I should like to congratulate Mr. Choudhury on his election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly and to wish him every
success in his responsible post.
In these difficult times which the Organization is now facing I wish also to express great appreciation of the commendable work of the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, in the interests of the objectives of the United
Nations and its Charter.
Last year's fortieth anniversary session of our Organization provided an
opportunity to reaffirm its unique and irreplaceable role. Since that time, it has
gone through a new and complex stage in its activities. Unfortunately, no progress
has been achieved in solving the crucial issues relating to the strengthening of
international security, nuclear weapons or the halting of the arms race. There has
been no improvement so far in the strained international relations. The reasons
for our concern have thus not been removed.
Nevertheless we have witnessed some encouraging events, which have given rise to hope for a thaw in the international atmosphere. Political dialog has been reactivated. Disarmament negotiations have been resumed. The long-awaited and much-needed Geneva summit meeting has taken place. A strong impression has been made by the declaration and repeated extensions of the Soviet moratorium. The first phase of the Stockholm Conference has been successfully concluded. Agreements on the safe use of atomic energy have been signed in Vienna. Notable progress has been made on the question of the prohibition of chemical weapons. New signs have appeared in the efforts to solve regional problems. Ways of increasing security in Asia and in the Pacific region are being sought. Definite possibilities of strengthening international co-operation in the economic and humanitarian fields are taking shape. There have been extremely important achievements at the summit meeting of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement in Harare.
The effect of all those positive factors constitutes a solid political basis for further progress in the policy of detente; it is a solid basis and capital bearing high interest. Logically, its value has been enhanced as a result of the positive and generally welcomed announcement that Mikhail Gorbachev's proposal to hold a meeting in Iceland has been accepted by President Reagan. We appreciate the fact that this agreement has been reached, as was stated, thanks to the realism and constructive approach of both sides. The meeting will undoubtedly provide a significant opportunity for reviewing the present international situation. We should like to believe that the Reykjavik meeting would proceed on the basis of such an analysis to chart a course leading to the solution of pending problems, especially those relating to certain questions of nuclear weapons. If that happens it will certainly encourage the further development of the policy of peaceful coexistence and broad international co-operation.
The good news of the forthcoming meeting seems to respond to the desires of the entire international community. It is also fully consonant with the constructive atmosphere prevailing at our present session, especially the new symptoms and tendencies that have so clearly manifested themselves here so far.
Consequently, the world is facing a choice. Everything will depend on the decisions we shall make*, whether we drift towards nuclear annihilation or allow the new political thinking on the preservation of life on earth to prevail.
We in Czechoslovakia have always had an unswerving attitude. No matter what differences there may be in social systems or political positions, the will to prevent confrontation and reduce international tensions must prevail. This means that we must reject war in the interest of politics, since another war would mean the end of all politics. The future must not be allowed to be programed by military technologies. Diverse, often conflicting, interests must be reconciled in a way that enables both individuals and entire nations to live in peace without fear for the sorrow. This could be decisively facilitated by the establishment of a comprehensive system of international peace and security embracing the military, political, economic and humanitarian spheres-, a system which would presuppose the adoption of material, political and legal, as well as moral and psychological, guarantees precluding the use of force, and make it possible to achieve equal
security for all by political means.
Such a broadly conceived approach underlies the joint proposal of the Socialist countries which is before this session of the General Assentoly. It inspires us to believe that we can think afresh about how to implement and develop in a more meaningful way the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
Naturally, everybody talks about peace nowadays, but the concepts of peace are diametrically opposed. Some see it as a mere cease-fire-, others assert that to avert war means to rely on nuclear strength, with the concomitant claim to a right to abrogate unilaterally existing treaties on arms limitation. Under the doctrine of neo-globalism there is continued reliance on military force, aggression, economic extortion and the imposition of its will upon other countries and peoples. However, such a philosophy, based on the law of force, is pointless; it would be disastrous fear mankind as a whole.
For our part, we believe that deterrence, intimidation and threats of retaliation could be replaced by firm guarantees of trust. Peaceful coexistence can and must become the highest universal principle of inter-State relations. Security must be viewed as mutual and indivisible.
We see in such a set of fundamental practical norms reliable ways of dealing with some of the most complex problems of our epoch. It was within this context that they were formulated, with historic farsightedness, by the XXVTIth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Onion and endorsed by the XVIIth Congress of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. As the President of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Gustav Husak, has said, we regard that "as a powerful impulse in the struggle for peace and progress".
We have given our full support to the central appeal of the International Year of Peace, which is being observed this year, and have made practical contributions to its implementation. We have gained valuable experience from this. It has confirmed that conditions are ripe for an intensification of the peace-building efforts of nations. Governments and the peoples throughout the world. Among the steps that could improve the political detente and strengthen mutual security none is more urgent than arms limitation. The horrifying momentum of nuclear and conventional armament on Earth must be halted and it must be prevented from reaching outer space. So far there is still time, but there is not much left.
Indeed, mankind's destiny has now taken on a completely new perspective. Nuclear arsenals have achieved such absurd dimensions that they no longer serve their original purpose. Even as they are being accumulated the moment is drawing nearer when strategic parity will cease to be a factor of military-political deterrence. Mutual deterrence is now turning into its opposite. That situation in itself argues against the philosophy underlying the old political thinking to the effect that the further accumulation of such weapons is necessary.
Unfortunately, the approach to arras limitation taken by some Western countries is still marked by obvious attempts simply to drag things out. Surely this is proved by the Vienna talks, where nothing has been achieved after 13 years and 40 rounds, and despite 26 proposals by the socialist countries. The truth is that many of those who so often call for progress prove by their actions that they still rely on military force. In their commitment to the policy of confrontation they even go so far as to make plans for besieging our planet from outer space. The question that here is this-, what is the purpose of the strategic revolution when demands for a revolution in disarmament are being made from all sides?
All sorts of arguments are being used as pretexts for blocking progress. One of them is the question of verification, which has been raised constantly and inflated out of all proportion, as if there were a reluctance to recognize that the
socialist States sure completely ready to resolve this issue, including the question of on-site inspections, as was clearly demonstrated in Stockholm. After all, it would be just as impossible for us to accept disarmament treaties without strict and equitable verification measures.
However, this assumes that there must be something to verify. This requires, first of all, that there be negotiations and agreement on the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons, a treaty on a comprehensive nuclear-weapon-test ban, and a number of other urgent issues on the rather extensive agenda.
We are convinced that the program put forward by Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev on 15 January has opened a viable way to the solution of the entire range of issues relating to nuclear disarmament - strategic armaments, intermediate-range missiles in Europe and operational tactical forces. We regard this as the most detailed, specific and concrete basis for progress that has ever been submitted. It pays due regard to the legitimate security interests of all States, both nuclear and non-nuclear. It offers a truly historic opportunity to eliminate the threat of nuclear devastation. It provides for the safe, peaceful entry of human civilization into the third millennium. That program enjoys our full support. It should become a focal point in the work of the United Nations as well.
We regard the continuance of nuclear testing as the equivalent of armament. We consider the Soviet Union's decision to extend its unilateral moratorium on all nuclear explosions through the end of this year, after it has already been in effect for more than 400 days, as proof of the highest sense of responsibility. That step - which is not an easy one to take in the light of one's own security needs - is welcomed throughout the world. It is indeed a genuine example that deserves to be initiated. The spontaneous applause in this Hall when Minister Shevardnadze mentioned that action in his statement once again confirmed this. Moreover, this example set by the Soviet Union provides yet another opportunity: it gives us a chance to think things over. We believe that one's attitude to this can be regarded as a yardstick by which to gauge one's sincerity.
We value highly the efforts made on this important question by the group of six States from four continents and the Non-Aligned Movement as a whole. We would like their proposal, too, to be heeded by the United States. It would be the most natural, the easiest and indeed the least expensive way to halt the accumulation of nuclear capacity. It would preclude the sort of confrontation provoked by such testing. It would pave the way for further significant steps towards the preventing of nuclear war. And, it would be in keeping with the agreement readied at the Soviet-United States summit meeting at Geneva.
We welcome the readiness of the Soviet Union to sign, any time and at any place, a treaty on a comprehensive nuclear-weapon-test ban. If an act of such historic significance were accomplished here and now it would indeed be a symbol of our Organization's commitment to this ideal.
We also share the opinion that a basic prerequisite for the radical limitation of strategic nuclear systems is abstention from launching weapons into outer space. Is it not easier, more cost-effective and, above all, much safer to dismantle nuclear weapons than to build a so-called defense against them in the form of a rather complicated, costly and extremely hazardous space shield? That is why we demand that these weapons be dismantled.
We give our unequivocal support to the preparation and adoption of a realistic program of joint, practical activities for the peaceful use of outer space. Only in this way can nations concert their efforts to work for the salvation of their planet, its atmosphere and its biosphere.
We believe that the strengthening of universal security and confidence-building also depend on how reliably atomic power is used. We therefore advocate the establishment of an international system for the safe development of nuclear-power engineering embodying a universal commitment by each State individually and by all States collectively.
We have acquired valuable experience in this respect. The 1982 Czechoslovak-Austrian agreement on the regulation of issues relating to nuclear facilities is a unique document, indeed the first of its kind. It served its purpose excellently after the Chernobyl accident. It provides convincing proof of the possibility of solving matters relating to the safe use of nuclear energy within the framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) , regardless of the social systems of the States involved.
We favor the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones aid zones of peace in specific regions of the world - in central Europe, where we are ready to become part of such a zone, in northern Europe on the Balkan peninsula, in Africa, in the Indian Ocean and also in the South Pacific.
We firmly advocate the world-wide elimination of chemical weapons and means of manufacturing them. In the spirit of our proposals submitted jointly with the German Democratic Republic, we are ready to continue to promote efforts to achieve the global prohibition of such weapons, in particular by means of establishing a chemical-weapon-free zone in central Europe.
we wish to express our regret at the delays that have affected the convening of the Conference on disarmament and development, we support the holding of discussions next year on those closely interrelated problems of the present-day world.
We attach great importance to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. We regard it as a particularly necessary forum for negotiation, and as indeed the only place where even partial agreements can take the form of multilateral treaties. We are working to increase its effectiveness.
The decisive arena in the struggle for a peaceful order in the world remains the European continent. It is there that the two strongest military-political groupings, possessing the most destructive types of weapons, are facing each other. Yet it is also there that the policy of detente has emerged, stemming from a common understanding of recognized realities.
Despite all the roadblocks and pitfalls placed in its path and the mistrust and skepticism with which it has been confronted, detente has proved to have solid foundations. Its vitality was also demonstrated by the conclusion of the first stage of the Stockholm Conference. We regard the document adopted there as an agreement of outstanding significance in the process of building up a system of collective security in Europe. It is the most striking success achieved in moving towards a reduction of tension and an amelioration of the European political climate since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act. It sets forth the relevant provisions of the Act, and provides sound conditions for productive achievements in other areas of negotiations on military detente and disarmament. The complex work in Stockholm, which demanded the maximum of political resolve, thus represents a triumph of common sense, political realism, and sense of responsibility for the future destiny of Europe. It is highly significant that all the participating States worked for the decision that was adopted, a fact which provides an encouraging impetus for the successful continuation of the all-European process.
However, more time is needed. Military activities and transfers of troops to Europe must be still further limited. We must have firm and specific commitments to guarantee the non-use of force and the maintenance of peaceful relations. Military concepts and doctrines must be based solely on defensive principles.
That is what was proposed by the States parties to the Warsaw Treaty in their appeal to the States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and indeed to all European countries at the session of the Political Consultative Committee held in Budapest last June, what is at issue here is a program of drastic reductions, amounting to half a million troops on each side and their respective armaments, including nuclear weapons for operational tactical purposes with a range of up to 1,000 kilometers, from the Atlantic to the Orals, with effective verification carried out jointly. We are prepare* to negotiate about such measures in any forum that may be agreed upon. Action on this issue really urgently needs new impetus.
In Budapest we strongly urged the desirability of solving the extraordinarily important problem of the Soviet and United States intermediate-range missiles in Europe, representing a threat that still looms over our old continent. If this
issue can be resolved, Soviet missile complexes for operational tactical purposes will be withdrawn from the territories of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the German Democratic Republic. As we have heard in this Assembly also, various solutions are being considered. It is our view that any solution that results in the total elimination of such weapons from the continent would be in the interest of not only the Europeans but indeed all mankind.
As for the forthcoming Vienna meeting, the experience gathered in Belgrade and Madrid shows that it should be a constructive forum and not an arena of confrontation. In view of the more favorable atmosphere in the world, it might indeed usher in a new phase in the policy of detente, become a real milestone cm the path of Helsinki, and formulate the mandate for the opening of the second disarmament phase of the Stockholm Conference. Of course we wish to promote actively all aspects of this all-European process, which has already become an integral part of the political awareness of our continent. We intend to pay particular attention to the development of co-operation in trade and economic affairs. Further progress must also be achieved in the spheres of culture, education, contacts, in for nation and humanitarian issues - but of course without the typg of vetoes and obstructions, witnessed this year in Berne.
In that connection, we also have in mind specific and genuine human rights, in their full range and richness. It is not merely to issue declarations about them and to lecture others on the subject. What we need is something quite different*, fruitful co-operation, directed to safeguarding always and everywhere the right of people to live in peace and guaranteeing them lasting civil, spiritual, cultural and social freedoms.
The peaceful settlement of international disputes and conflicts is something we regard as an essential precondition for the establishment of universal security. Unfortunately, this year, once again, we have failed to note any decrease in the persistent feverish temperature of the hotbeds of tension throughout the world.
It is our opinion that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East can be secured neither by the arrogance of Tel Aviv nor by attempts at partial solutions. The right of the Palestinians to self-determination, including the establishment of a State of their own, must be unreservedly recognized. We continue to advocate the convening of an international conference to be attended by all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole, legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. We consider that the organization of such a conference has received significant encouragement from the proposal by the Soviet Union for the establishment of a preparatory committee composed of the permanent enforcers of the Security Council.
From the beginning, we have always advocated a speedy end to the war between Iraq and Iran through peace negotiations.
We are in favor of converting the Mediterranean into a zone of lasting peace and co-operation and of the withdrawal of the fleets of the naval forces of both the United States and the Soviet Union from that area.
We condemn the flagrant acts of State terrorism directed against Libya.
We advocate the convening of an international conference on Cyprus under the auspices of the United Nations. Such a conference would help to secure independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity for that non-aligned country through peaceful means.
We support the legitimate efforts of the Government of Nicaragua to strengthen the independence of that country and its defense capability. We also support the steps it has taken to reduce tension in Central America. We condemn the double standard of an attitude to national terrorism which passionately denounces it in words while supplying it with 3100 million intended to overthrow a democratically elected Government. We commend the activities of the Contadora Group on behalf of a peaceful settlement of the situation in the region.
As a country that fought a battle fraught with sacrifices in order to achieve its independence, Czechoslovakia cannot ignore the brutal repression being exercised by the racists against the population of Namibia and the aggravation of the ruthless colonial exploitation of that people. At the same time we condemn the shameful policy of apartheid. It is a sad fact that some States Members of the United Nations - even, indeed, members of the Security Council - continue to act in contravention of the decisions of our Organization. They denounce the South African regime with tough rhetoric, but somehow they forget the main requirement, which is support for the adoption of effective mandatory sanctions. As we have recently heard, they have even vetoed such sanctions, thereby virtually lending support to Pretoria, and in so doing they are, wittingly or unwittingly, responsible for the denial of the legitimate rights of the people of Namibia. This, even after such demonstrations of the will of the international community as were witnessed at this year 's conferences at Paris, Vienna and in Hew York at the recent special session of the General Assembly, as well as at the summit meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement at Harare.
Czechoslovakia is sincerely interested in lasting peace and security in Asia. He welcome any step in that direction. One such measure, which we regard as highly significant, is the broadly elaborated concept of security, co-operation, confidence and arms reduction in the Asian aid Pacific region advanced by the Soviet Union at Vladivostok on 28 July.
We regard the agreement on the withdrawal of all Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea by the year 1990 as another such step.
We equally value the constructive initiatives taken by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea aimed at reducing the level of military confrontation, establishing a nuclear-free zone of peace on the Korean peninsula and achieving the country's peaceful reunification on a democratic basis, without external interference.
We highly esteem the role played in the struggle for peace, progress and genuine independence by the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. Through its principled attitudes and significant initiatives, the Movement has made a vital contribution to the elimination of the danger of nuclear war and to the solution of
the acute problems in today's world. The recent eighth summit meeting of the countries members of the Non-Aligned Movement has confirmed this.
Global security and durable peace are inconceivable without a fundamental improvement in international economic relations, which must be restructured on a just and democratic basis while the pending social issues of development are resolved. Numerous disputes and conflicts inevitably arise when such questions are
ignored.
Nowadays, it is impossible even in economics to make provisions for one's own long-term security and prosperity at the expense of others. Such was the practice of the former colonial metropolitan Powers, and today's spokesmen of neo-globalism would like to continue along that course. They have also been abusing the distorted and fundamentally unfair structure of the international division of labor. That is why they have developed and promoted the debt syndrome. Acting through transnational banks and, if necessary, through intimidation, they have arrogated to themselves the right to determine the future of the developing countries. This was made very clear, inter alia, at this year's special session of
the General Assembly on the critical economic situation in Africa.
We oppose indebtedness being legitimized as a new international means of
exploitation.
In conclusion, I should like to assure the Assembly that Czechoslovakia, guided by its loyalty to the purposes and principles of the Organization, will not relent in its endeavors to increase its effectiveness and to help it overcome the obstacles that beset its path. The Organization's immense potential should not be buried under a tangle of financial or procedural problems, which in fact originate in efforts that are designed to produce the opposite result. It would be truly worthwhile to consider and ponder the idea of holding special talks on a number of the pressing issues with regard to the Organization's activity.
All the possibilities of this world Organization, this unique universal forum to which no alternative exists. Bust be folly utilized in the interest of
strengthening the new political thinking, as well as cc-opera tier. and peaceful coexistence.
As our Government's statement of its program has expressed it, "the questions of war end peace rank first in our efforts in the field of foreign policy because we are aware of the fact that peace is the highest priority in our lives".


Mr. President, I congratulate you on your election. We have a great deal of work to get through at this session. I know from my meeting with you yesterday that you will guide us skilfully through the rough water we will inevitably meet. Let me say, too, how good it is to see the Secretary-General restored to full health. We need his wisdom and courage at this time.
I appear here today as the representative of a small country from the southern reaches of the vast Pacific Ocean. Forty years ago my country was amongst those which pledged their commitment to the objectives of this world Organization. How much nearer are we, today, to achieving those ideals? Enormous problems confront us. Technology has expanded humanity's horizons into outer space. But here on earth we have not yet succeeded in providing basic human needs - food, shelter, and at least a minimum degree of security - for all. Under the Charter we have all abjured the use or threat of force. Yet the most powerful nations among us seem unwilling to take the decisive step of rejecting the weapons of mass destruction that threaten us all. Today, more than ever before, small States need the protection that the Charter and this Organization were intended to give. The United Nations was intended to represent our interests, for the powerful are better able to look after themselves. If we who are small are not to be ignored by those who are mighty, then we must work together here to ensure the survival of this planet.
New Zealanders know from recent experience that this Organization can respond quickly and fairly to the needs of small States which call for its help.
In 1985 my country was suddenly embroiled in a dispute with France. It concerned the detonation of bombs fixed to a ship at a wharf in one of our harbors. A crewman of Dutch extraction lost his life. The circumstances were widely blazoned across the world press and need not be further recapitulated.
Despite lengthy bilateral negotiations we were not able to solve the problem. With France, we then turned to the United Nations for help in finding an acceptable solution. Both countries undertook to abide unconditionally by the United Nations arbitration. The Secretary-General took on the task himself. He made a ruling which both Governments accepted without reservation. It has been carried out by both of us. I want to record my Government's profound gratitude to the Secretary-General for the commendable way he carried out that task. Through his mediator efforts we have been able to bring to an end that unhappy episode.
Our experience in the field of decolonization has also shown us, once again, how this Organization can help us in fulfilling our obligations to bring dignity and self-respect to all people. My country is responsible for helping bring to nationhood a tiny territory in the South Pacific: Tokelau; remote, beautiful, but with few resources other than the fish in the sea around the three small atolls and the determination of its peoples. Our Government invited a United Nations visiting mission there in July to see the unique development issues confronting that atoll community. I am pleased to see members of the mission here today. We have found, as in the case of other island nations whose histories have been entwined with ours, that the United Nations could indeed make a useful and innovative contribution to the process leading to self-determination. That is an example that could well be followed again in another case in the South Pacific; and I shall return to that later.
It is clear that the United Nations can help if small nations shew that they want it to do so. Nobody believes that problems that have bedeviled us for years will be solved overnight. But one thing is clear: whatever the issue -international security, the right to live in freedom and peace, or freeing the shackles on international trade - the small and the vulnerable have much more in common with one another than with the big Powers. Separately, we may achieve a little*, together we may yet move mountains, perhaps even the Rockies and the Urals.
Today there is no greater incentive for us all to work together than the need to bring under control the fast-quickening nuclear-arms race. Arms control and disarmament are not pious goals; they are immediate and desperate imperatives. Nuclear weapons have become the subject of a monstrous exercise in self-perpetuation. We know now that none of us, even those in as remote a place as New Zealand, or more remote still, could escape the consequences of their use. All too graphically the scientists have shown us that.
The central point, surely, must be that, when you have arsenals that can destroy humanity, you can have no security. By their very nature, nuclear weapons subvert and distort the intention of Governments to provide security for their people. So-called nuclear logic always seems to require the next terrible step: the production of a new weapon to prevent the last from being used. The ceaseless search for balance is really endless escalation; security, like a desert mirage, is never reached. We sink further into insecurity and fear. The balance of terror has been raised one more notch. It is well named. And despite the truly awesome consumption of resources, it seems we are edging towards yet another new and uncontrolled level of arms technology and spending. An arms race in outer space must not be permitted. Where one nuclear giant leads, the other will surely follow.
Of course, the arms race does not exist in a vacuum. It is a reflection of deep-seated distrust and scarcely concealed hostility. Only earnest diplomatic action aimed at sincere detente will remove the distrust. Only decisive political action can end the arms race itself. No one underestimates the difficulty of managing the transition to a world without nuclear weapons, which must be the ultimate goal - but the nuclear "logic" that equates more nuclear weapons with greater security cannot be allowed to go on sabotaging the process of arms control and disarmament negotiations. What security is there, I ask, in a system under which mischance, malevolence or madness may entomb not only the nuclear Powers, but all of us?
With the fate of the world in their hands, how can the two major nuclear Powers continue to refuse to respond promptly and positively to the overtures each has made to the other? The leaders of the United States of America and the Soviet Union, separately and together, have given indications that progress can be made. The tentative steps they have taken seem to shew that there is common ground. They agree on the need for deep cuts in nuclear weapons. Their proposals now lie on the negotiating table. They must not just lie there. The political will of the major Powers to end the arms race will be judged by what they do now to narrow the negotiating gap between them. An old adage says: "Procrastination is the thief of time." Time is fast running out. The nations of the world, all but a handful of them non-nuclear, cannot wait much longer; they have waited too long already.
Nor can we, the small countries, simply conclude that it is a problem only for the nuclear Powers to solve. He must take a hand, together. New Zealand welcomes the successful conclusion earlier this week of the Stockholm Conference on Confidence-Building Measures and Disarmament in Europe. As earlier speakers from both East and West have noted, the agreement should make a significant contribution towards reducing tensions in Europe. That benefits not only Europe, but the wider international community. The agreement is most welcome after a long period of stalemate on arms control and disarmament negotiations. But it is only a beginning. We urge the larger Powers to get on with resolving their wider differences. Meanwhile there are things which the small can do, steps which we can take in co-operation with one another to encourage disarmament.
Among practicable arms control measures, the most urgent is a comprehensive test-ban treaty; one that would ban all testing by all nations, in all environments and for all time. No other single step would do so much to slow the remorseless advance of nuclear-weapon production and experimentation, or to establish confidence in the will of the nuclear Powers to eliminate nuclear weapons from the world's arsenals. It would be a truly universal arms control measure.
There may be more than one route to a comprehensive test-ban treaty. The ending of testing by any State, even temporarily, is a step forward and should be welcomed. A mutual moratorium by two or sore would be better still, even if a temporary one. All such steps give time for talk and delay disastrous escalation.
There may be other provisional measures involving all the nuclear-weapon States which would help establish confidence and encourage a commitment to negotiate a permanent ban on testing. But none of these can be a substitute for a comprehensive test ban. The New Zealand Government will again join with others in calling on the Conference on Disarmament to start immediately with the work of drawing up a comprehensive test-ban treaty. New Zealand, too, is ready to take part in an international system for monitoring a test ban. We have some facilities in place for monitoring testing in our own region and are preparing to improve them.
There is room for smaller powers to act in the regional sphere, too, in practical ways that the United Nations has recognized as valuable. For its part, New Zealand will not permit nuclear weapons in our country, even temporarily, as on visiting ships or aircraft. We intend to keep our land, our waters and our ports, and our air space nuclear-free.
With the members of the South Pacific Forum, an annual gathering of 13 independent states, we have moved to establish a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. The Rarotonga Treaty was adopted over a year ago now. It prohibits the acquisition, stationing or testing of nuclear weapons by any of its parties. This year's forum at Suva adopted three Protocols to the Treaty. These call on the major nuclear Powers to respect the zone. I am glad to be able to tell you that some have already indicated their willingness to sign these Protocols. The New Zealand Government, along with others in the region, hopes they will soon be endorsed by all those countries eligible to sign. But, the South Pacific will not be free of the scourge of nuclear testing until France accepts that the security concerns of a distant European Government should not thwart the legitimate desire of the nations of the South Pacific to live in peace and safety in a nuclear-free environment. For too long, far too long, the Pacific has been used as a testing-ground by the nuclear Powers. Two of them stopped testing there long ago. It is time for France to follow their example. I would note also, in passing, that contrary to what has been said earlier in this debate, the report of the Scientific Mission that visited the French testing site at Mururoa Atoll in 1983 does not provide a basis for asserting that those tests "are being carried out in unquestionably safe conditions," (A/41/PV.8, p. 71). That report specifically refused to rule out the possibility of serious damage to the Atoll and its surrounding environment in the longer-term future.
The South Pacific countries are increasingly confident of their place in the international community, certain of what binds them together, determined to preserve their cultures, committed to the principles of democracy and consensus and willing to work closely with those nations that genuinely pursue co-operation.
The micro-States in the vast ocean region that I come from present unique development challenges. New Zealand makes a major contribution, and we welcome the assistance of other countries in the region's development. Such assistance, however, is only one contribution towards economic growth. Equally important are fair and equitable returns for the region's limited resources, the produce of its |	land, its slowly expanding manufacturing exports and, most important, its fish.
All that calls for international co-operation.
The United Nations was involved earlier this year in another major step forward in the development of the Pacific. On 28 May the Trusteeship Council recommended that the Trusteeship Agreement over the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Northern Marianas should be terminated. At its
meeting at Suva, the South Pacific Forum welcomed that development. New Zealand was a party to the Forum's consensus. The peoples of those Territories have said what they want. That is decisive. The United Nations has discharged its responsibilities, and the process of decolonization is coming nearer to completion in the South Pacific.
There is a lesson here for New Caledonia. Our experience of decolonization has shown us that the United Nations can help bring about peaceful evolution. The South Pacific Forum has always regarded New Caledonia as a neighbor that should take its place as an independent member of the South Pacific community. It is, by history as well as by unchangeable geography, an integral part of the region. Unless its stability is preserved, the stability of the whole region and all its member States will be seriously affected. Forum members are concerned that the Territory's move to independence should take place peacefully. That means by negotiation. France clearly has the power to bring about change peacefully. It is deeply disappointing to us and to our South Pacific neighbors, therefore, that in the approach recently outlined by the present French Government it seems that independence is no longer its goal for New Caledonia. I noted this morning the statement of the French Minister for Overseas Departments and Territories, reported in today's Herald Tribune. He said:
"When Australia and New Zealand are advocating independence for New Caledonia, they are advocating independence for a territory that would be under Libyan control."
Such a claim is farcical. We are not supporting any faction of the independence movement in New Caledonia. We support true self-determination for all real New Caledonians. The South Pacific Forum leaders have made it clear that they want to maintain a dialog with all the parties to see if a more promising situation can be brought about. The Heads of Government of the countries members of the South  Pacific Forum decided last month to seek the re-inscription of New Caledonia on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. That move was strongly endorsed by the Heads of State or Government of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement at their meeting at Harare. My delegation, with other South Pacific com tries, welcomes that support. We look forward to a positive decision by the Assembly and to a constructive solution to New Caledonia's travail.
We all know that economic stability and prosperity are a necessary condition for real security. The need for international action by the vulnerable is as pressing here as it is in any other field. New Zealand, like many developing countries that are reliant on commodity exports, depends for long-term economic growth on its ability to trade fairly in those areas in which it has a comparative advantage. Yet we are being prevented from doing so by the absurdities of a distorted world trading system. Agricultural trade has generally been excluded from the international trade rules and disciplines. It is the first area to be hit by new protectionist measures, especially non-tariff barriers; it is the main victim of domestic production subsidies which, in the large developed countries have reached a level that even they now recognize as unsustainable. But it is the rest of us, the efficient producers, who have to deal with the massive over-production dumped cm world markets and that brings down returns for everyone.
The problems of agriculture are a time-bomb ticking away under the world trading system. An explosion would threaten not just the prosperity of individual countries but global economic and political stability. That is why New Zealand attaches great importance to progress in a particular United Nations forum, that of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The new round of negotiations recently launched at Punta del Este offers a vital opportunity for the international community to establish just and equitable rules for the conduct of agricultural trade. That will be the measure of the new round's success. It has to succeed. It will not succeed without pain, as New Zealand well knows. But if it fails, the credibility of the whole multilateral system will be thrown into question.
There is a need for international action on Africa, too. New Zealanders have been deeply moved by the plight of the sub-Saharan people, who continue to be afflicted by drought and famine. New Zealanders continue to work alongside the Government in supporting churches and other organizations undertaking rehabilitation projects. In the week before the special session on the critical economic situation in Africa they contributed substantially yet again to an international appeal, in this case Sport Aid.
The outcome of the special session was welcomed as a starting point for planning strategies for the future. The endeavors to work out practical measures to bring about an end to Africa's economic and developmental problems are encouraging. The co-operation and commitment with which the special session's deliberations were conducted must be sustained if its sound recommendations are to be put into effect.
New Zealanders have also been shocked by events in southern Africa - the violence in South Africa's black townships, the South African Government's further repression of rights and freedoms, the attacks on defenseless targets in neighboring countries, carried out simply to give a political message, and South Africa's obstruction of Namibian independence. For a while, it looked as though the entirely reasonable approach adopted by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group might be successful in bringing all parties in South Africa together to negotiate a new political dispensation. The South African Government's rejection of those efforts, signaled as it was by the contemporaneous and wanton bombing of neighboring capitals, is to be deplored. Negotiation is always the preferable way to bring about necessary and lasting changes acceptable to the majority. The chances of a negotiated end to South Africa's troubles now look slim indeed. Such as they are, they must be grasped, or a holocaust will surely follow.
The common theme in each issue I have raised is the need for united action. And in each case it is clear that the United Nations can play a crucial part, provided it has the support of those - the overwhelming majority of its Members -who are small, whose individual power is slight. It is disturbing, therefore, to see a weakening - even a conscious undermining - of the commitment to multilateral action. It is long-standing political indifference or, in some cases, hostility, which is the cause of the United Nations financial crisis. The selective withholding of contributions - a practice in which one major contributor has recently joined another - cannot be condoned. Nor can the action of those who allow dues to fall into arrears. But we have all contributed to the current crisis. We have pretended to believe that political problems could be solved simply by calling for more financial resources, more studies, more staff. Well, we were wrong. Entirely new measures are necessary, at once more drastic and more constructive.
The Secretary-General took prompt and decisive action earlier this year to avert the immediate cash crisis. His package of measures was designed to contain the crisis this year. This Assembly must look at the longer term. It must be resolute.
For we are in no better shape financially now than we were in April. We must recognize this in looking at the proposals before us both for economies and for reform. By a positive approach we emphasize to those owing funds that, while we cannot accept their disregard of binding Charter obligations, we are prepared to help ourselves. We small States have the most to lose - so we must find a way forward.
We in New Zealand welcome the report of the High Level Group. We strongly endorse its consensus findings. We commend them to the membership. We must go on to develop quickly an agreed approach to the reform of the program and budget process,, We must begin to run this important Organization like any self-respecting business - in the interests, that is, of its shareholders, the Member States. In the process, all of us are going to have to accept some curtailment of our favorite programs. We accept that. Compromise from all will be required.
Reform of our finances, management and administration is the first requirement, for it is the prerequisite to efficiency.
More important in the end, though, is the way this Organization goes about fulfilling the objectives of its Charter. I found myself in complete agreement with some observations two days ago of the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands and I- cannot do better, in conclusion, than to refer to them. He said:
"Differences in ideologies and cultures are a fact of life. But polarization and mutual recrimination are not their inevitable corollary." (A/41/PV.9, p. 46)
I would add that although they are a possible and, as things stand, all too likely corollary, they are the very things this Organization was founded to dispel and to avoid for the future. They can only lead to ever deepening mistrust and hostility. It is no use pretending we are not going to disagree and from time to time disagree bitterly. What we must do is face that reality and instead of papering over differences by what the Netherlands Minister rightly called "the practice of false consensus", we must seek in a real spirit of reconciliation, and friendship, to find constructive and hopefully permanent solutions to the great and serious questions that today threaten to divide much of the world into two hostile camps. We must not risk being seen by future generations as having spent our brief and precious time here preparing for war, rather than working for peace.


It gives me pleasure at the outset to convey to you. Sir, our heartfelt congratulations on your election President of the forty-first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. Your election is recognition of your constructive efforts and your great diplomatic skills. It is also an expression of appreciation by the international community for the leading role played by Bangladesh in promoting the cause of international peace and security.
More than a quarter of a century has elapsed since the General Assembly
adopted its resolution 1378 (XIV) of 20 November 1959, whicSi affirms that the goal
of general and complete disarmament is the most important and urgent question
facing our world. Nevertheless, and in spite of the repeated calls of the
international community for the achievement of that goal, very little has been achieved.
The danger of nuclear war is ever present, fueled by rivalry and lack of confidence between the two super-Powers and the possibility of miscalculation as well as the increase in the stockpile of nuclear warheads, which has reached the awesome total of 80,000, sufficient to destroy the world many times over.
As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Egypt welcomes the resumption of dialog between the USSR and the United States on the numerous proposals aimed at concluding new agreements on the limitation of nuclear armaments, extending the validity of existing agreements, or ratifying those that have not yet been ratified. This is a hopeful sign, and it is our sincere hope that a constructive dialog will ensue and that discussions will culminate in the adoption of an agreement or agreements to limit the level of nuclear armaments of the two super-Powers, we attach great importance to the convening of the next summit meeting between the American and Soviet leaders, a meeting which can give a new tangible impetus to the efforts aimed at halting the arms race.
The Third Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons last year succeeded in adopting by consensus a final document embodying the political will of the international community. We look forward to giving a new thrust to the non-proliferation regime. The nuclear-weapon States, in particular the two super-Powers with the largest nuclear arsenals, have a special responsibility for nuclear disarmament. Egypt believes that, as a binding international document, the Non-Proliferation Treaty is insufficient in itself to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons horizontally and vertically. The Non-Proliferation Treaty must be accompanied by parallel arrangements to direct the nuclear threat away from mankind. Among such arrangements should be the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. Since 1974 Egypt has taken the initiative in calling for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. It has also sponsored all the draft resolutions adopted by the General Assembly at its successive sessions with a view to achieving that goal.
Recently the world has been plagued by a series of terrorist acts that have taken a heavy toll in innocent civilian lives and instilled a sense of horror and concern in the hearts of all. Faced with such a blatant threat to human rights and the movement of trade and tourism, we believe that the international community is duty-bound to adopt collective measures, whether political or legal, to face up to and deter that phenomenon so as to ensure the personal and economic security of all the countries of the world and their citizens.
At its fortieth session the General Assembly adopted by consensus its resolution 40/61, in which it affirmed the importance of the accession of States to the relevant agreements as one of the legal measures that would ensure international co-operation in resolving that problem. The resolution also urged Member States to adopt individual and collective measures within the framework of political oo-operation to do away with the causes underlying that phenomenon. Nevertheless close scrutiny of the provisions that have actually been implemented makes it abundantly clear that there still exists an urgent need to take more effective, collective action.
Proceeding from Egypt's belief in the importance of an effective policy with solid legal foundations to fight that scourge, in his address before the Parliamentary Assembly of the European Council, President Moharaed Hosni Mubarak proposed the convening of an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations to conclude an international agreement that would regulate co-operation among States to combat and deter terrorism, an agreement that would remove loopholes in existing relevant international instruments. The proposed agreement should take into account, on the one hand, the close link between finding just solutions for the underlying causes of the problem and, an the other, the adoption of the necessary measures to fight it. The Egyptian Government is currently conducting consultations on that proposal with a view to determining the major acceptable elements to be incorporated in the proposed agreement and the appropriate timing for formally putting the natter before the General Assembly.
For more than 30 years the Middle East region has been an arena of war and destruction as a result of the continuation of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the emergence of the Palestinian problem, which is almost as old as this international Organization itself. This conflict has claimed thousands of lives and has led to the depletion of valuable resources. it has also plunged the region into a maze of international polarization, cold war and direct and indirect interference.
Having experienced the various stages of that conflict in war and peace, our knowledge of its elements and dimensions further deepens our conviction that the question of the Palestinian people is at the crux of the conflict.
Egypt's unique historical experience in waging the battles of war and peace strengthens our belief that dialog and negotiation offer the best way to achieve a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement to the conflict, away from the spirit of confrontation and violence which has thrust the region and its peoples into stalemate.
This path is not an easy path, yet undoubtedly it is the sound option and correct method for the peaceful settlement of disputes without relinquishing rights or compromising on matters of principle. The agreement achieved between Egypt and Israel on the terms of arbitration concerning the location of some disputed boundary posts serves as an example of abidance by international legitimacy, the provisions of the Charter and the rules of international law. It is Egypt's hope that this approach will testify to the fact that those who have a legitimate right to the land should never hesitate or fear negotiations and dialog as long as they are confident of their arguments and evidence and of the support that international legitimacy lends to their rights.
The need is greater now than ever before to achieve peace among the peoples and States of the region and to lay the foundations for the long awaited historical reconciliation between the Arab countries and Israel, a reconciliation that would render possible the achievement of a peaceful settlement to the conflict, including the solution of the Palestinian problem in all its aspects. One of the most disturbing aspects of the situation is the inertia that has beset the peace process in recent years, since it portends the possibility of a relapse.
In its serious endeavor to revive the peace process, Egypt views the Alexandria summit? held this September between President Muhammad Hosni Mubarak and the Prime Minister of Israel, as a step towards increased flexibility, a deeper awareness of the centrality of the Palestinian question and a key to a comprehensive tackling of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That can be achieved through the acceptance of an international conference on peace in the Middle East as the framework for negotiations in which all parties directly concerned with the dispute, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), would participate on an equal footing. A thorough preparation for those negotiations should be carried out, with the Security Council playing its primary role as the organ entrusted with the maintenance of international peace and security.
By virtue of its location, relations, and long association with the Palestinian question, Egypt is best equipped to act as a direct party to that dispute with all the other parties with a view to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the conflict in the Middle East, and in particular the Palestinian question.Therefore, Egypt has ca * ad for 1987 to be the year of negotiations for peace in the Middle East.
In the Arab region, Egypt has been acting with a sense of seriousness and responsibility. It has been calling for the co-ordination of positions, the renunciation of differences and the adoption of a peaceful strategy which would ensure the launching of a new stage of international collective action for peace in the region.
By virtue of its balanced relations with all the permanent members of the Security Council, Egypt is in a position to engage in a responsible dialog to create the best conditions for the convening of the international conference on peace in the Middle East. Egypt is a aware of the fact that a new phase of international diplomatic action is about to start to give a new momentum to the historical peace process in order to achieve its goals. Undoubtedly, that new drive reaffirms the validity of Egypt's approach to move the region from a stage of war to one of peace and co-existence through the recognition of rights, the elimination of injustice and the healing of wounds r
International legitimacy, as spell out in the Charter of this international Organization, ensures the inalienable right to self-determination for all peoples of the world, without exception. That is the proper framework for our forthcoming collective international action. The United Nations resolutions pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict over its long years, and in particular the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly, which enjoy a constant international consensus, constitute the foundation of this international legitimacy, through which we seek to implement the provisions contained therein.
Tirelessly, Egyptian diplomacy has striven and continues to strive to create the international and regional conditions which provide the best atmosphere for the preparation of the international conference on peace in the Middle East as a framework for negotiations and dialog in which all parties to the conflict would participate. Egypt co-ordinates its actions with international Powers and with various Arab parties, and in particular with its sister State Jordan and the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Among the basic elements in the creation of such a climate is the adoption of a solid Arab position based on the commitment to the legitimate rights of the Arab and Palestinian peoples, to the restoration of their occupied territories in the West Bank, including Arab Jerusalem, Gaza, and the Syrian Golan Heights, and the commitment to the exercise by the Palestinian people of their right to self-determination and the establishment of their own State on their land in co-ordination with Jordan.
Egyptian diplomacy has always maintained that the achievement of an acceptable formula for co-operation between Jordan and the PLO, the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, is an indispensable and vital factor for movement in the right direction.
Thus, Egyptian diplomacy believes that the Jordanian-Palestinian Accord of February 1985 constitutes not only one of the bases of co-ordinated action but also an additional safeguard for the strength of the Palestinian and Arab position during and beyond the stage of negotiations.
The establishment of the edifice of a comprehensive and just peace would end the suffering of the Palestinian masses in the occupied territories. It would also put an end to the Israeli policies and practices affecting their human rights which have been violated during long years of continued Israeli military occupation.
Egypt's firm, principled position concerning the situation in Lebanon has been to support its legitimate Government and to call upon all the Lebanese, whatever their creed, belief or affiliation, to close ranks and to unite their country so as to restore stability to Lebanon and to close the door before the possibilities of foreign interference and to achieve their freedom by Lebanese decision. Egypt calls for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Lebanon and for the respect of its stability, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Egypt pays tribute to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UN3FIL) for its constructive role in the maintenance of peace in that country. Egypt calls upon all parties to respect that important international presence.
The situation in the Gulf remains volatile. The continued armed conflict between Iraq and Iran threatens security, peace and stability in the whole region. Therefore, it has become imperative for the international community to redouble its efforts to stop the bloodshed of that destructive war. The gravity of the
situation lies in the continued and increased aggravation of the conflict year after year between two neighboring Muslins peoples linked by the bends of Islam. Egypt's position concerning that dispute has been clear, consistent and a matter of public record. Egypt has done, and continues to do, its utmost to reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict, a settlement that would restore the rights of both parties within the framework of respect for the provisions of international law, the United Nations Charter, and the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. The foundering of the efforts aimed at achieving that desired goal must not dissuade us from continuing to strive to put an end to the war and to achieve peace and stability.n that regard, we cannot fail to express our appreciation to, and support for, the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, in his tireless efforts. We hope that they will be crowned with success in the near future.
Iraq has shewn and affirmed its sincere desire to end that bloody conflict. It has declared its readiness to respond to the efforts made within and outside the United Nations to bring about the cessation of hostilities. It has welcomed the idea of engaging in negotiations to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the dispute. Moreover, it has also put forward initiatives and accepted proposals directed towards halting the bloodshed.
Egypt hopes that the positive and co-operative position taken by Iraq since the beginning of the conflict will be reciprocated by a similar position on the part of Iran, particularly because Egypt is convinced that the Iranian threats are not confined to the territory of Iraq, that sister Arab country, but extend to the security and stability of other Arab peoples in the Gulf region. Egypt can neither accept nor condone such threats.
The southern African region is witnessing a dangerous escalation of tension and violence, which have characterized the course of events in the region over recent years as a result of the racist policies of the Pretoria regime and its military adventurism. Within South Africa itself the racist Government has reacted to the uprising of the black majority and its demands for equality and human dignity with further acts of repression and intimidation. Hundreds of black citizens have fallen victim to those acts.
The racist regime of Pretoria continues its illegal occupation of the territory of Namibia, with total disregard for the resolutions of this international Organization on that matter, foremost among which is Security Council resolution 435 (1978), containing the United Nations plan for Namibia's
independence. The Pretoria regime continues to insist on linking the implementation of that resolution with other matters extraneous to it, matters which fall well beyond the control of the parties directly concerned with the problem.
The arrogance of the Pretoria regime reached its peak in its military attack on the capitals of three neighboring African States. All the countries of the world, represented in the Security Council, were unanimous in deploring and
denouncing that act.
In the light of those acts on the part of the Pretoria regime and the resultant rapid and dangerous deterioration of the situation in southern Africa, the only way to avoid a catastrophe of unpredictable dimensions in the region is to force the regime to abide by the rules of civilized conduct, the provisions of international law and United Nations resolutions. That can best be achieved through the adoption by the Security Council, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter, of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against
the Pretoria regime.
Egypt's participation with other African States in the deliberations of the
special session on Namibia at the ministerial level, not only reflects its firm
historical commitment to the cause of African liberation, but also expresses our
conviction that there is a need to intensify collective international action to
expedite the attainment of independence by that struggling African people and its
assumption of its rightful place in the international community and in this
Organization.
The establishment of a special fund to help the front-line States cope with the consequences of the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions with against the Pretoria regime is an act of true solidarity. It gives expression to the unity of the struggle for the elimination of the remnants of colonialism and racism in that part of the world. Egypt also believes that the policy of dialog and persuasion followed by the non-aligned countries at the summit meeting held at Harare will help open up new channels of understanding between the non-aligned and African countries on the one hand and the industrialized countries on the other,
with a view to reaching basic solutions to the situation in southern Africa.
Egypt expresses its support for the unflagging efforts made by the Secretary-General to reach a just settlement of the situation in Afghanistan, a settlement that would ensure for that brotherly people its right to peace, freedom and stability. We welcome all initiatives to expedite the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghan is tan.
We are also hopeful that the Secretary-General's efforts to resolve the question of Cyprus will meet with success. The solution should realize the hopes of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities to solve their problems and reach an appropriate formula for co-existence and co-operation. We reaffirm the importance of respect for the civil and political rights of the members of the two communities, as well as the importance of harmonizing their legitimate interests within a framework of national unity and brotherhood. We also reaffirm the importance of the maintenance of the unity, independence, territorial integrity and non-aligned status of Cyprus.
The withdrawal of foreign troops from Kampuchea and the peaceful settlement of disputes in that part of the world are an essential conditions for the restoration of peace and good-neighborly relations. The peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula, in accordance with the popular will, is one of the elements that should contribute to security and stability and the reduction of the risks inherent in the prevailing regional tension. Egypt supports the efforts of the Contadora Group and its Support Group to achieve peace, stability and economic development in Central America. Egypt calls for an aid to attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of that important part of the world. It also calls for respect for good-neighborly relations and for the inviolability of borders between the States of the region. Egypt also calls for keeping the region free of polarization and international competition between the great Powers, in the interest of the well-being of its peoples.
Egypt's responsibility as a developing country dictates that we pause to mention a major problem that concerns us all, individually and collectively, rich and poor, developed and developing alike: the exacerbation of the problem of indebtedness, high interest rates, continued fluctuations in exchange rates, the spread of protectionist practices in the developed countries, the sharp fall in the prices of developing countries' exports of raw materials and commodities and the deterioration in their terms of trade.
In that regard, I pay a tribute to the responsible position adopted by the eighth summit meeting of the non-aligned countries at Harare in dealing with the debt problem. The debtor countries have confirmed that they will honor the obligations they have contracted, while setting a framework for those obligations -namely the framework of co-responsibility, which requires the co-operation of the creditor countries and the monetary and financial institutions with the debtor developing countries in coping with the problem, which threatens the international economy as a whole.
The endeavors of the international community to contain the economic crisis in Africa in both the short and the long terms must of course command our encouragement and appreciation. Whatever our assessment of the outcome of the special session of the General Assembly, it has created a moral obligation on the donor countries to assist in the implementation of the United Nation Program of Action for African Economic Recovery, 1986-1990.
While the special session reaffirmed the determination by the African countries to assume the primary responsibility for economic reform, it also showed that the developed countries cannot shirk the task of assisting the African continent to develop its economies through specific measures to support and complement African efforts. The international community has therefore recognized the necessity to provide the additional financial resources required to fill the gap for the full implementation of the United Nations program of Action. It has also recognized the necessity to undertake measures to alleviate Africa's external debt-servicing burdens in order to enable the continent to direct its resources and potential towards growth and development.
We emphasize that this cannot be the limit of the international community's task. Rather, we should pursue this obligation through concrete steps to follow up on the results of the special session, both at the political and at the technical levels.
We equally appeal to the Governments of creditor countries and the international monetary, financial and banking institutions to co-ordinate and co-operate with the debtor countries with a view to reaching a lasting solution to the problems of indebtedness, while safeguarding the rights of peoples and ensuring their political, economic and social stability.
Economic co-operation among developing countries has gone through a number of important developments during the past 20 years. New concepts and goals for this co-operation have evolved in the Group of 77 and in the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. These concepts are based on the philosophy of collective self-reliance and have been translated into tangible objectives and detailed programs and projects contained in the programs of action for co-operation among the States members of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77.
The Cairo high-level meeting on economic co-operation among developing countries members of the Group of 77, held last August, afforded a favorable opportunity to take stock of the experience of that co-operation and to establish an integrated program for the future strategy of action on a realistic basis. As such, it ensures the optimum use of resources and the implementation of economically feasible projects in which countries participate on a basis of mutual benefit, and it also ensures the optimum use of the complementarity of the economies of the developing countries and the expertise available to them. The Cairo Declaration on Economic Co-operation among Developing Countries which was adopted contains realistic bases for a future strategy of action that would ensure the credibility, effectiveness and mutual benefit of such co-operation.
The developed countries have constantly supported economic co-operation among developing countries. We hope that special attention will be given to the matter during this session so that the follow-up of the important results achieved at the Cairo meeting will be ensured, and effective measures to enhance economic and technical co-operation among developing countries will be adopted, within the United Nations system.
Recently the relevance of the United Nations has been called into question. For our part, we believe that this question is baseless and absolutely irrelevant. The establishment of the Organization more than 40 years ago reflected the international community's need of it. Its survival and strength, in this era of increased international interaction, at times of war and peace alike, serve the interests of all States, big and small, developed and developing.
During the fortieth session of the General Assembly, Member States reaffirmed their commitment to the Charter and their continued support for the Organization as an expression of their belief in the role it plays. It is truly regrettable that the positions adopted by some Member States, whatever their justifications may be, do not help in reaching that goal.
Any effort aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the Organization must stem first and foremost from the necessary political will. Naturally, it must be a joint effort characterized by continuity, when we talk of concerted efforts we have in mind the need for all Member States to co-operate fully and in good faith with the Secretary-General as the chief administrative officer of the Organization. In that regard, we welcome the important role played by the Group of 18 throughout the past year. We believe that it is important for delegations and Member States to discharge their full responsibility to discuss the report of the Group as well as the comments of the Secretary-General thereon.
The participation in this effort in good faith requires that an opportunity be given to brihg about the reforms necessary for the Organization in the light of an objective assessment of its activities. Therefore, an end must be put to the practice of bringing financial pressure to bear on the Organization, and to the attempt to channel reforms towards predetermined goals that express only short-term interests.
Last but not least, the rationalization of the work of the United Nations must take into account the special nature of the Organization and the changing circumstances in the international arena, as well as the interests of all the peoples of the world.