, endowed with certain rights, in many respects similar to and even sometimes identical with individual human rights. But there are no rights without responsibilities, either for the individual or for the State.
It is the mission of the United Nations to promote among the world's peoples the idea of the interdependence of national aspirations and the common good of mankind, and to encourage nations to behave responsibly. This fundamental position of the Soviet Union is clearly reflected in our bilateral contacts. Relations between the Soviet Union and the United states Provide the best illustration of this. I will permit myself to touch upon the  United States-Soviet dialogue only because I am convinced that its importance far transcends the frontiers of the two States.  In the view of the Soviet leadership, this is not a kind of privilege but a clearly understood responsibility towards the world community. Therefore my account of the results of our talks with President Bush and Secretary of State Baker is my report to you.
These talks demonstrated increasing awareness by both sides of the need to co-operate for the benefit of mankind and growing confidence that such co-operation, such interaction, is possible.
Agreement to hold a meeting of the top leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States shows that we have moved far ahead in solving a number of major bilateral and international problems. Extraordinary efforts at the highest level will be needed to attain the goal of concluding treaties.
I am referring in particular to the preparation of the agreement on 50 per cent reductions in strategic offensive arms. We have proposed to the United States side options for resolving the key issues in that agreed: the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-ballistic Missile Systems, space, and long-range sea-launched cruise missiles. Our partners have accommodated us on mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles. Positions on other outstanding problems have come closer to each other. In our view, by the time the summit meeting is held next year, in late spring or early summer, we may have passed the last turn on the road towards a treaty reducing strategic offensive arms. This is a real prospect. The protocols to the 1974 and 1976 Treaties on nuclear explosions could also be signed at the summit meeting so that they could enter into force very soon thereafter. We are confident that the summit meeting will give a powerful impetus to the talks on major reductions in the armed forces and conventional armaments in Europe.
We welcome the proposal concerning chemical weapons put forward yesterday by President Bush. Generally consistent with the initiatives of the Soviet leadership, it indicates to us that we share the desire to rid mankind of these barbaric weapons. The Soviet Union is ready, together with the United States, to go further and assume mutual obligations prior to the conclusion of a multilateral convention: cease the production of chemical weapons, as we have already done - I am referring here also to binary weapons, on a bilateral basis, radically reduce or completely destroy Soviet and United States chemical weapons, regarding this as a step towards the global destruction of chemical weapons: renounce the use of chemical weapons under any circumstances, institute rigorous verification of the cessation of the production and the elimination of chemical warfare agents. I think there is no need to say how beneficial all this would be for the overall world climate.
In addition to the problems of security, the Soviet-United States agenda encompasses issues of humanitarian cooperation, regional topics and joint efforts in the fields of the environment and economic development, reflecting the process that brings together national and universal concerns. We are more aware today than ever before that Soviet-United States relations cannot be built outside the global context, divorced from the problems concern to all mankind.
Our discussions in Washington and Wyoming have moved us ahead in our efforts to bridge the continuing gap between the attitudes to one's own good and the attitudes to the common good. Much remains to be done, however, to alleviate the disparities of political objectives, for such disparities endanger all of us.
Let us examine the situation, taking nuclear weapons as an example. Why are they dangerous? Not only because of their sheer destructive power. They are unacceptable because they widen the chasm between national and universal interests. The equality of nations and the unity of the world become empty talk when someone's national selfishness is driven by the idea of nuclear supremacy over the world, camouflaged as national security interests.
I would say that the world community has as yet no reason for complacency or euphoria. The nuclear threat has only been reduced by the Soviet-United States Treaty eliminating intermediate and shorter-range missiles.
We believe that reliance on nuclear weapons does not serve anyone's national interests. It is also an obstacle in the way of more democratic international relations. Only the complete elimination of nuclear capabilities would help to attain real security.

The advocates of nuclear deterrence do not believe this will be possible in the foreseeable future. They respond with concepts of so-called minimum nuclear deterrence. In our view, that is a step forward, if only a timid one, a step that can be taken. But first we must define what we mean by minimum nuclear deterrence and what capabilities should be considered sufficient.
The Soviet Union proposes that those questions be discussed at a meeting of representatives of the nuclear Powers and the States on whose territories nuclear weapons are placed. Of course, the persistence of the concepts of nuclear deterrence is due not only to the undue emphasis placed on national rights and interests at the expense of obligations, but also to the lack of trust. The problem should not be easily dismissed. What is the way out of these vicious circles? It lies in affirming glasnost and openness and in building a wide-ranging infrastructure of pervasive verification. If we do need to deter each other, let deterrence be transparent and verifiable.
To that end, the Soviet Union is proposing that all nuclear Powers conclude multilateral agreements on measures to reduce the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war. Detailed discussions to work out such an agreement could be held in consultations among the permanent members of the Security Council.
In the same context, we wish to raise once again the problem of the cessation and prohibition of nuclear tests. This is the question of questions. Why are we still unable to put an end to such tests despite the express will of the overwhelming majority of nations? Because there are those who want to maintain their superiority at any cost.
Guided by its obligations to the world community, the Soviet Union has revised its nuclear-testing programme by reducing the number and yield of explosions.
Let me point out, however, that the efforts of one State are not sufficient for a comprehensive solution to this problem. We see a number of possibilities here. First of all, the USSR is ready to reinstate its moratorium on all nuclear explosions on any day and at any hour if the United States reciprocates. Secondly, it is time finally to end the procedural impasse at the Conference on Disarmament and start concrete discussions there on the problem of a complete test ban. Thirdly, as one possible way of achieving such a ban, we are now considering the possibility of extending the 1963 Treaty to cover underground nuclear explosions. There is an urgent need for a verifiable cessation of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes. We have declared that this year we are ceasing the production of enriched uranium, that in 1987 we closed down one reactor producing weapons-grade plutonium, and that we plan to close down in 1989 and 1990 a few more such reactors. By the year 2000 all remaining reactors will have been shut down.
In addition, the Soviet Union is proposing that all nuclear Powers should begin preparing to conclude an agreement on the cessation and prohibition of the Production of such material. We believe that in the verification of compliance with the agreement the vast experience of applying International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards could prove useful.
It would seem that even the way the Second World War began ought to have made clear that weapons do not guarantee security - the more weapons there are, the greater the danger of aggression. And yet for the 45 post-war years security has been sought in the arms race. It is only today that we are beginning to understand the need for a fundamentally different concept of security in Europe, a security that relies increasingly on political means and, only as insurance, on the necessary minimum of armaments.
The Vienna accord heralded a new European situation, opening up broad vistas for humanitarian cooperation and exchanges of people, ideas and information. It holds out the prospect that the European idea will rest itself on a foundation of trust and openness. But the groundwork has to be prepared for that by clearing the continent of excessive quantities of arms. That work has begun.
When the negotiators do not consign their responsibilities to the back rooms, when they sincerely want to strike a balance between their interests and those of their partners, progress is always achieved. One example is the Vienna talks between the Warsaw Treaty countries and the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on reducing armed forces and conventional armaments in Europe.
In response to our alliance's initiative the NATO countries have made some meaningful proposals, which go a long way towards accommodating the positions of the Warsaw Treaty countries. In parallel talks between the countries participating in the European process to develop a qualitatively new generation of confidence- and security-building measures the Warsaw Treaty member countries have proposed a far-reaching approach calling for a comprehensive set of such measures, and extending them to air force and naval activities.
Reverting to the topic of the obligations of individual countries to the community, I feel it my duty to emphasize that reluctance to engage in active talks on reducing naval forces is a sign of neglect of those obligations. Leaving naval forces outside the process of reducing armed forces and armaments would be harmful to universal security. The problem of naval forces could be examined, for example, in special consultations to be attended by all States concerned and, above all, by major naval Powers. They would discuss mutual concerns in this sphere and would exchange views on the mechanism and ultimate objective of future negotiations and on how to move towards them step by step.
The dialectic of developments on the European continent urgently requires the starting of talks on tactical nuclear weapons. The situation does not appear to be deadlocked. Mutually acceptable solutions could be sought in an in-depth discussion of this whole range of issues between the USSR, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the States where those weapons have been placed. If NATO countries agree to start talks on tactical nuclear weapons the USSR will respond with further unilateral cuts in its tactical nuclear missiles in Europe.
The problem of missile proliferation is also ripe for multilateral discussions. Nearly 20 countries possess such weapons, and the trend towards further geographical spread is still strong.
The approach to this issue could be two-pronged. Barriers could be erected which, first, would preclude the proliferation of combat missiles and associated technology across the globe, and, secondly, would not impinge on the legitimate interest of countries in gaining peaceful access to outer space.
No one in the world can yet bid farewell to arms, but we can abandon, once and for all - and we can do it now - the practice of unconstrained and uncontrolled international weapons transfers, lb that end the principles of glasnost and openness should be asserted here as well. The USSR reaffirms its willingness to participate in the establishment of a United Nations register of weapons sales and transfers, including work on parameters.
The time has come when the idea of preventing war is finding material expression in relations between the armed forces of a number of countries. A new peace-making instrument is being shaped by the Soviet-United States agreement on preventing dangerous military activities and by a series of agreements with the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany and France on the prevention of incidents on the high seas. Along the same lines. Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China have agreed to start talks short!, on putting an end to their military standoff. The  Soviet union expresses the hope that other states too will engage in this process.
A civilised world is an open world. Breaking the seals on many secrets, the soviet union has revealed to the international community detailed data about all reductions in its armed forces and armaments, their strength, the size of its military budget, and so on.
We reaffirm here the position of the Soviet Union. Our ultimate goal is to have not a single Soviet soldier outside the country. But, speaking of equal responsibilities, let us roundly condemn the continuing encirclement of our country - and not only our country - by military bases of other states.
The soviet union attaches fundamental importance to a transition from individual measures of confidence-building, openness and glasnost in international affairs to a global policy of openness, which would become an integral part of comprehensive security and international peace. The President of the united States, Mr. Bush, has proposed the idea of open skies. We like that idea. In welcoming and supporting the initiative, the Soviet Union calls for the opening up and open space, only then shall  e attain absolute transparency and the necessary level of confidence.
While we duly include in the records of foreign policy such accomplishments as the Geneva Agreements on Afghanistan, the process of granting independence to Namibia, the termination of hostilities on the Iran-Iraq front, and the constructive dynamics in the dialogue on the problem of Cambodia, we cannot yet say that the positive trends are irreversible.
Let us pay a grateful tribute to this Organization for its peace-keeping operations. Let us recognize its unique role, which goes beyond simply localizing conflicts and achieves a qualitatively new level in ensuring stability in the world order. But today's world order is of a far broader category. We have firmly established economic security as one of its pillars.
The Soviet Union shares the entirely justified concern about, and it supports, measures to overcome the crisis in the world economy - measures that were proposed at the Belgrade summit meeting of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. There are a few who continue to dictate to the many the terms of their economic existence. The devotees of diktat should understand that perpetuation of the current situation is fraught with the danger of a catastrophe that would spare no one - and that is no exaggeration.
It would seem that the world of the rich has nothing to worry about since its economy is in good shape. It would seem also that the rich are beyond reproach since, ostensibly, their wealth breeds generosity. In 1988 the aggregate amount of the developed nations' assistance to the developing countries amounted to 3US 90 billion - an impressive sum indeed - but in the same year the developed nations received from the developed world $US 50 billion more in debt servicing and interest payments. That was the largest flow of capital in history from the poor to the rich man's pocket.
Thus the prosperity of the rich is achieved not without help from the poor. There is more to it, however, than this obvious injustice. Such disparities cannot for ever keep testing the strength of the world economy and world politics.
The health of the world economy is also being undermined by the enormous cost of military production, which siphons off vast material and intellectual resources from the civilian sector. Now that there is a prospect of limiting the military-industrial complexes, the problem of conversion has to be addressed. This can be done only by working together and relying on the experience of all States.
Before the very eyes of just one generation the sphere of politics has linked
up with environmental conservation to give mankind the science of political ecology. No one can master it alone, enchained in the fetter of narrow national interests.
Political ecology requires urgent planetary decisions at the highest political level and the thorough internationalisation of national efforts through the United Nations, through consolidation of its leading environmental branch, the appropriate agency of this Organization. And, since we are speaking of a major component of international security. I would add that political ecology requires the involvement of the Security Council in solving problems and activating such tools as transparency and strict international monitoring.
The United Nations conference on environment and development, to be held in 1992, will undoubtedly be a watershed in establishing universal cooperation and working out a code of civilized ecological behaviour. We call for the holding of this conference at the level of Heads of State or Government.
Defining for itself the main principles of the concept of ecological security, the Soviet Union considers disarmament, the economy and ecology as an integral whole. While participating in implementing conservation strategies, the Soviet Union has programmes for speeding up the integration of its economy, on an equal and mutually beneficial basis, into the world economy, the modern international division of labour and international exchanges in science and technology. that
end we should like to participate actively in the work of international economic organizations and to establish contacts with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, being convinced that our co-operation with them, as well as with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations will be useful both for us and for the community as a whole.
In the building of new international relations, our foreign policy looks ahead to a positive evolution of today's world and to its stability. That orientation remains unchanged, even in the face of certain changes which affect our immediate interests and the interests of the community to which we have the honour to belong. But we remain faithful to our avowed principles and continue to affirm that nations' choices cannot and must not be overridden by force and that stability cannot be achieved by threatening the use of force or by intervention, blockade or other sanctions.
It is no secret that we were not enthusiastic about the Polish Communists' election set-back, nor should it be a secret that we hope they can overcome the crisis. Nevertheless, we see nothing threatening in the fact that a coalition Government has been formed, in accordance with the will of the Polish people, We are in no way prejudiced against that Government. We wish it every success and are ready to co-operate with it most actively.
Tolerance is the norm of civilized political behaviour. But if it is mandatory for us in our attitude towards the current Government of Poland, why are others so intolerant as regards, say, Cuba? And if a non-Communist Prime Minister is possible in a Socialist country, why should the appearance of a Communist as head of a Western Government be perceived as heresy? That is something we should not exclude either. The days of traditional demarcation lines are numbered. Only one line remains, to be pursued by all of us together moving to a common goal.
It is not the expression of popular will that threatens countries, but, rather, political and ideological intolerance, chauvinism and extremist excesses of imperial or nationalist mentalities. It is only when they engender violence and destabilize the life of countries and peoples that the machinery of legitimate defence must be activated.
However different may be our ideas of preferable ways of social development, we also have an overriding understanding of our common responsibility for the future of mankind and the survival of civilisation. We know that only together can we step beck from the brink, because an isolated island of development and prosperity would inevitably sink in the ocean of backwardness and poverty peoples and nations cannot be well when mankind is sick.
There is only one way out of those fateful correlations. As we see it, it is for the world community to move consciously towards harmony between universal and national principles. It is difficult to attain, but it is possible because the collapse of the world is unthinkable. It is possible because we  all share a place where individual national efforts unite in a single "energy field".
The United Nations is that Place, it offers a forum for everybody to talk about his own country and its links with the rest of the world. I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about my country.
We are building a new model of society, a new model of relations between Peoples and nations, a new model of socialism. As a great concept, socialism is by no means a spent force, indeed, it is revealing its humanistic potential in the bitter and often dramatic confrontation with the forces and flaws that are organically alien to it We in our country are not just repainting the facade, but are rebuilding the entire structure, in which the rules of living together must and will be based on the supremacy of law, people's power, openness to the outside world, inter-ethnic harmony and friendship.
In every sphere of the common life of our State and our people - the national economy, the political system and the people's intellectual endeavour - rejection of the ossified relics of the past goes hand in hand with the enthusiasm of new construction. Even though, in the words of a poet, we may have a gloomy day or two, we are confident that perestroika, which began as a revolution of hopes, will keep those hopes alive. Our people, our nation, will keep perestroika going, for it embodies the aspirations that they cherish.
Today, when some Cassandras hasten to make gloomy predictions, we make our own forecast. We want this historical optimism to be shared by all those who understand that the destiny of the world is inseparable from the future of our Perestroika. So we say to them: our determination to make it irreversible is matched by our belief in victory, a confidence grounded in the democratic institutions, which are ready to assert their genuine and full authority.
We are moving along that path guided by, not least, our awareness of the historic nature and magnitude of our goal, which we must attain ourselves, while not rejecting the support of the world community.
Believe me, we feel that support not only during the tragic days of natural disasters and national misfortunes. I say to representatives: it has been voiced in your statements at this Assembly, it manifests itself every day in your compatriots' generous gestures, their deeds and actions. So I ask you, the envoys of your Governments and nations, to convey to them our warm gratitude.


Allow me at the outset, on behalf of my delegation and on my own behalf, to extend our warm brotherly felicitations to Mr. Garba of Nigeria on his unanimous election to the presidency of the forty-fourth session of the General Assembly. His long-proved record in public and international service, coupled with his bread diplomatic skills and his keen sensitivity to the manifold issues before us, makes him uniquely qualified to guide us ably in our deliberations.
I wish also to take this opportunity to convey to his predecessor, Mr. Dante Caputo, our sincere appreciation of the fine leadership qualities he brought to bear on the conduct of the last session.
We are proud to recognize, as usual, the quiet but effective diplomacy deployed relentlessly by the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, in both his quest for enduring solutions to the numerous intractable conflicts and his efforts to enhance the awareness of crucial developmental problem. We highly value his unruffled stewardship as he perseveres in steering us carefully away from collision and confrontation towards co-operation and consensus-building.
The changes that are now taking place in the domestic and foreign policies of the countries of eastern Europe have fundamentally affected the climate of international relations. For more than four decades the world has been plunged in divisions and tensions as a result of political polarizations, which has inevitably placed a tremendous burden on mutual respect and concurrence. It was, indeed, an era characterized by a massive build-up of arms and troops as it naturally also embraced regional conflicts and the superiority of national security interests as a political strategy.
The developing countries, closely lumped together as the third world, not only became the ideological, proxies or testing grounds, but were coveted prizes in the underlying politics of the big-Power rivalry.
In the intervening years these poor countries have been alternately confused and exhilarated by the apparent choices open to them, so that often local, social and economic imperatives have been subordinated to broad political initiatives. Even bread-and-butter issues involving basic human needs have lacked the desired focus. In taking stock, therefore, of our past problems we ought to be careful not to be misled by false impressions of accomplishment. The reality is that standards of living dropped, political instability increased and sustained economic growth diminished. In all to many instances this malaise was associated with the absence of reliable infrastructure, inadequate education, chaotic housing and social problems.
It is a relief of some kind that the new perceptions in international relations seem to underscore genuine concessions, relative predictability and enhanced credibility. No one, perhaps, is better qualified than the Soviet leader, Mr. Gorbachev, who convincingly has stated that "Soviet security cannot be achieved at the price of the insecurity of other countries."
All this has serious implications for the many countries with protracted conflicts in their backyards as well as across their borders. Whether lasting settlements to the long-simmering disputes are to be found at the local level, through super-Power co-operation or through the United Nations, this definitely is the most auspicious moment for peace. Let us seize it; let us give peace a chance. We are extremely encouraged by the positive developments in peace-making and peaceful overtures that have been demonstrated everywhere, at both the domestic and the regional level.
The gains thus achieved in the international political arena, both in atmosphere and in substance, ought to be translated into practical action. They need not remain the exclusive preserve of the super-Powers; nor need they be directed only towards political and economic liberalization in the East. It would be inconsistent with moral justice and social equity if the improved climate of East-West relations bred complacency and neglect of third-world issues.
In the words of David Newsom, former Under Secretary of State and current Director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown University: "To declare victory new, and to imply that the end of the cold war makes issues in the third world of less relevance, is to ignore regions in which serious global problems have arisen in the past and may again." The African continent faces formidable challenges in the 1990s in its efforts at improving the living standards and quality of life of its populations. The worsening economic performance, against the background of severe drought conditions deteriorating terms of trade, weak international demand and high debt-servicing costs, continues to be a source of grave concern. While the long-term growth prospect has policy implications for improving human capital, mobilizing domestic savings and promoting exports, we need at the same time to give recognition to the inherent structural problems.
Some of .these will be insurmountable so long as external constraints - such as
dwindling export earnings, a dearth of finance for development and the staggering debt-servicing burden - play a major role in the continuing unsatisfactory macro-economic performance of the African economies. These constraints severely limit efforts towards economic restructuring and policy reforms intended to enhance recovery and bring about sustained growth and development.
The adverse effects of the crippling external debts are far-reaching and unfathomable, with debt servicing swallowing up over 40 per cent of export earnings in the case of Africa. According to the Economic Report on Africa, 1989, of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa:
"The continuing rise in the volume of debt and debt ratio underscores the excessive burden imposed on African economies and their vulnerability to adverse external developments. The proper understanding of African debt crisis, therefore, requires it to be placed within the framework of the concomitant adverse developments in commodity prices and resource flows and the ongoing efforts of adjustment."
At this juncture, we wish to record our profound satisfaction at the timely and generous decisions to cancel the entire outstanding public debts of over 30 African countries by France, Canada, Belgium, Italy and the United States of America. Most of the initiatives designed to alleviate the debt burden seem, regrettably, to share a common strategy linking debt relief or debt rescheduling arrangements to medium-term adjustment programmes, with a strong element of structural reforms, which, in International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank parlance,
"are aimed at reducing economic distortions and financial imbalances". More often than not such a strategy does not achieve the desired objective. Instead, it engenders untold hardship and domestic civil turmoil, not to mention, of course, the  inevitable political dimension of the impact of structural adjustment.
Perhaps it is a matter not so much of deficiency in the strategy as of its true relevance to the level and pattern of development of most developing countries, in particular in Africa, where zero economic growth has been the characteristic trend, despite the presence of the largest per capita number of foreign advisers in the world. That undeniably lies at the heart of the problem. If that is not the case one may well ask why it is that economic and social conditions in Africa today are significantly worse than 25 years ago given the substantial infusions of financial and technical assistance from the World Bank, the IMF and the developed countries.
It is high time, therefore, that the premier international development agencies realized the uniqueness of this group of countries and devised an appropriate, novel philosophical basis and theoretical framework for a specific, far-reaching, responsive and humane development strategy. Needless to say, this requires courage and iconoclastic vision on the part of those institutions. The Belgrade Declaration of the Non-Aligned Movement cautions feat "there can be no stability, nor better prospects for the world without reducing the disparities in the level of global development". We are hopeful reason will prevail to stave off a looming crisis that may engulf an important segment of mankind.
The United Nations can be a useful forum for addressing the grievous nature of this problem, which encompasses virtually every area of life, including agricultural production, industry, economics, finance, trade, education, infrastructure, research, housing and health care. The world continues to seethe under the enduring effects of the thorniest areas of contention, despite the improvement in the international political climate.
In the Middle East, the intifadah in occupied Palestine is now entering its twenty-second month with carnage, brutality and bloodshed continuing unabated. The Palestinians live in a precarious situation of perpetual risk. That the Palestinian problem as yet is not susceptible to dialogue or to a properly structured international conference simply attests to the dismal failure of international diplomacy.
In our view all alternatives have been tried. In place of practical political
accommodation and early progress towards direct negotiations we ere saddened by the  infusion of yet another deliberate distraction and confusion by Mr. Shamir - this time a tailor-made election proposal which is nothing more than a fait accompli, a deception, indeed a prolongation of the ugly status quo. Naturally, it had to fall on its face. Thanks to Egyptian diplomatic dexterity, President Mubarak, looking for ways to keep the momentum alive, unveiled not an alternative to Shamir*s plan but a 10-point agenda to serve as the basis for comprehensive dialogue. It received wide support from Palestinians, the Israeli Labour Party and the United States Administration. By now, however, we are all aware of its fate; it has become the latest casualty, like the series of peace initiatives, plans and proposals in the past, of the so-called inner cabinet of the Israeli Government.
Under the circumstances one doubts whether Israel will ever move in the direction of peace before violence destroys all prospects of peace. For now it seen* that the only viable policy option left for Israel, in the words of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, is one that promises the continuation of "force, might and beatings".
The widening gulf of mistrust in the Middle East poses serious challenges to the easing of tensions between fee super-Powers. We urge the United States to use its considerable influence over Israel in order to place realistic limits on its recalcitrance. More and more, Israel has become impervious to international outcry and moral crusade, has become increasingly impervious to General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and decisions, and also to international pressures; it is content only in heaping up international wrath. On the contrary, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the sole representative of fee Palestinian people, has amply demonstrated to the world that it can be a credible partner in an international peace agreement. Its historic policy change embracing the cessation of ail hostilities and acceptance of the two-State principle based on relevant United Nations resolutions, required unequivocal reciprocity by Israel, in accepting the land-for-peace principle and restoring full political rights to the Palestinians, including the right to self-determination.
It is ironic that the opening offered by the PLO should reinforce Israel's intransigence. We believe the PLO position offers a reasonable basis for fairness, equity and justice. Outright rejection of the notion of a Palestinian State is wholly unjustified. Pressing for more and more unilateral concessions by the PLO without corresponding flexibility on the part of Israel would not at all serve the cause of peace.
In Lebanon, urban tank wars and artillery duels have taken their heavy toll on the helpless civilian population. Fourteen years of sectarian civil strife, compounded by proxy wars waged on its soil, have caused untold destruction and suffering and created confusion, division and anarchy. Lebanon's agony is bound to persist until Lebanese authority is fully restored. We fully endorse the initiatives of the Arab League Tripartite Com it tee for the restoration of Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
We welcome the positive developments leading to the independence of Namibia. Nearly three decades of continuous diplomatic efforts to overcome the impasse have finally borne fruit, and Namibia will soon take its place among the free nations of the world. From the start of implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence in accordance with Security Council resolution 435 (1978), numerous but inevitable set-backs were encountered: to mention a few, the menace of the Koevoet, the notorious counter-insurgency force, registration irregularity and the lack of secrecy of the ballot box. We however take pride at the reassurance by the South West Africa People's Organisation (SMAPO) of its commitment to peace, human rights and economic pragmatism. Such positive spirit of leadership will pave the way for a genuine national reconciliation.
;
In South Africa, the word "change" is being overplayed on the psyche and emotions of the black majority. The new President continues to assure his country and the world that an era of change lies ahead, whether this is posturing and mere style or a prelude to a fundamental reform programme, the coming months will tell. He has been associated with the introduction and defence of apartheid laws. will he now be the agent of change that the country deeply needs for the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners, and negotiations with the African National Congress of South Africa (WO about a post-apartheid constitution? We are indeed sceptical about his commitment to deliver real change. South Africa remains a country beset by deep mistrust and divisions. Over 3 million black South Africans have been forcibly removed, thus causing intense suffering and social disruption. A common feature of apartheid is the redrawing of boundaries of tribal homelands resulting in deprivation and violent repression often associated with torture, beating and maiming.
Much needs to be done, not least to translate De Klerk*s platitudes and ambiguities into a meaningful reform programme. It is inconceivable, so long as the reprehensible system of apartheid is in place, that it would be feasible to bring voteless blacks into government or even to build a new South Africa with full but unspecified political rights for the black majority.
We strongly urge the scrapping of repressive measures and institutional racism, the end of undiluted minority rule, affirmation of political and economic rights and the creation of democratic institutions. When talking of change or hope, we cannot help reminding ourselves of the immortal prophecy of the late Alan Pa ton, that indefatigable literary giant and anti-apartheid activist who, over 30 years ago, wrote: "South Africa is the kind of country where one is filled with hope on Monday only to be catapulted into utter despair on Tuesday".
With Mr. De Klerk, it is "business as usual" so far. In the absence of genuine and far-reaching reforms, the international community must continue to intensify its pressure for the total abolition of apartheid.
The situation in the Gulf remains unpredictable and vulnerable. The peace process needs a new impetus. We are satisfied that, under the scrutiny of the United Nations peace-keeping forces, the cease-fire is holding and further reckless destruction of property and loss of precious lives have been thwarted. We deeply regret, however, the lack of progress towards the full implementation of Security Council resolution 598 (1987). The prevailing impasse of "no peace and no war" has dangerous implications for sustainable peace in the region, we believe that it is in the interests of both Iraq and Iran to demonstrate more readiness and flexibility to negotiate in good faith, so that the exchange of prisoners of war can proceed and important initiatives leading to the normalisation of relations can be undertaken.
Djibouti had great hope that the Paris Conference on Kampuchea would bring an end to the conflict and tension, and pave the way for the restoration of full democratic rights to the people. There can be no enduring stability in South-East Asia until foreign forces are totally withdrawn and the Cambodian people is left to determine its own destiny freely. We urge, therefore, a comprehensive peace settlement to the Cambodian question. With respect to Western Sahara, we support the efforts of the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity directed towards the search for a durable solution to the problem.
 We are a few months away from the second anniversary of the conclusion of the Geneva Agreements on Afghanistan and there are as yet no prospects for peace in sight. We believe that peace and tranquillity will continue to elude the Afghan people in the absence of a representative and popularly elected Government. As for the Korean peninsula, we are quite encouraged by the continuing dialogue between the two States, and hope that these exchanges will effectively contribute to an improvement in relations and further enhance the prospects for peaceful unification. In accordance with the principle of universality and consistent with the earnest desire to ease tensions in the peninsula, we support the admission of both Koreas, separately or simultaneously, to full membership of fee United Nations.
Alarming environmental hazards pose or threaten to pose increasingly severe threats to the human condition and to our survival. We tend to treat environmental issues, such as degradation, resource depletion, hazardous solid wastes and pollution, as mere passing phenomena. Disasters like desertification, destruction of tropical rain forests, drought and famine have left a lasting impact in large parts of the world, particularly Africa. We are convinced that environmental issues cannot be separated from economic development, and that realization should provide fee desired impetus for a concerted, collaborative effort at every level. It was in response to that common concern that six countries in East Africa forged environmental unity by the establishment of the Inter-Governmental Authority for Drought and Development (IGADD). Headquartered in Djibouti, IGADD is fast becoming a catalyst for the formulation of appropriate policies and projects in every member country. We wish to record our gratitude to the many countries and organizations feat continue to provide IGADD with direct institutional support and needed financial resources,,
In the view of our President, His Excellency Mr. Hassan Gouled Aptidon,  "The real enemies of men are not other men but rather hunger, disease, lack of water, homelessness and poverty". Those priority basic human needs require far more serious attention and allocation
of adequate resources.
Despite satisfactory advances being made in all areas of development, Djibouti
is still poor and far from achieving many of its goals, unfavourable climatic conditions, declining economic activity, the constant influx of refugees, overstrained social services, and external constraints are some of the principal factors that militate against sound and steady progress. The destructive rainfalls and subsequent flooding that occurred earlier this year in Djibouti left behind heavy physical damage to vital infrastructures.
We are deeply grateful to the friendly countries and organisations that- responded swiftly and generously with critically needed medical and relief supplies. We are confident that the international community will continue to support Djibouti's genuine development efforts.
In conclusion, I wish to state that the Republic of Djibouti has a vital interest in peace and in helping to build up a climate of confidence in our part of the world. For a young nation, small and lacking in major resources, the maintenance of a reasonable degree of internal harmony and the pursuance off a realistic and prudent foreign policy go hand in hand. Our positive regional and international diplomacy will continue to be matched by pragmatic domestic policies.


It is most gratifying to me and to my delegation that the stewardship of this forty-fourth session of the General Assembly has been entrusted to a seasoned diplomat intimately associated with the United Nations who is also an eminent representative of Nigeria, a country with which Indonesia has always enjoyed close, fraternal relations. The unanimous election of Ambassador Garba to this high office is both a tribute to his personal accomplishments and a reflection of the high esteem in which his great country is held within the international community. Our confidence in his abilities has long been established by his leadership of the Special Committee against Apartheid, where as its Chairman he has tirelessly devoted himself to carrying out its mandate. I take this opportunity to convey our warm congratulations to him and to pledge my delegation's full co-operation in the discharge of his responsibilities.
I also wish to express  he deep appreciation and gratitude of my Government to his predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Dante Caputo, for the dignified and skilful manner in which he directed the work of the forty-third session of the General Assembly.
At a moment when we are about to enter the last decade of the twentieth century, we are all very conscious that we are again facing a crucial turn in world developments. The global political climate is changing and we are witnessing a transition towards new patterns in international relationships portending greater opportunities as well as greater challenges in mankind's constant search for a better and more peaceful world.
A growing disposition towards conciliation and mutual accommodation among States, especially between the major Powers, has led to a visible easing of international tensions and to more vigorous efforts in resolving regional conflicts through dialogue and negotiations. New ideas and new concepts, born out of deeper understanding and awareness, are emerging and offering fresh perspectives on the solution of old as well as new problems, such as the prevention of nuclear war, pervasive inequality in inter-State relations, the destruction of the environment, the menace of international terrorism and the evil of drug abuse and trafficking. At the same time, some fundamental trends are asserting themselves on the international economic scene, further propelling the progressive integration of the world economy„
While these developments are surely to be welcomed as hopeful auguries for greater global peace and generalized prosperity, we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the international situation is still plagued by unresolved tensions and contention, wanton violence and persistent insecurity. Moreover, the world economy remains caught in prolonged disarray, and relations between developed and developing countries continue to be afflicted by severe imbalances and inequities. Indeed, while it can be said that the political East-West relations have improved, the asymmetries and disparities in the North-South equation have, in fact, been aggravated.
If the current detente is to lead to stable peace and balanced progress for all, it has to become wide: in geographical scope and more comprehensive in substantive content. Global harmony cannot be obtained without also eradicating world-wide poverty and injustice, deprivation and disease. Today, international security should be defined as much in economic as in military terms and take into account such non-military threats to security as sharply reduced prospects for economic growth and social advancement, large-scale unemployment, resource scarcity and severe environmental degradation.
Neither can our world become a safer place as long as international security remains precariously premised on such dated doctrines as mutual deterrence and nuclear superiority. Following the ratification of the landmark Treaty between the United States and the USSR on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles - the INF Treaty - momentum in the negotiations on strategic and space arms was disappointedly slow to develop. We therefore welcome the recent breakthrough achieved on this score and on some aspects of a chemical weapons ban. None the less, the arms race, especially in its qualitative aspects, is still far from abating and weapons of increasing sophistication and destructive potential continue to be added to the arsenals of the major military Powers. Consequently. the world's human, technological and material resources are being siphoned away from development purposes, resulting paradoxically in greater overall insecurity at ever increasing cost.
It is obvious that common security requires a comprehensive approach to disarmament, pursued through sustained, time-bound negotiations and on the basis of the collective responsibility of all nations. Extending the scope of the 1963 partial test-ban Treaty to encompass underground nuclear tests, ending the Production of fissionable materials, concluding a comprehensive convention on the total prohibition and destruction of chemical weapons and preventing the expansion of the arms race into outer space must remain the priority items on our global disarmament agenda. These should necessarily be accompanied by other concrete measures of disarmament, inter alia, the abolition of all other weapons of mass destruction, balanced reactions in conventional arms and naval arms limitation and disarmament. Additional resources released as a result of disarmament should then

For more than a year a fragile cease-fire has held and stopped the fighting between Iran and Iraq. But continuing differences in interpreting the implementation of Security Council resolution 598 ,(1987) have so far blocked further progress towards an overall resolution of the conflict. We remain hopeful that the direct talks between the two sides, under the auspices of the Secretary-General, win finally yield a just and honourable peace.
With the start of the implantation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, one of the longest and most aggravating chapters in the annals of decolonisation is drawing to a close. The imminent accession of Namibia to self-determination and independence represents the crowning victory of the national liberation struggle waged by the Namibian people under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAEO) fills us with deep satisfaction. However, we are thoroughly disturbed at South Africa's pernicious reluctance to comply with some key aspects of the plan as contained in Security Council resolution 43 5 (1978) and re-emphasized in its resolutions 632 (1989) and 640 (1989). Utmost vigilance should therefore be maintained to ensure that the plan is being implemented in its original and definitive form and that conditions for free and fair elections are indeed achieved. Indonesia deems it a privilege to be able to contribute actively to this goal through the participation of its police contingent in the framework of the United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG).
Notwithstanding the progress made on Namibia, Africa's struggle to liberate itself from colonial domination and racist oppression cannot be considered over as long as the people of South Africa are still subjected to the universally condemned system of apartheid. It must remain the unremitting concern of civilized humanity to eradicate one of the most demeaning forms of human degradation which apartheid represents. Indonesia is fully committed to the dismantling of institutionalised racism in South Africa so that in its place a non-racial and democratic society can be built.
In the search for a solution to the Cyprus question, we were encouraged by the resumption of direct dialogue between the leaders of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities. But it is to be regretted that the sustained efforts needed to arrive at an overall and equitable settlement continue to be hampered by persistent divergences of view and clouded by mutual distrust.
We are heartened by the efforts of the Secretary-General to try to bring peace and reconciliation to other strife-torn regions, such as Central America and Western Sahara. The international community should continue rendering its active support to these efforts, thus reflecting our renewed commitment to multilateralism and to the strengthening and revitalization of the role of the United Nations as the indispensable and universal forum and instrument to that end.
The Arab-Israeli conflict, with the struggle of the Palestinian people for justice and independence at its core, has rightly been an issue of central concern to the United Nations and to the entire international community. Over the past year, developments of far-reaching consequence have taken place, in Palestine itself and on the international diplomatic front.
Having withstood the merciless assaults by the Zionist regime to suppress it, the intifidah has conclusively demonstrated that the aspirations of the Palestine nation, and especially of its heroic youth in the occupied territories, to regain their inalienable national rights can no longer be denied. That fact and the bold peace initiative launched by the Palestine National Council last year, proclaiming the independent State of Palestine on Palestinian soil and indicating preparedness to pursue a comprehensive political settlement based on all relevant United Nations resolutions, including General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), have introduced an entirely new dimension into the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is truly deplorable therefore that, despite these developments and the far-sighted follow-up actions undertaken by the Palestinian leadership, the road to the international peace conference on the Middle East remains blocked by the intransigence and sterility of the Israeli response.
My Government believes that the unprecedented opportunities that are opening up at this stage should not be wasted. It is now more urgent than ever before to press ahead towards the convening of the International Peace Conference as the only effective framework for negotiations on all the essential elements of a just solution. Israel should be made to realize that durable peace and a viable guarantee of its own security can be obtained only through a comprehensively negotiated and equitably conceived political solution. We also strongly urge Israel's supporters to recognize the new realities of the present situation and to evince greater vision and foresight in their policies by co-operating with the Secretary-General in his endeavours to expedite the peace process. Indonesia reaffirms its unwavering commitment to extending all possible support to the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PI0), in the realization of their sacred cause - the early exercise of their sovereignty in the newly proclaimed independent Palestinian State.
Indonesia is also deeply distressed over the continuing tragedy in Lebanon and the grievous loss of lives and material destruction resulting from the resurgence of sectarian and factional strife. We therefore fully support the Tripartite Committee of Arab Heads of State in their efforts to stop the violence, and we commend it for having achieved a cease-fire as a first step. But, lest we forget, let me say that the arduous task of restoring national harmony and of economic reconstruction in the country is being blatantly undermined by Israel's illegal occupation of Lebanese territory. Hence, Indonesia reiterates its full solidarity with Lebanon in that country's legitimate demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Israeli occupation forces.
For the past two decades Cambodia has been the scene of unending war, and its tribulations a source of continuing tension and division in South-East Asia. But since last year efforts to put an end to the protracted conflict in Cambodia and to the unspeakable suffering inflicted upon its people have moved into a more concrete and hopeful stage. The Jakarta Informal Meeting, which brought together all parties directly involved in the conflict, as well as other concerned countries of the region, provided a first opportunity to start an intensive dialogue aimed at clearing the way towards a comprehensive, just and durable settlement. However preliminary in nature, the two sessions of the Jakarta Informal Meeting, held in July last year and in February this year, did succeed in reaching common  understandings as regards the objectives, the overall framework and the major component elements of such a political settlement.
Since then, a series of meetings, between the Cambodian parties themselves, as well as between other concerned countries, including the major Powers, have accelerated the pace of the negotiating process. A further impetus was injected by Viet Nam's announcement of its intention to withdraw its forces from Cambodia by the end of September 1989. That withdrawal has now taken place. While it is to be welcomed, we cannot fail to note that it did not proceed within the framework of, and in conjunction with, all the other key elements of a comprehensive settlement - an objective that we have jointly pursued from the outset.
With a view to enlarging upon the framework and the progress already achieved through the regional Jakarta Informal Meeting process, the International Conference on Cambodia was convened in Paris from 30 July to 30 August this year, at the initiative of France, and France and Indonesia served as co-Chairmen. Although at that Conference further progress was made in elaborating the detailed aspects of various elements of a comprehensive solution, it did not prove possible to get agreement on some issues of crucial importance to the total package - for example, on the essence of an interim administering authority; on the auspices under which an international control mechanism would operate; on the modalities of a cease-fire. Regrettably, the necessary conditions and political determination of the parties concerned appear still to be insufficient. It was therefore decided to suspend the Conference and to reconvene when conditions are more conducive to doing so. In the meantime, France and Indonesia, as co-Chairmen of the Conference, have been given a broad mandate to continue consulting all parties concerned, with a view to facilitating a comprehensive settlement, including the reconvening of the Conference and of the working committees, as appropriate.
At this decisive stage, we urge all sides to exercise restraint and not to allow a recurrence of large-scale fighting to deal a set-back to the peace process. Indonesia remains convinced that a viable solution to the Cambodian conflict can be attained only through political means - not by force of arms - and that, to be durable and just, such a solution must be comprehensive in nature. Indeed, from the outset that has been one of the basic, common understandings agreed upon by all participants in the Jakarta Informal Meeting. Indonesia, for its part, will continue to exert all endeavours to contribute to the restoration of a just peace in Cambodia.
We are encouraged by the positive measures being pursued to determine the future political status of New Caledonia. The maintenance of dialogue, in a spirit of harmony, among the various factions would facilitate the peaceful progress of the Territory towards self-determination and independence, in accordance with the aspirations of the indigenous population, while taking into account the legitimate interests of all the inhabitants.
The situation in the Korean peninsula, which is a source of recurrent tensions in East Asia, calls for intensified efforts by both the North and the South to initiate a process of national reconciliation. We hope that the talks to resolve outstanding issues will be resumed soon, leading to the fulfilment of the parties* shared aspiration for peaceful reunification.
In South America, the agreement reached between Argentina and the United Kingdom to start negotiations on measures aimed at normalizing their relations augurs well for a peaceful and definitive settlement of the question of sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands.
Change is pervading the international economic landscape also, with trends of far-reaching implications gaining increasing prominence. As in the political realm, these changes and trends contain new opportunities as well as new challenges. But, in contrast to the aura of detente in political relations, acute disparities and uncertainties still characterize the global economic situation.
The rapid advances in science and technology that are drastically altering the patterns of production, consumption and international economic and financial interchange offer new possibilities for more generalized prosperity among nations in an increasingly integrated global economy. Yet at the same time they may well have a negative impact on the position of the developing countries in terms of comparative advantage, terms of trade, and the international division of labour. New poles of economic dynamism and power have emerged, but this is being accompanied by the creation of powerful economic blocs among developed countries. What is most disturbing is that the current upturn in world output and trade is still mostly to the profit of the developed economies while many developing countries continue to be locked in structural underdevelopment, stagnation and even regress ion.
The external debt crisis of the developing countries has intensified in magnitude and global impact and is being exacerbated by adverse exchange-rate fluctuations in the major currencies. In its wake has come the predictable social and political turmoil that has already erupted in violence in some countries. Financial flows for development, both official and private, have continued to contract, resulting in a net transfer of resources to the developed countries. Protectionism too, notwithstanding repeated commitments to reverse it, has worsened. Primary-commodity markets and prices, including those for oil and natural gas, have yet to recover fully from the long years of slump and disarray. True, the international economic scene is not one of unremitting gloom. Despite adversity, a number of developing countries have still managed to make the necessary painful adjustments and to post continuing growth. Provided there is strict adherence to the Punta del Este commitments, the Uruguay round offers the prospect of a more open and equitable international trading system. With the Common Fund for commodities now fully operational, there is hope of greater stability in commodity markets at prices remunerative to producers and fair to consumers. And even on the debt issue signs of encouraging flexibility can be noted in the position of the major donor countries, although thus far this benefits only a limited and specific group of countries.
On the overall plane, however, it cannot be denied that the changing global economic setting still works largely against the basic interests of the developing countries. It is in the light of that reality that Indonesia welcomes the convening next year of a special session of the General Assembly devoted to the revitalization of the economic growth and development of the developing countries. The formulation of a new international development strategy for the 1990s will likewise provide an opportunity to focus our attention and efforts on effective ways to enhance international co-operation for development.
My Government further believes that the reactivation of the global North-South dialogue has become an urgent necessity. Such a dialogue should not be cast in terms of demands on the part of the developing countries or of mis-perceived charity on the part of the industrialised countries. Rather it should be based on the imperative of genuine interdependence and mutuality of interests. Genuine interdependence implies equality, equity and mutual interest, and should not become a euphemism for new relationships of dependency or, worse, for barely disguised neo-colonialism. Indonesia remains convinced that irrespective of individual interests, all countries share a common interest in seeking more open, viable and equitable multilateral trading and monetary systems, in achieving more stable commodity markets and in obtaining a comprehensive and durable solution to the debt crisis based on a development-oriented approach providing both debt reduction and adequate flows of new financial resources.
The threat of irreversible environmental destruction, through escalating pollution and hazardous wastes, depletion of the ozone layer and climatic change, desertification, deforestation and other causes, has now become a major global preoccupation. As an issue affecting the well-being and indeed the very survival of humanity as a whole, it is vital that this be addressed on the basis of equitably shaded responsibility among all nations and that it not become a new bone of contention between North and South. Neither should we attempt to make it an added factor of conditionality in the context of development assistance. This calls for effective multilateral co-operation, including the mobilization of additional financial resources in order to promote environmentally sound and sustainable development that would ensure continued economic and social progress without sacrificing our common future.
In the social field, a number of significant events have taken place during the past year. Perhaps the most visible is the ongoing war being waged against illicit narcotics trafficking and drug abuse, which continue to exact a heavy toll in terms of the destabilization of societies, resources wasted, and lives and futures lost. The international community, commonly threatened by this scourge, has united in more co-ordinated efforts to combat it. Based on the balanced approach called for by the recently concluded United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, both consumption and production are now being targeted. The mechanisms and legal instruments already in place should now be fully utilized by Governments in order to eradicate this menace. I take this opportunity to reaffirm Indonesia's strong determination to contribute actively to that end.
During the past year a number of international conferences were held to seek solutions to the ongoing flow of refugees, focusing global attention on that issue. The most recent of these was the International Conference on Indo-Chinese Refugees, which yielded a Declaration and a Comprehensive Plan of Action, reflecting a new consensus and a political commitment to bring about a definitive and durable solution to the prolonged exodus. We believe the Comprehensive Plan of Action, comprising a comprehensive set of balanced and mutually reinforcing national and multilateral undertakings, will, if implemented in its totality by all concerned, ensure such a solution.
In the area of human rights, one more step has been taken towards ensuring respect for the inherent dignity and worth of the human person and towards extending particular care to society's most precious resource, its children. The draft Convention on the Rights of the Child has been approved by the Commission on Human Rights and is being submitted to the General Assembly for consideration and adoption. Indonesia, holding the interests of the child to be of primary concern, hopes that this legal instrument will receive the requisite support and will soon enter into force. A world summit for children, proposed to be held next year, would not only promote the expeditious ratification of the Convention but would also provide additional momentum for child survival, protection and development programmes, making the 1990s a true decade of hope.
As we approach the dawn of a new century the problems and challenges posed by a rapidly changing global setting cannot be underrated. But neither can we overlook the inherent opportunities and bright prospects. Hence, the need of the moment is to strengthen the forces and trends towards global concordance and conciliation and collectively to steer the world on a more peaceful and equitable course.
In facing this critical juncture in world developments the Non-Aligned Movement at its recent ninth summit in Belgrade has shown a keen awareness of the new realities and has evinced its preparedness to respond and to contribute creatively to the ongoing processes of change in a forward-looking and realistic manner, unburdened by prejudice or dogma. In doing so, the Movement has reasserted its historical responsibility and active role in the building of a more peaceful, secure, just and humane world. As President Suharto stated at the non-aligned summit earlier this month.
"Constantly guided by its basic principles and objectives, imbued with its unique sense of unity and common destiny and enriched by its experiences, the Non-Aligned Movement stands ready to engage in this process and to contribute its share in building a new world order based on abiding peace, freedom aid equitable progress for all". Towards this lofty goal Indonesia will remain unswervingly committed.