Sir, permit me first of all to congratulate you upon your election to the high post of President of the united Nations General Assembly for the fortieth session and to wish you success in your work.
I should like to address the delegation of Mexico, whose country has suffered such a terrible natural disaster, entailing heavy loss of life and tremendous destruction, On behalf of the Soviet leadership and on behalf of all the Soviet people, we should like once again to convey to the Government and people of Mexico our most profound condolences.
Four decades have gone by since the victory of the freedom-loving peoples over German fascism and Japanese militarism. The United Nations, whose birth was the natural result of that great victory and whose work has represented the world's major hope for preventing new wars, has now been in existence for 40 years.
Today it can be stated with great satisfaction that those have been 40 years without a world war. In that period truly gigantic changes have taken place in the world. These changes include the establishment and development of the world socialist system - a system of States whose very political and social nature excludes the possibility of any interest in war. All the practical activities of the countries of the socialist community in the international arena are based on the policy of the peaceful coexistence of States with different social systems. The role of socialism in world affairs has been steadily increasing.
Over an extremely short historical span of time the hurricane of the peoples' liberation struggle has destroyed and eliminated from the face of the earth the colonial system of imperialism. Over 100 new States have emerged from its ruins. Today they are full-fledged Members of the United Nations.
The forces that are at work to strengthen peace and prevent war are constantly growing. At present their struggle involves people of all continents, of all generations and occupations, and with the most diverse political beliefs.
The past 40 years have been a period of rapid progress in the scientific and technological revolution, which is not only drastically changing our concepts of the structure of the universe and of matter itself but is also creating ever broader opportunities for meeting the spiritual and material needs of every individual and of all mankind. Even today the achievements of science, if they are used for constructive purposes, make it possible to resolve almost any economic problem. However, they can also generate unprecedented dangers whenever they are used for developing means of annihilation and destruction.
In the complex and rapidly changing world of today, which is the scene of a continuing struggle between the forces of progress and the forces of reaction, between the forces of the future and those of the past, the development of relations among States, including the major Powers possessing the greatest military potential, has followed s changing and at times zigzag course. Aggravations of international tension have alternated with periods when that tension abated; international crises have sprung up and have been overcome, some of them being so acute as to bring mankind to the verge of catastrophe. It would be fair to say that many a time when the international barometer has forecast a storm the United Nations has raised its voice in warning and has been able to take practical steps to reduce the threat.
The greatest hopes for stable peace emerged in the 1970 s, which went down in history as the decade of detente. Detente was based on the general recognition that it was inadmissible in the nuclear age to seek to attain political and ideological goals by means of war and that the policy of achieving the military superiority of some states over others or of one social system over another was wrong and dangerous.
The countries of the socialist community and many other States have every right to take pride in having been the architects and engineers of detente. Yet in the late 1970s and early 1980s the world once again witnessed a stepping up of the activities of the forces which never supported the policy of detente and are now seeking to undo its most important accomplishments. As a result, much of the system of international relations is out of joint and the risk of war has sharply increased.
My delegation wishes to set forth the views of the soviet Union regarding the reasons for the current unfavorable development of the situation in the world and ways of remedying the existing state of affairs. It can be remedied only if there is an understanding, as has been pointed out by Mikhail S. Gorbachev, of the "realities and the dangers which we will inevitably face tomorrow if today those who can and must take the only correct decision evade the responsibility incumbent on them".
We perceive the greatest peril in the fact that the nuclear arms race has, at it were, made a fresh start and is forging ahead. Added to this there is the threat of the arms race spreading to outer space. There is a great possibility of the arms race acquiring an uncontrollable and irreversible character. In the final analysis, this is the road leading to a nuclear catastrophe.
It is also alarming that of late it has not been possible to settle a single regional conflict or to eliminate .a single hotbed of military tension. In the meantime the flames of "local" wars, more often than not undeclared, have been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, and indeed hundreds of thousands. Mankind is suffering through being denied the opportunity to deal with such urgent problems as those relating to food, ecology, energy, population and the constantly widening economic gap between the developed and the developing countries. It has been denied that opportunity because the intellectual and material resources needed to find a radical solution to these problems common to all mankind are being squandered on the arms race.
Not a single twist in the arms race spiral was initiated by the Soviet Union. It is only in response to actions of the other side and out of legitimate concern for our own security and that of our allies and friends, concern for international security as a whole, that we have developed or are developing this or that weapon system.
Moreover, as early as 1946, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proposed that nuclear weapons should be banned for all time. We have been advocating this ever since, and this remains our position now. we have been proposing and continue to propose that agreement should be reached on renouncing all weapons of mass destruction, reducing and totally eliminating their existing stockpiles, and cutting down armed forces and conventional armaments. Our country has come out with a proposed on general and complete disarmament under strict international control.
These radical proposals have yet to be implemented, and it is the United States and some other NATO countries, rather than the soviet union, that are to blame for this fact.
It is precisely because of their refusal to follow the example of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, which has also unilaterally pledged not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, that the threat of nuclear war continues to hang over the world.
None the less, due to the vigorous efforts of the Soviet Union and other peace-loving States a number of treaties and agreements limiting the arms race in major areas have been concluded. These are the 1963 Moscow Treaty Banning Nuclear-Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and under water, the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons, the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the SALT I Agreement, signed in 1972, and the 1979 SALT II treaty. All these treaties, which have served in large measure to reinforce strategic stability, became possible because political realism was also displayed by the then leaders of the united States and other western countries.
It is not the fault of the Soviet Union that local conflicts break out and are raging in various regions of the world. The only thing that we could be "guilty" of is that we have invariably been and remain on the side of the peoples threatened by imperialism and of the States upon whose sovereignty and generally recognized rights imperialism is encroaching.
As regards the increasingly acute economic problems common to all mankind, the Soviet Union has consistently been in favor of uniting the efforts of all States and peoples with a view to finding a rational solution to those problems. This is the thrust of the proposals made by our country, by all Warsaw Treaty member countries, for a drastic reduction in the military expenditures of States, and above all of the major Powers.
These are all facts, which cannot be disputed.
Responsibility for the current critical state of international relations rests with another group of countries, namely, the United States and some of its closest allies.
It was they who, in the early 1980s, wrecked the structure of negotiations which had taken such an effort to build, negotiations which had shown signs of progress towards agreements in many areas ranging from complete and general prohibition of nuclear-weapon tests to the limitation of sales and supplies of conventional armaments, from banning the development of anti-satellite systems to limiting military activities in the Indian Ocean. It was the united States that refused to ratify the SALT II treaty designed to pave the way to further, ever more substantial cuts in strategic arms. It was the United States that in 1983 torpedoed the Soviet-United States talks on the limitation of nuclear arms in Europe by embarking on the deployment of its new nuclear missiles on the European continent.
And the new military programs which now cover not only the land, oceans and atmosphere of our planet but also outer space are United States programs too.
No particular perspicacity is needed to see clearly that precisely those States that are obstructing disarmament efforts are also set on fomenting local conflicts. They bear responsibility for the failure thus far to come to grips with problems common to all mankind.
All of this is being said not for the sake of polemics but in order that the United Nations may, on the basis of real facts and through concerted efforts, devise effective ways of radically improving international relations and strengthening universal security.
What are these ways as we see them?
It is said at times that all that is needed is that the two super-Powers should stop competing with each other for influence in the world. This proposition stems either from ignorance or from malicious intent. First, the Soviet Union has no intention of placing itself above other States and peoples, nor is it seeking opportunities to order them about or dictate its will to them. Secondly, the Soviet Union is not involved in any competition whatsoever, whether for markets, natural resources, control over sea or air routes, or the possession of outer space.
On the other hand, it is of course true that the Soviet Union is one of the world's two most powerful nations. But the whole point is what political aims are served by that Power. Those who invoke the concept of the "two super-Powers" would ' be well advised to ponder once in a while what would happen to their independence and what turn world developments would generally take if the USSR were weaker than it is and if the Soviet people were not investing so such of their effort, material resources and scientific endeavor in maintaining its economic and military potential at an adequate level.
In discussions about the ways of improving the situation frequent mention is also made of the need to restore, above all, confidence among States. This, it is said, would make it possible to resolve all major problems, including those of halting the arms race and settling regional conflicts. Indeed, confidence is an important factor in overcoming the current difficulties. We feel, however, that it is impossible to achieve a necessary and reliable degree of trust in relations among States unless the causes and the material roots of distrust are removed.
But work to restore confidence must be pursued, and that is what we are doing. In particular, at the Stockholm Conference of states participating in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, the soviet union is working for the adoption of a complex of large-scale, effective political, military and technical confidence-building measures. At Stockholm we are now prepared to proceed immediately, together with our negotiating partners, to the actual drafting of agreements to that effect. Our country attaches major importance to the pan-European process as a whole.
The Soviet Union is building and developing its relations with all States in strict compliance with the Final Act and on the basis of the 10 principles proclaimed therein. It attaches special importance to the factor of confidence in those relations, and it is pleased when it sees that this factor is present in its relations with various countries in Europe, America, Asia, Africa or Oceania.
In our relations with other States we have always given priority to the search for ways of easing international tension and averting the danger of war. Of great importance in this context is the forthcoming visit of Mikhail Gorbachev to France.
We also want to build normal, stable relations with the United States. We have never been the initiators of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States. We do not believe that the tensions today in Soviet-American relations result from an inevitable clash of national interests. We therefore believe that both sides have an interest in the successful outcome of the forthcoming meeting between the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States. This is precisely how the Soviet Union approaches that meeting. It remains to be seen what will be the attitude of the other side in this matter.
We are convinced that the Soviet-American summit meeting should focus on the most important problem of the day, the problem upon whose solution truly depends on the possibility of decisively reducing the danger of war, restoring international trust and creating the conditions necessary for resolving many other pressing issues in relations among States. The problem I am referring to is that of preventing an arms race in cuter space and ending the arms race on earth, limiting and reducing nuclear arms and enhancing strategic stability. I will address this question in somewhat greater detail.
To begin with, it would appear indisputable that as long as States possess nuclear weapons the risk of the outbreak of nuclear war cannot be completely ruled out. It is equally true, however, that in conditions of strategic equilibrium, that risk is comparatively lower, for strategic equilibrium means essentially that each side, even if it became a victim of nuclear aggression committed by the other side, would retain sufficient strategic capacity to strike an equally devastating blow to the aggressor. Consequently, in conditions of strategic equilibrium there could be no winner in a nuclear war and starting one would be tantamount to committing suicide.
Yet the situation might change if one side should try to acquire such a nuclear potential as would encourage it to think that by a single strike it could deprive the other side of adequate retaliatory capacity against aggression, particularly if the potential aggressor should develop a space-based anti-missile shield and count on it to protect itself against a retaliatory strike. It is obvious that in such case the aggressor might be tempted to deliver or threaten to deliver a first "disarming" nuclear strike - as it is now known - counting on its immunity to retaliation. Hence the extreme danger inherent in any bid for military superiority in a nuclear age. Yet this is precisely the purpose of the new United States military programs, work on which has already begun or is about to begin.
It could be argued that this is a purely hypothetical danger since the Soviet Union has repeatedly stated that it would not allow the other side to achieve superiority and would take appropriate counter-measures to restore the balance.
But would that mean that the problem of the danger of nuclear war would simply disappear?
It is true that our country would not permit military superiority over it. The State and Party leadership of the Soviet Union has instructed me to reaffirm this once again in this United Nations forum. Those who may expect that the Soviet economy would not be able to stand up to the strain of the qualitatively new stage in the arms race which is currently being forced upon us are profoundly mistaken. Our country and the Soviet economy have had to withstand even greater pressures. Today, the economic might of the Soviet State and its scientific and technological potential are such as to leave no doubt whatever in anyone's mind concerning the ability and determination of our people to meet that new challenge.
However, it should not be forgotten that the higher the level of military confrontation in this nuclear and space age, the more shaky and the less secure, even if strategic equilibrium is maintained, become the foundations of world peace. Nuclear war in these conditions could result not only from a deliberate decision but also from attempts at blackmail or from miscalculation by one side as to the intentions or actions of the other. It could also break out as a consequence of someone's reckless behavior prompted by a sudden aggravation of the situation or because of malfunctions of computers, which are being increasingly relied upon in the operation of modern, sophisticated weapons systems.
Such is our understanding of the current strategic and political realities. It is based on grim facts that cannot be ignored.
It is precisely for this reason that the Soviet Union has been so persistent in seeking not merely the maintenance but a lowering of the existing level of strategic equilibrium and the early adoption of effective measures to stop and reverse the arms race. We know - and many other States now realize this too - that there is no more time to waste, for it may turn out to be too late.

We have gathered in New York in the final days of the first month of autumn. It is a time associated in many countries with the harvest, when farmers look to the coming winter with a feeling of work well done. This thought brings to mind another metaphor which, regrettably, has already taken root in the vocabulary of mankind - the metaphor of the "nuclear winter", we want the word "winter" in all the languages of the world to retain its one and only meaning, its original meaning and to be identified solely with the season of the year which is so beautiful and joyful.
In an attempt to establish a favorable climate for the resumption of the process of arms limitation and reduction, and, ultimately, the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere, the Soviet Union has recently taken some substantial steps on a unilateral - I stress "unilateral" - basis. These steps include the decision not to place anti-satellite weapons in outer space so long as the United States does not do so. Unfortunately, however, the united States, disregarding the interests of political and military stability, recently tested an anti-satellite weapon against a target in space. Those steps also include the suspension of further implementation of our counter-measures in Europe consequent upon the deployment of united States medium-range nuclear systems on the territories of some Western European countries. Finally, there is our moratorium on nuclear explosions.
It is clear that by their very nature such unilateral steps could not be taken as measures of unlimited duration; but they could be of unlimited duration if the United States followed our good example. That would constitute significant progress towards a relaxation of military tension in the world. If, however, the United States fails to heed the voice of reason, no one will be able to blame us when the unilateral moratoriums we have declared come to an end as their terms expire. It is not for us but for the United States to make the choice.
Notwithstanding the importance of such steps as moratoriums designed to curb the arms race, the peoples of the world have every right to demand that radical measures be taken to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear - and not only nuclear - weapons.
From the very beginning of the Geneva negotiations on nuclear and space weapons our country has been determined to achieve a radical solution to these interrelated problems and has taken a constructive position. The Soviet delegation had brought to the current round of negotiations substantial, large-scale and far-reaching proposals, we believe that agreement to ban space-strike weapons and to bring about truly radical reductions in nuclear arms would today have the most positive effect. Such an agreement could bring about a turn for the better in the entire course of world events, avert the threat of nuclear catastrophe and open up for the peoples of the world the prospect of a world free from fear for tomorrow. Mankind would be moving towards the new millennium which is already almost with us, confident that civilization would continue to advance.
The Soviet Union has put forward proposals on the whole range of issues relating to the cessation of the arms race. I am not going to mention each of those proposals for all of them will, in one way or another, become the subject of an exchange of views at the General Assembly. Let me just say that they cover the nuclear field, including the cessation of nuclear tests, as well as chemical weapons, conventional weapons and the numerical strength of armed forces. In some cases it is a question of a freeze; in others of a reduction. The Soviet Union continues resolutely continues to support proposals to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones, chemical-weapon-free zones and zones of peace in various parts of the world. It favors a limitation of naval activities and naval armaments and resolutely opposes the development of any new weapons of mass destruction.
In the context of the proposed arms limitation and reduction measures, the Soviet Union believes it necessary to provide for adequate measures of verification and control, in some cases national, and in others national combined with international, whenever there is an objective necessity for this. We have as great an interest as anyone in effective verification of compliance by all States with their obligations in connection with disarmament measures. We call upon the States represented in the united Nations General Assembly, both members of politico-military alliances and non-aligned and neutral countries, to support this approach, which we are convinced is constructive and at the same time realistic.
I would now like to offer some ideas as to what might be done to eliminate, through our collective efforts, local wars and conflicts, which result in untold suffering and innumerable casualties.
Viewed in a purely United Nations context, the solution to this problem may seem simple. All that is needed is to compel all States to comply fully and scrupulously in their actions with their commitments under the United Nations Charter and equally firmly to deny support to those who violate those commitments.
For instance, it is hard to imagine that any delegation would venture to assert here that the monstrous crimes of the Israeli aggressors on the ravaged soil of Lebanon and in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are consistent with the principles of the United Nations Charter or that the financing, arming, training and infiltrating into Nicaragua of thousands upon thousands of
counter-revolutionaries - contras, as they are called - are consistent with those principles.
Only chauvinistic arrogance could lead anyone to deny the Palestinian people their right to independent statehood while recognizing that right for the people of Israel. All peoples and nations have equal rights.
Who is unaware of the brutal record of the South African apartheid regime, which is executing hundreds of the country's indigenous inhabitants and jailing thousands of others? Who is unaware of the acts of aggression it is constantly committing against Angola - as we see today - as well as against Mozambique, Botswana and Lesotho? It would indeed be blasphemous even to think that this inhuman regime acts in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. But it is a fact that the Pretoria racists receive support, and that this support comes from a major Power that 40 years ago was among the founding Members of the United Nations.
Of course, expressing indignation at the crimes of the racists and condemning the aggressor does not in itself mean that those crimes will be eliminated. The peaceful settlement of any given conflict with full and just regard for the legitimate interests of all sides requires a political basis for a settlement which would not be prejudicial to those interests, as well as a negotiating mechanism appropriate to each specific conflict situation.
Such political platforms for the just settlement of all or nearly all existing regional conflicts have already been or are being formulated. Suitable negotiating mechanisms either already exist or can be established.
Let us now turn to the situation in the Middle Bast. The main parameters for solving the Middle Bast problem in a manner that would take into account the legitimate interests of all parties have long ago been defined. They include the return to the Arab States of all their territories occupied by Israel since 1967, the exercise of the right of the Arab people of Palestine to establish an independent State of their own and ensuring the right of all States in the Middle East, including Israel, to live in peace and security. A negotiating mechanism for such a settlement has long ago been proposed as well, namely, an international conference on the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations with the participation of all the parties concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, and a number of other countries, including the Soviet Union and the United States.
There may, however, be some people who think that the Middle East knot can be untied by separate deals, but experience has already shown that such actions can only result in aggravating the conflict instead of settling it. We believe that this year the Genial Assembly will take an even firmer stand in favor of an early and just political settlement in the Middle East, and will demand that those who continue to resist such a settlement should stop their sabotage.
I should like to recall, in this connection, that Israel ewes its very existence to a decision of this organization, a decision which also called for the establishment in Palestine of an Arab State. It was a dual decision. The Soviet Union actively supported precisely that decision and, incidentally, it was among the first to recognize the State of Israel.
In principle, a negotiating mechanism also exists for settling the situation in Central America which was indeed conceived by the Latin American countries themselves. I am referring to the Contadora group^ with which several more South American States, recently expressed solidarity. There is also a draft act of peace in Central America drawn up by the Contadora members. It is widely supported by the States and peoples of the region, including the Government and the people of Nicaragua, the country which is the target of the spearhead of imperialist aggression. It is important for the United Nations to support the efforts of the Contadora group and contribute to overcoming the resistance of those who, instead of peace, seek to restore their domination in Central America.
It is also possible to break the deadlock in the Cyprus problem provided that an end is put to interference by imperialist forces and that the recognition of the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of Republic of Cyprus is laid down as a firm basis.
I should like to make some specific comments about Afghanistan. A political settlement of the situation that has arisen around that country is also possible. What is necessary for this is that everyone should recognize the right of the Afghan people to build their life as they wish and that armed and other forms of outside interference in the internal affairs of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan should be ended. When such interference is ended, and if there is a guarantee that it will not be resumed, it will then become possible to withdraw from Afghanistan, by agreement with the Afghan Government- the Soviet military contingent. The sooner a political settlement is achieved, the better it will be for everyone.
The proposals of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea provide a good political framework for building good-neighborly relations between all the States of South-East Asia, particularly between the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations and the States of IndoChina. The basis for such relations is gradually taking shape and the countries concerned are perfectly capable of establishing a negotiating mechanism. What is important is that no one should stand in the way of their wish to read agreement with each other.
We support the efforts of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea designed to bring about the peaceful reunification of Korea and the demand for the withdrawal from South Korea of all foreign troops as well as the proposal to make the Korean peninsula a nuclear-free zone.
The question of the situation in southern Africa is an urgent one today. What needs to be done here is for the Security Council finally and fully to exercise its authority with regard to the racist South African regime, which, in violation of the United Nations decisions on the subject, refuses to transfer power to the Namibian people and poses a threat to the security of African States and global security.
A quarter of a century has gone by since the United Nations adopted, on the initiative of the Soviet Union, a decision which has contributed substantially to changing the face of the world today, namely, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The work that was started then has now been almost completed - almost, but not entirely. There should be no room on our planet for the remaining fragments and hotbeds of colonialism. In this matter, too, the United Nations should speak out unequivocally and definitively. It is important that the newly free countries and peoples should be given assistance in ensuring their genuine political and economic independence.
The United Nations quite rightly can and should raise its voice against the exploitation of developing countries by imperialist Monopolies, against the plundering of their natural resources and the strangling of their economies with the noose of indebtedness. Cuba and some other States Members of the United Nations have proposed ways of solving the problem of financial indebtedness.
We support the demands of the newly free States for the establishment of a new international economic order on a just and democratic basis in accordance with earlier decisions of the United Nations and we also support their apposition to what is known as cultural and information neo-colonialism and all other forms of neo-colonialism.
It is inadmissible that the States of Asia, Africa and Latin America should be regarded as a sphere of someone's "vital" interests, as an arena for confrontation with socialism. Those States are the influential Non-Aligned Movement and actively support disarmament, detente and the peaceful settlement of conflicts, which has mice again been convincingly demonstrated at the recent Conference of Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned Countries, held in Luanda.
The rights and freedoms of the individual are inextricably linked with the rights of peoples. The unique experience of our country eloquently testifies to this. Socialism has not only ensured that each and every citizen enjoys equal rights to work, housing, rest and pensions, has not only made it possible to obtain all kinds of education and medical services free of charge, but has also provided comprehensive guarantees of those rights. The standards of social justice were established in close co-ordination with the realization of the principles of self-determination of all nations and nationalities, including the preservation of their identity and the development of such national phenomena as language, literacy, literature and the arts.
Thanks to the advantages of the socialist system, the peoples of the Soviet Onion, oppressed in the past, backward and divided, now stand together, united and therefore strong, and have over a historically short span of time reached the most advanced frontiers of economic development and created a flourishing spiritual culture and attained the heights of human civilization.
We believe that this is the path that not only leads to economic and spiritual prosperity but also contributes to the building of trust between peoples and, on this basis, to bringing them closer together and concerting their efforts in order to attain the goals common to all mankind. That is how we understand the essence of the question of the rights and freedoms of the individual and peoples.
The United Nations, by virtue of its Charter, must play an important role in encouraging and developing respect for human rights throughout the world. This provision, which laid the groundwork for international co-operation in the field of human rights, was included in the United Nations Charter on the initiative of the Soviet Union. Forty years have gone by since that time but, regrettably, to this very day flagrant, massive violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms are taking place. This is an inherent characteristic of a society where the power and wealth of a minority exist at the expense of the majority of the population. Such violations have become a norm of life in those States whose leaders are trying so hard to depict themselves as champions of human rights.
I should like once again to draw members' attention to a problem, the solution to which will largely shape the world of our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. I am referring to the problem of the peaceful exploration of outer space.
Until only recently, space was the realm of science fiction, but it has now become a theater of man's practical activities. The peaceful exploration of space holds out for mankind truly limitless prospects of utilizing scientific and technological achievements to promote the economic and social progress of the peoples of the world and to solve the tremendous problems facing mankind on Earth.
However, these truly cosmic dimensions - and here I am not speaking figuratively but literally - also present new requirements to the inhabitants of the Earth and above all to the leaders of States.
There should be no repetition of the mistake made four decades ago when states and the peoples of the world were unable to prevent the great intellectual achievement of the mid-twentieth century - the release of the energy of the atomic nucleus - from becoming a means of mass annihilation of human beings. This is a folly which should not be allowed to recur at the end of this century when mankind, having filled the first pages of its space history, is facing a choice: space will either help to improve the living conditions on our planet or it will become the source of a new and deadly danger.
In wishing to contribute to man's progress towards new heights of civilization, our country has taken a new initiative by proposing the inclusion in the agenda of this session of the General Assembly of an item entitled "International co-operation in the peaceful exploration of outer space in conditions of its non-militarization".
At the same time, the Soviet Union has submitted to the General Assembly specific proposals regarding the main directions, areas and principles of broad international co-operation in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Outer space is indivisible and all States should be able to take part in its peaceful exploration.
This means that progress should be made by joint efforts in both basic and applied areas of space exploration, so that all peoples can benefit from space research. It is our view that such co-operation could best be carried out within the framework of a world space organization. And this could become a reality provided that all channels for the militarizing of the boundless regions of outer space are blocked off.
To counter the sinister plans of "star wars", the Soviet Union is placing before the international community the concept of "star peace".
The Soviet union hopes that its proposals will be carefully examined by the General Assembly.
The Soviet delegation has set forth the views and proposals of the Soviet Union which we have found it necessary and timely to submit for the consideration of the United Nations. It is our hope that they will be regarded with understanding by all States represented in this Hall and by all the peoples which make up a united mankind.
Much useful work for the benefit of peace and international co-operation has been done by the United Nations over the past 40 years. However, the united Nations has still a great deal more to do since it appears that we are now altering upon a most crucial period in the history of mankind, when it will have to take a decision on this question of paramount importances whether to live in peace or perish in nuclear war.
In this regard, I should like to quote the following policy statement by Mikhail S. Gorbachev:
"Our goal as we see it is to resolve together - for no one is able to do it alone - the major problems which are essentially common to us all: how to prevent war, how to end the arms race and embark on disarmament, how to settle existing conflicts and crises and prevent potential ones, how to create a world climate that would allow every country to focus attention and concentrate resources on finding solutions to its own problems - show me a country that has no problems - and how to join efforts in resolving global problems."


First of all I should like to express to you, Sir, the satisfaction of the Bolivian Government at your election as President of the General Assembly. It is a tribute to you and to Spain, which is so close to the heart of Latin America.
I should also like to express the profound feeling of national gratitude Bolivia feels with regard to the vigorous activities undertaken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Perez de Cuellar, to bring about international understanding of our problems. That attitude is coupled with the outstanding qualities he has demonstrated in the exercise of his office and in the fulfillment of his great responsibilities.
My country earlier expressed its great grief at the catastrophe Mexico has suffered, and I should like to reiterate our sympathy, solidarity and fraternal support to that great brother nation.
I have come to this rostrum to pay a tribute to the United Nations on its fortieth anniversary. Bolivia was present at its inception and helped to bring it into being as an expression of the deep desire for peace felt by a world that had just emerged from the agonies and destruction of war. Now we are here to join our voice, however modest it may be, in support of the spirit that prevailed at San Francisco and that, to the small nations of the world, represents the concrete embodiment of the principle of the legal equality of all States, with respect to which we associated ourselves yesterday, not to be the instrument of the strong but rather the voice of the weak and defenseless of the earth.
Here I should like for a moment to touch upon the work and contribution made by a group of enlightened young Bolivian diplomats who in 1945 were committed to the ideals of the Bolivian national revolution and who signed the United Nations Charter. We pay tribute to them and we should like to do so in the person of Ambassador Carlos Salamanca, who is present at this fortieth session of the General Assembly once again as a member of the Bolivian delegation. He has grown older in his outstanding services to the Organization and to Bolivia during 15 of the Assembly's 40 sessions.
American law contributed decisively to the inclusion in the Charter of new concepts of collective security and self-defense in Chapter VIII, which deals with the regional settlement of disputes. Bolivian law also had an influence on the drafting of the Charter by expanding the bases of international relations, contributing to bringing about the inclusion in the rather cold reference to treaties the concept of international justice that appears in paragraph 3 of the preamble and in Article 14, thus rooting in the foundations of the Organizations the principle that underlies Bolivia's maritime concerns.
Bolivia for the first time supported recognition of the right of peoples freely to control their natural resources, and I can say with pride that my country also sponsored the first resolution adopted by the United Nations dealing with the rejection of racial discrimination, a principle that we reiterate today as we renew our total condemnation of apartheid and our unswerving support for the emancipation of Namibia under the auspices of the United Nations.
Bolivia, as a founding Member of the United Nations, wishes at this anniversary session to reaffirm the obligations it has contracted under the Charter and to reiterate its total commitment to the purposes and principles contained therein.
The defense of national sovereignty, the right of peoples to self-determination and the principle of non-intervention are a guarantee of our national dignity, the sole reliable guarantee upon which our independence rests and to which we can have recourse in order not to be in thrall to the great Powers.
We Bolivians will not allow any foreign interest to dictate the conduct of our country. Only Bolivians, and they alone, are entitled to correct our errors, change our course or determine our future.
Bolivia was the first Latin American country invited to participate in the Non-Aligned Movement-. In our view non-alignment is not some negative neutrality; instead, it is the most rigorous and consistent adherence to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and a militant conviction that impels to adopt an uncompromising position vis-a-vis the great world Powers.
My Government's international policy is based on those postulates. We share the concern for rigorous respect for our political independence, our territorial integrity, our right to live free from coercion. We cannot agree with the proposition that there exists a hierarchy of sovereignty, and we are actively opposed to the arms race, which must be eliminated in order to avoid a world confrontation that could reduce the planet to dust and rubble.
The Non-Aligned Movement is vigilant with regard to justice and equity in international relations. It has spoken out with a frequency appropriate to each case, calling for the righting of historic wrongs, and with particular emphasis on matters affecting the vital functioning of States. It is in that framework that the countries members of the Non-Aligned Movement have expressed constant solidarity with Bolivia's cause in its efforts to recover a sovereign and useful outlet to the Pacific Ocean.
Bolivia, because of its geographical situation in the center of South America, is affected by three of the continent's hydro-graphic basins. It is the contact country for the five republics that border it. This geographical position thus makes it essential for Bolivia to have an outlet to the Pacific. Bolivia became an independent republic in 1825, and at that time my country had a coast over which it exercised full sovereignty for more than half a century. It was subsequently deprived of that outlet by a war of conquest. Never has it waived, nor will it renounce, its right to an outlet to the sea and to a full return to the community of nations.
It relies on the solidarity of the international community. The countries members of the Organization of American States (OAS) have over the last six years reiterated that
"it is a matter of standing hemispheric interest to find an equitable solution
whereby Bolivia may obtain a sovereign and useful access to the Pacific Ocean."
I wish to take this opportunity to thank from this rostrum the 130 countries throughout the world that have given Bolivia their support, solidarity and fraternal understanding in its maritime quest.
However, Bolivia now wishes to look to the future and to leave behind an unfortunate period, opening instead a new page of peace and understanding. Guided by this intention, it reiterates it traditional openness to dialog with Chile within the context of the exhortations and resolutions of the Organization of American States (OAS) and with a minimum of preconditions being set by the parties as a guarantee of a bona fide willingness to reaching a practical settlement which, while having due regard for the reciprocal interests of the countries concerned, will not put Bolivia's territorial heritage at stake.
Bolivia proclaims its support for all multilateral means of solving disputes, faithful as it is to the principles of the Charter, without prejudice to the usefulness of bilateral solutions. We feel that the bilateral and multilateral options are not mutually exclusive but can be used in conjunction.
During a period that was not as marked as today is by a balance of terror and a threat of nuclear destruction, President Victor Paz Estenssoro stated when addressing the General Assembly in 1963:
"We must advance towards the total prohibition of nuclear weapons and general and complete disarmament until finally we get to the point of outlawing war." (A/PV.1252, p. 11) He also stated on that occasion that the great Powers appeared to rely on force rather than on the law.
In taking stock of the 40 years of the work of the United Nations, we observe that that warning is still valid. It is necessary for all Member States to make a decisive contribution to a campaign of disarmament to bring about peace and ensure the survival of mankind. The resources now devoted to the arms race should be freed in order to raise the standards of living of the great majority of peoples still struggling with backwardness, ignorance and hunger.
Every twenty-four hours the world squanders approximately $2,140 million on the arms race. It is impossible to calculate the amount of suffering, insecurity and poverty that any of the poor countries in the world could be spared by the use of such a sum of money. It is even harder to imagine the amount', of pain, destruction and death that such a sum of money could unleash upon the earth. When one thinks of this terrible and horrifying reality, the most frightful thing of all is the lack of moral awareness on the part of those who gamble with the hunger of peoples and the survival of mankind.
A feeling of insecurity has been created by the instability resulting from the foreign interference in Central America. My Government considers that the causes of this lengthy crisis are to be found in unjust economic and social structures, and that the increasing militarization of the area has further aggravated the crisis. Bolivia commends the work carried out by the countries of the Contadora Group in seeking to reach peacefully negotiated solutions through the Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central America. Bolivia undertakes to help in ensuring that this instrument will guarantee the security of the region within a framework of self-determination and the application of the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.
My Government reiterates its support for the cause of the Republic of Argentina with regard to the recovery of its sovereignty over the Malvinas islands, and it expresses its concern over the deployment of nuclear weapons on those islands in violation of existing treaties. As has been stated at various times, Bolivia is in favor of a peacefully negotiated solution of the dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
My country has noted with interest the proposals presented by the Soviet Union
to curb the arms race and bring about collective efforts for the elimination of wars and local conflicts. Similarly, it believes that the wide-ranging proposals presented by the United States help to improve the climate of the negotiations to be held between the major Powers so as to reach an agreement that will strengthen strategic stability and ensure deterrence through the achievement of an equitable and lasting agreement.
My Government rejects any intervention or military occupation by foreign forces whenever it may occur. Accordingly it condemns the military occupation of the territories of Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Cyprus and Lebanon and it reiterates its support for the actions of the Secretary-General in that regard.
Similarly, my country is concerned over the persistence of tensions and confrontations in areas of conflict in the Middle East. My Government supports the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination; likewise, it recognizes Israel's right to have secure and recognized boundaries. It also urges Iran and Iraq to cease hostilities and to begin a process of pacification under the auspices of the united Nations.
Recalling that one of the fundamental concepts of the United Nations is universality, my country supports the view that it is advisable that both Koreas become Members of the United Nations and expresses its gratification at the resumption of talks between them.
The Government of Bolivia fully shares the concern of the international community concerning the pressing need to prevent and punish the illegal production, trade and use of illicit drugs, which represent a threat to public health and particularly to the health of the young, with the same determination, sense of responsibility and courage as my Government demonstrated as soon as it came to office in dealing with the economic and political realities in my country, it has now begun to use all the resources within its scope to wage a frontal war on the drug trade, with all the moral strength of its conviction that we must prevent the degradation of the dignity and worth of the human person, while at the same time preventing the institutional corruption which could jeopardize the very security of the State.
By its very nature the drug trade has become an international criminal activity which accordingly urgently requires effective international measures accompanied by all the resources necessary to fight this crime against mankind. It is not reasonable to place the primary responsibility for the fight against this criminal activity on the producer countries, when it is known that production is in fact a function of the demand of the countries where the narcotic drugs are consumed. Bolivia, in its own interests, is prepared to strike at the root of the problems through a new conceptual and practical approach which would make it quite clear that the responsibility for the fight against the drug trade lies with the international community and that the major contribution must be made by the consumer countries.
It is irrational to ask a country, embroiled in trying to find a solution to its economic problems at enormous economic sacrifices, at the same time to devote its meager resources to an isolated struggle against the drug trade. It must be acknowledged that economic and technical limitations may indeed affect the effectiveness of the fight against drugs. Notwithstanding its difficulties, though Bolivia is proceeding vigorously to eradicate non-traditional and surplus production of coca leaves as part of a comprehensive program set up as part of its international commitments.
Bolivia, which is a nation severely hurt by this scourge, argues that the internationalization of the fight against the drug trade within the framework of the United Nations - and this was a proposal vigorously supported by the President of Venezuela, Mr. Jaime Lusinchi - can be one of the major achievements of the United Nations over the next decade, and would be one in keeping with the purposes and principles of the Charter. After all, the Charter is directed at promoting international co-operation in the solution of social and humanitarian problems as serious as the drug trade.
In this context Bolivia firmly supports the convening by the United Nations of a ministerial conference in 1987 to consider the legal, institutional and educational ramifications of the illicit international drug traffic.
In this connection, it is necessary to find new, imaginative and practical means for the international campaign against drugs. While on the subject, it would be useful to consider the setting up of an international economic fund, principally supported by the so-called consumer countries, and aimed at the purchase of coca leaves from their countries of origin in order to prevent the output of these coca leaves from falling into the hands of organized crime. At the same time, a world system to monitor production could be set up without damaging the economies of rural areas.
This would be the most direct and immediate way of attacking the root of this evil in producer countries and could be combined with an active policy directed at finding substitutes for the production of the coca leaf.
The international community is on notice that the maintenance of peace and the continuation of democracy depend on the development and well-being of the backward regions of our planet. When considering the world economic situation, however, we note that the 1980s may end as a lost decade for development, unless major economic measures are taken to relieve the crushing burden of external debt on the economic and social structure of many developing nations.
The serious situation facing the majority of third-world countries, tied down by their debt-servicing obligations, has been emphasized. Statistics published by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), show that the external debt of those countries has risen, from $20,800 million to $310,000 million.
As a graphic illustration of this, a recent report of the Inter-American Development Bank revealed that debt-servicing in Latin American countries represents twice the war reparations payments imposed by the Allies on Germany in 1919, which that country was compelled to repudiate in the 1920s. Recently, the Secretary- General of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reminded us that the foreign debt-servicing of Latin America totals more than 5 per cent of its gross domestic product. It is known that mere interest payments total more than $100,000 million a year.
In the face of such a situation, Latin America notes with dismay the insensitivity of some developed countries and international lending agencies, which display unawareness of the social dimensions of the problem or whose actions are guided by purely mercantile criteria and are uninterested in seeking any other kind of solution.
The various dimensions of the situation, taken together, make clear the urgent need for a reappraisal of policies which must be adopted forthwith if these problems are to be dealt with.
Longer repayment time limits for developing countries are inoperative, as are lower or preferential rates of interest. This would involve a financial cost which would have to be met by the international financial community on the basis of criteria to be agreed upon. The re-staggering of debts over a period of years, the creation of international facilities to subsidize interest charges, and directly relating debt-servicing to the performance of international prices, without in certain cases ruling out a simple writing off of certain debts, are some of the direct measures which seem to be necessary factors in any lasting solution to the debt problem.
However, whatever measures are taken to resolve the debt crisis, they will be insufficient to reactivate the development process if at the same time consideration is not given to joint action directed at stimulating development through an increased flow of funds to debtor countries. In this connection the change in emphasis announced by the United States with respect to Latin America's external debt could represent a turning point in the financial crisis besetting the region. It seems to indicate acceptance of the argument that policies directed at development will make it possible for the region to find more effective ways of meeting its enormous obligations deriving from Latin America's external debt, compared to the austerity policies required up to now by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The United States initiative would imply a less stringent regulatory policy followed by the IMF and use of the World Bank and commercial banks as suppliers of fresh funds making it possible for Latin American debtor nations to embark again on their economic development. Nevertheless, we are concerned that over the months to come a slowing down of the United States economy could have grave consequences for developing countries, which are still subject to the North's protectionist tendencies. These throttle their economies by limiting their export prospects and, consequently, their capacity to pay.
The time has come, therefore, to take stock and to look at this matter in a serious and comprehensive way. Latin America is the only under-developed part of the Western world. Encouragement and assistance to its development is the only way to prevent the region from slipping into economic and social disarray. Anarchy in Latin America has always been the antechamber to dictatorship, and we have no alternative but to demonstrate, with concrete and swift examples, that democracy is able to liberate peoples from poverty and ignorance. The greatest and most decisive event in our century was the grandiose awakening of the new nations of Africa, Asia and America. The success of decolonization was, however, the result of a common international determination which emerged in the post-war period in the midst of the realities of colonial power. Cannot a similar international consensus bring about a far-reaching reform of world economic structures? Can the creditor nations not realize that, with each passing day, external debt becomes the most dynamic factor working for change in the world economic order, making peoples aware of the international injustice that prevails within the system? More than dogmas, myths and paradises, external debt is acting as the great catalyst of the will for change among peoples.
This will is expressed here from this tribune of the nations,, and is rising like an uncontainable tide. The dilemma at this difficult and dangerous time in international relations is clear: either the machinery of world power changes the rules of the economic game through a joint international exercise of will, such as prevailed after the Second world war to liquidate colonialism, or the world will be dragged into a financial holocaust which will not be without political implications.
This holocaust is already under way. I am speaking now on behalf of a nation that lies right in the eye of this international crisis.
Bolivia is the country that has the highest rate of inflation in the world. Had the Government headed by President Victor Paz Estenssoro not introduced a new economic policy, hyperinflation, according to estimates, could have amounted to more than 44,000 per cent this year. This single example in itself is indicative of the abyss into which my country could have fallen.
For Bolivia the fall in the prices of basic export products due to the world recession meant a decline of approximately 20 per cent in its gross domestic product. If population growth and the negative impact of of inflation are taken into account, it can be stated that per capita national income fell by more than 30 per cent between 1983 and 1985.
This economic contraction affected the most important social and economic sectors. Exports from the mining sector, which was in a steep decline, dropped by over 25 per cent as compared with 1977. The agricultural sector, which accounts for two-thirds of the population, experienced a similar drop over the same period. Urban unemployment and underemployment are at present the lot of approximately 40 per cent of the active urban population. Between 1982 and 1984 exports as a whole fell by 50 per cent, which was reflected in a sharp decline in the rate of domestic development.
It was estimated that, at the end of 1984, Bolivia's public and private external debt amounted to $4,693 billion. Exports that year totaled approximately $780 million, whereas imports amounted to some $520 million. In the meantime, external debt servicing in 1984 had risen to a total of $804 million, a figure that the Bolivian State was materially unable to pay.
What country could overcome so many calamities without political repercussions? However, Bolivia has preserved democracy, and once again the soul and spirit of the Bolivian people have withstood the test of adversity.
"To dispel any false hopes, although not hope itself, which must be maintained to the full in order to meet the challenge posed by misfortune, we can state", said President Paz Estenssoro, "that there would be no point in living in a democracy if the people die of hunger". In view of the fact that the country had been destroyed by poverty caused by the world recession which brought about a drop in the prices of the minerals it exports, it was incumbent upon the Government and people of Bolivia to reverse this economic trend. The inevitable alternative would have been a calamity of unimaginable proportions. Aware of thAs responsibility, my Government has implemented a new economic policy which implies austerity measures and adjustments, but which also presupposes the modernization and improvement of the production systems and resources available.
President Paz Estenssoro put into words the determination of Bolivia, a country that does not give in and will not retreat one step in the face of forces that yesterday did not hesitate to destroy the country in order to destroy the system. In his view:
"there is no formula for resolving the terrible crisis convulsing Bolivia other than the collective sum of moral values and constant labor which can increase exportable wealth. We must manage the scarce economic and financial resources properly, agree to a pause in the social struggle and convince ourselves that there can be no renaissance for the Republic unless we understand the scale of the catastrophe and the few effective remedies available to us to reverse this overwhelming situation." It would be a sad irony if, at a time when Bolivia is making increasing sacrifices to help itself, the international community were to refuse to support my country in its efforts. My people are at present making tremendous sacrifices to overcome the crisis and to consolidate a democratic political community, we know that we are not alone, and that representatives gathered here and their respective Governments will transform this Assembly into the most active instrument for international co-operation and solidarity.
On behalf of my country I express ray deep faith that the world will set aside its disputes and finally understand that peace is inseparable from the well-being of peoples, that poverty represents the denial of life and that there can be no worse dependency than poverty. Let us have the courage to proclaim that, as has been said here, we have not lost our faith in the ability to transform life and to transform the world, and that here in the United Nations after 40 years we have not lost the spirit of San Francisco, which in 1945 represented hope when the glow of victory seemed to light the way to a new dawn for mankind.


It gives me great pleasure to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the fortieth session of the General Assembly. This session has acquired particular significance since it coincides with the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations.
Bonds of history, culture and civilization have linked your beautiful country, Spain, and its great people to my country, Syria, and the Arab people ever since Damascus was the capital of the first Arab State. It is indeed a source of pride and satisfaction to us to see you assuming this high office. We are fully confident that your distinguished diplomatic experience and your exceptional qualifications are a sure guarantee of the success of this session in yielding the most favorable results, for the benefit of mankind.
I take this opportunity to express our appreciation to Ambassador Paul Lusaka, the outgoing President, whose wisdom enriched the work of the thirty-ninth session and helped it realize significant steps and worthy achievements.
The untiring efforts exerted by Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, the United Nations Secretary-General, to enhance the role of the United Nations in international relations, have earned our great admiration and appreciation. While wishing him further success in his work, we reiterate our full support for him in his major and difficult task of achieving a more effective role for the United Nations in bringing about peace, justice and prosperity in the world.
I take this opportunity to express to the Government and people of Mexico the heartfelt sorrow of the Syrian Government and people over the tragic consequences of the recent disaster, the earthquake in their country.
This session, which coincides with the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of our world Organization, deserves to witness a drastic change, giving the Organization a new impetus to enhance its role as the most effective instrument and most appropriate.framework for achieving economic and social progress, safeguarding peace in the world and consolidating the principles on which international relations are based.
In the light of the present deteriorating international situation, this anniversary should be regarded as a further incentive to mobilize efforts with the aim of finding solutions to intricate international problems, eliminating all forms of racism, colonialism and neo-colonialism, checking aggression and creating the best circumstances to bring about justice for the oppressed peoples, thus respecting their rights and sovereignty over their territories and sparing the coming generations the scourge of wars and destruction.
Looking back over these 40 years, one cannot but note with appreciation the important and effective role which the United Nations has played in assisting in the decolonization of a great number of countries and peoples victims of colonialism, racism and exploitation. Syria, as a founding Member of our Organization, has unfailingly contributed to the strengthening of the role of the United Nations. Syria has done its utmost in this regard through its active membership in the Committee on decolonization since it was established 25 years ago to implement the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, whose twenty-fifth anniversary our Organization is now celebrating.
We also highly appreciate the significant achievements of the international Organization and its specialized agencies in solving many problems in the fields of economic, cultural, social and scientific development in those countries, which, after being liberated from the yoke of colonialism, have faced a burdensome inheritance of economic difficulties as well as of social and political hotbeds of tension, which have undermined the independence of those countries and forced some of them to fall once again under the domination of the forces of imperialism and neo-colonialism.
In the midst of our celebrations of the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the United Nations, we owe it to ourselves to pause in humility and to reflect as we remember the victims of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This event will remain a terrible nightmare and a costly lesson to mankind and must not be repeated in the future in any manner whatsoever.
No one can claim that the lesson of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been well learned so long as the nuclear-arms race is escalating and the deployment of bases in various parts of the globe is continuing. Likewise, no one can be optimistic and reassured about the future of mankind so long as the leadership of world imperialism rejoices in its nuclear potential and insists on militarizing outer space.
The danger of this new development does not lie only in the increase in the lethal nuclear capabilities, inasmuch as part of those capabilities that already exist on earth are sufficient to destroy all forms of life on it; nor does it lie only in the tremendous expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars, which could otherwise have been used to combat famine and disease and solve problems of development. Rather, the major danger lies in the fact that the launching of a new nuclear arms race in outer space would divert the attention of both the Governments and the peoples of the world from the serious efforts that should be made for disarmament on our planet. Consequently, it is certain that if the preoccupation of the United Rations with tackling this problem and the debate surrounding it do not succeed in preventing the militarization of outer space, that will undermine the world Organization's capability of dealing with the many regional hotbeds of tension, the most dangerous of which are the Middle East and southern Africa. Such a situation would afford appropriate opportunities for exploitation by the racist regimes in Tel Aviv and Pretoria in persisting in their aggressive expansionist policies, their oppressive and brutal practices and their continuous attempts to impose their will and humiliating conditions on the Arabs and Africans.
The 40 years of the life of the United Nations have provided the oppressed peoples with an opportunity to liberate themselves from the yoke of colonialism and achieve their national independence. Empires from which the sun had never set have collapsed; and the number of independent nations has considerably risen, from 51 Member States in 1945 to 159 Member States at present, in 1985, thus paving the way for a more just and equitable era of international relations under the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
No one can doubt that the United Nations has played an effective role in affirming the independence of these States and extending assistance to them whenever their independence has been jeopardized. Regrettably, however, the United Nations has remained unable to solve the problems of the Middle East and southern Africa. We may conclude without hesitation that the Tel Aviv and Pretoria regimes, because of the continuous and unlimited support of world imperialism, have been gradually able over the past four decades to expand their areas of occupation, consolidate their military potentials, escalate their aggression and oppressive practices, strengthen their racist doctrines and forge the history of peoples and the geography of nations - with no end to this appearing to be imminent. It can also be said without exaggeration that the United Nations has more or less succeeded in its search for solutions to the problems which it has faced since its establishment, with the exception of the problems of the Middle East and of southern Africa, which remain unresolved. The sole reason for this is that racism and Zionism survive only by defying the law and taking the law into their own hands. Their records at the United Nations provide ample proof of this.
A quick review of the figures clearly indicates that the Zionist entity, through a series of wars, occupation, expansion and faits accomplis, has greatly increased in size in terms of both its area and its population. The Israeli objective is clear and may be summarized as follows: to occupy Arab territories, uproot the indigenous population and establish a greater Israel capable of imposing domination and hegemony over the peoples and States of the region.
This morning the news media reported that Israeli military jets had carried out an act of aggression against Tunisia, a sister Arab State and a Member of this Organization, violating its sovereignty and causing huge loss of life and damage to property. The Israeli military jets violated international air space and endangered international aviation.
This is not the first time that Israel has carried out such an act of aggression. It has in the past violated the sovereignty of several Arab States of the region. Israel's objective is clear and although examples and proofs abound it will suffice to recall a statement made by a former Israeli Prime Minister, the present Minister of Defense, in July 1976 during a banquet given by former United States President Gerald Ford on the occasion of the bicentenary of American independence. He said:
"You Americans had a population of 3 million 200 years ago, while today you have become a great Power... The population of Israel today is 3 million, and we want to become a great Power in the future."
In the Israeli concept, peace is virtually synonymous with hegemony and expansion. The Israelis imagine that through direct negotiations and by scrapping the role of the United Nations the Arab side will be compelled to accept the burdensome terms of capitulation which Israel conceives to be peace. That is what happened with Egypt, the largest Arab State, whose foreign policy since the conclusion of the Camp David Accords and the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty has been governed by considerations beyond its control. When the Israelis were shelling Beirut with tons of bombs, Egyptian officials were quoted as saying:
"We suffer and grieve for Lebanon and we wished as a moral stand at least to sever diplomatic relations with Israel, the aggressor. However, we cannot do that. We are unable to do it because the Israeli troops would return to the banks of the Suez Canal on the following day. Moreover, our Egyptian army is no longer prepared to defend Egypt when confronted by the Israelis." What kind of peace is this between Israel and Egypt? Is it possible for normal relations to be established between the Egyptian people and the Israelis in the light of those Israeli notions of peace?
In Lebanon too the Israelis tried to impose their concept of peace, but this time at gunpoint as Israeli tanks surrounded the Lebanese presidential palace. With the help of their American accomplices, the Israelis imposed on Lebanon the agreement of 17 May 1983, which included terms and conditions no less, and possibly more, unjust and humiliating than those imposed on Egypt. Lebanon would thus have been turned into an Israeli-American protectorate, but for the bold and historic decision taken by the Lebanese people to abrogate the agreement, with the absolute support of Syria under the leadership of President Hafez Al-Assad. On the abrogation of that humiliating agreement the United States Administration issued direct warnings to the effect that it was for those who scrapped the agreement to get the Israelis out of Lebanon. In other words, the United States was encouraging the Israelis to remain in Lebanon. Once again, a shining landmark in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict was established when President Assad resolved decisively that
"Syria will extend all-out support to the national resistance until the last Israeli soldier has left Lebanon". There were successive waves of martyrs, ushering in the defeat of the Israeli troops. Consequently the excuse of "Israeli security" - which means menacing Arab security with impunity - has been completely discredited.
The Israelis are now trying to regain in the border area, which they call a security belt, and are refusing to implement Security Council resolution 425 (1978). Meanwhile, the operations of the heroic national resistance continue; their glory radiates beyond the borders to invigorate resistance in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights and unite all resistance, thus opening a new chapter of heroic struggle against Israeli occupation.
The Israeli occupation forces have inflicted horrible destruction and devastation on Lebanese towns, villages and farms, leaving behind scores of thousands of victims and bereaved families. The objective of the Israeli troops was clearly to destroy Lebanon in order to occupy it, and to tear it apart if they were compelled to withdraw from it.
Israel's claim that it has nothing to do with the current explosions, fighting and anarchy in Lebanon does not change the facts. It is true that the structure of the Lebanese system is not flawless and that the seeds of contradiction exist in its institutions. That is recognized and admitted by the Lebanese themselves, and that is why they are calling for the reform of that system. But it is also true that the horrible devastation, brutal massacres and tremendous suffering inflicted by the Israeli occupation troops on the Lebanese have generated in the minds and consciousness of the Lebanese people highly explosive feelings of bitterness, hatred and vengeance. Those feelings have had tragic consequences as they have exploded among the Lebanese or between the Lebanese and the Palestinians. On the other hand, those feelings have had a splendid, heroic aspect when embodied in the operations of the national resistance to the Israeli occupiers.
That is how we in Syria perceive this issue and why we are exerting all possible efforts to help our Lebanese brothers put an end to their ordeal, achieve national reconciliation and restore security and stability throughout their country. By the same token we shall assist and back the brave Lebanese national resistance until Lebanon is totally liberated and the phase of reform and reconstruction begins,
Syria has consistently sought the achievement of a just, comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East. We have strongly supported the United Nations resolutions relevant to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question. Along with its sister Arab countries, Syria contributed to the unanimous adoption of an Arab Peace Plan in Fez in 1982. The Plan calls for Israel's withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories and for the restoration of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian Arab people, including their right of return, to self-determination and to establish their independent State on their native soil, with Jerusalem as its capital. We support the call for the convening of an international conference on peace in the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all the parties to the conflict, as well as the two super-Powers, the Soviet Union and the United States of America.
Because Syria stands firmly against attempts to exclude and circumvent the United Nations, we strongly condemn all separate and partial solutions, such as the Camp David Accords and the Egyptian-Israeli Treaty. Syria regards the current attempts to market the Amman agreement of 11 February 1985 and put it in a public auction as tantamount to denying the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, foremost among which is the right to establish their independent State on their native soil, which has been reaffirmed frequently by United Nations resolutions in the past 40 years. It is axiomatic that the renunciation of an independent Palestinian State would make the concept of self-determination useless and devoid of meaning.
The economic crisis and acute social and political tensions in the world in recent years must prompt the industrialized countries to realize that the maintenance of a one-way course of prosperity and development is no longer possible in our time, particularly when all peoples of the world look forward to the establishment of normal, balanced international economic relations based on mutual trust, to the benefit of mankind.
The terrible famine suffered by some African countries, the burdensome debts borne by many countries of the world, particularly in Latin America, and the decline in growth rates in most countries cannot be truly remedied in the absence of an equitable world economic order and with the continuing frenzied arms race on earth and in outer space.
Today the arms race undoubtedly represents the major obstacle in the search for solutions to other problems and the social and economic tensions resulting therefrom. The maintenance of international peace and security can be realized not through the arms race but only through respect for rights, the establishment of justice and the elimination of all aspects and forms of aggression and racism.
Syria backs all efforts designed to lead to the cessation of the production of nuclear weapons and the destruction of stockpiles. It also condemns the current attempts of world imperialism to militarize outer space, which is the common heritage of all mankind. Syria calls for the full implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and for new agreements to limit the arms race and ban the production of nuclear weapons and nuclear tests.
The connection between European security and the security of the Mediterranean region is a geographical fact that cannot be ignored. Any security measures which may be adopted in Europe must be accompanied at the same time by similar security measures in the Mediterranean region, along with international guarantees not to use the nuclear installations existing on the territories of some European countries against Mediterranean countries.
The Syrian Arab Republic? which supports the transformation of the Mediterranean region into a zone of peace and a nuclear-weapon-free zone, would like once more to draw the attention of the international community to the fact that Israel's nuclear capabilities and its persistent refusal to ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty and f.o place its nuclear installations under international safeguards pose a real threat to the security of both the Mediterranean countries and the Middle East and impede the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in that region. The Syrian Arab Republic fully supports the transformation of the Middle East region into a nuclear-weapon-free zone, in accordance with the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, in order to ease tension in the region.
Syria contributed to the establishment of the United Nations and it upholds the purposes and principles of the Charter. Its people is one of the peoples of the third world, whose causes and national liberation movements Syria supports, and it will not yield to aggression or compromise its principles. At the same time, Syria is fully aware of its role and commitments in both the Arab and the international arenas.
Inspired by its principles, Syria contributes with all the means at its disposal to the serious search for a peace that guarantees the restoration of national rights and human dignity, redresses injustices and eliminates aggression. Accordingly, Syria firmly backs the just struggle waged by the African peoples against the racist regime in South Africa. He believe that the courageous uprising of our African brethren in recent months .is a shining landmark on the path towards the elimination of racism in southern Africa. The alliance between the South African regime and the racist regime in Tel Aviv and their collaboration in all fields, in particular the military and nuclear fields, as well as the co-ordination of their aggressive policies and chaises against the African and the Arab peoples, must be met with better co-ordination and increased co-operation among the Arab and African countries in various domains.
It is no exaggeration to say that the continuing aggressive and racist policies of the Pretoria and Tel Aviv regimes remains the fuse most likely to ignite the international situation and confront the world with a potential nuclear disaster. The continuance of the strategic alliance between the United States of America and those two racist regimes, and the fact that the United States is supplying them with all the means of aggression while obstructing the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against them, constitute the main reason for the isolation of the United States in the international arena and the condemnation of its policies in the world.
The question of Cyprus remains one of the most complex problems causing concern to the international community in general and to the non-aligned Mediterranean States in particular. This is because of its implications for the security and stability of the entire region. The just solution of this question can be achieved only through the implementation of the relevant United Nations resolutions in such a way as to preserve for the Republic of Cyprus its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-aligned status and by means of negotiations between the two Cypriot communities. We sincerely hope that the endeavors of the United Nations Secretary-General will be crowned with success.
With regard to the situation in Afghanistan, we reaffirm the need to recognize the right of the legitimate Afghan Government to defend its country's independence and sovereignty against any foreign interference. We are totally committed to ensuring that this country, which is linked to ours by ancient historical ties, remains a member of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries.
We hope that the countries, neighboring on Afghanistan, with which we have the same close historical ties, will be able to resolve the difficulties among themselves. We are closely following the ongoing negotiations in Geneva, through the representative of the Secretary-General, and we wish him all success.
The reunification of the two parts of Korea has become an urgent necessity in keeping with the interests of international peace and the Korean people. In our view, the implementation of the United Nations resolution relevant to the Korean problem, which calls upon the United States of America to withdraw its forces from South Korea, is the right course for solving the problem.
Current developments in Central America and the Caribbean, which have acquired serious dimensions, cannot be isolated from United States acts of intervention aimed at preventing the peoples of the region, foremost among which is the heroic people of Nicaragua, from exercising their right to self-determination and opting for the systems of their own choice. These are manifested in the threat or use of force, accompanied by pressures, political blackmail, economic blockades and the financing of mercenaries and their use to destabilize regimes that reject subservience and hegemony.
The process of decolonization and the achievements in the scientific and technological fields witnessed during the last 40 years have shortened distances among nations and have considerably narrowed gaps among peoples. Yet numerous problems on our globe have kept growing and seem to remain without solutions in sight. The arms race is spiraling uncontrollably and is apt to reach outer space.
Hotbeds of tension in various parts of the world may still explode at any moment. Hundreds of millions of people in the third world are experiencing difficulties in securing the very minimum of food, clothing, lodging and education. None the less, the presence of the United Nations per se will represent a major achievement should the leaders of the world resolve to seek appropriate solutions for these problems within the framework of constructive international co-operation in order to create a better world free from all forms of oppression and aggression and where justice and peace prevail.