I still have before my eyes the suffering that Mexico has just undergone. I landed there to see for myself the tragedy, to see what had happened and to affirm to the people of that country Brazil's solidarity. In so doing, I dare to hope that I conveyed the feelings of the rest of the world, and I begin my statement here today by assuring Mexico of the solidarity of the entire world.
This tribune instills respect and dignity. It is the loftiest in the community of nations. Here, both the mighty and the weak are diminished, so much greater is the burden of mankind's history in the exercise of the task which is the essence of the Organization's work - namely, the preservation of peace, tackling the problems that beset it and the efforts to transform divergences into solidarity.
For 40 years my country, Brazil, has been privileged to open the general debate of the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is with profound emotion that I now exercise that prerogative.

Grave problems and immense responsibilities weigh heavily upon me. In expressing ray feelings I turn to the greatest poet of my land, and I do so because I believe that poetry is neither inappropriate nor anachronistic in the scenario of great debates. The poet wrote: "What rare dream could be More pure or more beautiful And more profound than this Living machinery of the world?" It is with this feeling about the world that I speak on behalf of one of the largest nations of the globe, a complex and dynamic society, the eighth largest economy in the Western world, a country of contrasts and of greatness - the Brazil made up of several Brazils, in which affluence and poverty, aridity and fertility, drought and flood create a geography of contradictory features and, in so doing, enclose in a vast continent a unified people who have known how to construct a racial democracy and a cultural unity that are the invincible force of their destiny.
I am a simple man. I was born and have lived in one of the most severely tested regions of our land, the heavily populated and poverty stricken Brazilian north-east. I have followed a political career for 30 years, but it was in the midst of tragedy and awe, in an abrupt and unexpected way, that I was called upon to lead our nation.
As President of the Republic, I am proud to be a writer for whom a taste for words has not restricted the spirit to mere aesthetic expressions. From words I forged an element of profound identification with the people, sharing in the aspirations of individuals and of society as a whole.
Literature and politics force on us a social and humanistic vision of the universe. I cannot conceive of the pursuit of material gain without a spiritual

substratum that endows human adventure with the dimensions of the eternal. I have faith, and woe unto the man who thinks of the world without the company of God.
Brazil has just lived through a long night. Its eyes are not reddened by nightmares. Its lips display an open gesture of confidence and sing of its love for freedom. He who is a prisoner of the past cannot see the future. Hoses never turned his back on the Promised Land.
The instrument that worked our transition from authoritarianism to democracy was our capacity to reconcile and understand, without violence or traumas. Our determination, courage and resilience were so strong that we managed to survive the loss of our hero, Tancredo Neves, on the very night in which our skies were lit up with the fireworks of victory. Our suffering then was transformed into strength and a resolve to make his dream our dream and to remain united.
The values of transformation proved stronger than death, we applied those values to all classes of society, and, in so doing, we abolished distances and barriers in a patriotic convergence of all schools of thought and in the quest for the effective ideals of justice, conciliation and the institutional consolidation of civilian power. He believe that- social vision is the very life-blood of modern liberalism. Freedom concerns itself with actual living conditions, with the complete achievement of individual happiness, with universal franchise and with the right to be free.
I come to this rostrum to pay a tribute to the United Nations on its fortieth anniversary. Brazil was there at its birth; it is here today, and it will be here in the future, to defend the spirit of the Organization.

This spirit is not to serve as a mere instrument of the strong, but as the voice of the weak - of those who have neither armies, nor arsenals, nor a veto to impose in an effort to nullify decisions.
I am here to say that Brazil no longer wishes its voice to be timid. Brazil wants to be heard - without aspirations to hegemony, but with a clearly determined presence, we shall not preach to the world what we do not say within our own borders, we are at peace with ourselves. Consistency has become our strength. Our domestic discourse matches our international stance. We wish, as of now, to give new life, with renewed emphasis, to our presence in the debate of nations, by espousing an independent, dynamic foreign policy aimed at resolving international issues which have a social content.
We shall not be held captive by great Powers nor enslaved by minor conflicts.
Forty years ago, our founding fathers established, despite the death throes of war and the ruins of oppression, the very foundations for the building of peace and the concert of nations, as well as unlimited co-operation among peoples. The major Powers and the emerging countries were called upon to put an end to colonial exploitation. They proclaimed to the universe the worth of the democratic principles of equality and justice. They condemned racism and intolerance. They gave legitimacy to the universal right to health, well-being and education. They reaffirmed the dignity of labour and the enhanced power of culture.
At present, now that we have lived without a global conflict for twice the number of years allotted to humanity between the First and Second World Wars, we are in a position to state that the role played by the United Nations has not always been recognized; indeed, its performance has almost never measured up. Nevertheless, its role, far from b&ing useless, has been, is and will continue to be necessary. Its founding fathers were quite right.

On behalf of Brazil, I congratulate you. Sir, on your election to the presidency of the fortieth session of the United Nations General Assembly. I also congratulate the representatives of the Member States assembled here to commemorate the four decades of active existence of this Organization. I address my sincere compliments to the Secretary-General,Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, of whose talent and diplomatic experience we Latin Americans are so justly proud.
It is only natural that the first topic I take should be that of Latin America. Latin America's extraordinary effort to create a democratic order is the most stunning and moving political fact of recent years, a fact that remains unacknowledged by the uncaring eyes of the center of world power. Little attention has been given to the institutional maturation of our region and to its drama and triumphs. With neither assistance nor interference, tempered only by the force of conviction, we have confronted the threats posed by the temptations of totalitarianism and by the greed of those who see only through the eyes of exploitation.
We have emerged synchronized in a movement of solidarity towards the flourishing of free institutions. We have made our choice as one, irreversibly opting for the trinomial of open society, free institutions,, dynamic economy. Using this threefold democratic definition as a basis, we shall pursue dialog as a bridge between the East and the West, the North and the South, old and new cultures, regimes and ideologies.
Gandhi, the Mahatma, said that the true mission of the man of law is to throw a bridge across the abyss that separates adversaries. The United Nations is the law; we are the men of the law.
New winds are blowing over our continent and are breathing new life into our democratic tradition, as reflected in commitments that preceded the creation of the United Nations.

We therefore champion the principle of the self-determination of peoples and of toe duty of non-intervention, of the peaceful settlement of disputes and of the relaxation of East-West tension. We reject the sharp antagonisms of bloc politics. We advocate the primacy of negotiation over perilous demonstrations of force.
In true democratic spirit, we have campaigned for many years on behalf of disarmament and we have shunned as precarious, violent and irrational the idea of a peace maintained by the parity of atomic arsenals. Brazil believe that there can be no quibbling over these ideals, nor can any concession be made to their suspension, at any level or for any reason whatsoever.
It is also because of our loyalty to the universalist creed of democracy that we are anti-racist - profoundly, viscerally and intransigently anti-racist.
Brazil is a great melting pot of a nation - one that is proud of its identity. Some of the most highly creative expressions of our culture come from racial mixture and from ethnic cross-fertilization. The greatest, most sensitive author we have produced, Machado de Assis, was a mestizo, as were also, in the plastic arts, the great baroque sculptor Aleihadinho, and in music, the world-renowned Villa-Lobos. I wish to remind the Assembly how much Brazil's popular culture owes to the genuis of the blacks and to the spirit of the American Indian.
Brazil has determined that racial discrimination is not only illegitimate, but illegal; it is a crime covered by the penal code. We consider repulsive the upsurge of racial conflict dictated by racist intolerance or the persistence of colonial configurations. I solemnly reiterate our total condemnation of apartheid and our unreserved support for the immediate emancipation of Namibia under the aegis of the United Nations*

He cannot conceive of the United Nations commemorating its age of reason without an all-out offensive against all the vestiges of racism on earth.
As President of my country, I reconfirmed few weeks ago the ban on exports of oil and its by-products and of areas and ammunition and on licenses and patents to South Africa and I suspended all cultural, artistic or sports activities with the Government in Pretoria.
Racism is against humanity and against the future. Racism, a different version of colonialism, which is both amoral and perverted, must not besmirch the golden page of decolonization.
Decolonization will rise above the hecatomb of world conflicts and the sterile confrontations of the cold war as the greatest contribution of the twentieth century to the history of mankind.

The success of decolonization was the result of the common international will, A similar search for consensus solutions will pave the way towards overcoming the frustration which we currently experience and which has been caused by the challenge of the arms race and the proliferation of tensions and conflicts.
Human rights have a fundamental dimension which is intimately linked to the vary practice of coexistence and pluralism. The world that the creators of the League of Nations did not live to see, the structuring of which we still await, is a world of respect for the rights of the human person, such as the United Nations seeks to promote in the international covenants on human rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is undoubtedly the most important document signed by man in contemporary history, and it was born in the cradle of the United Nations.
It is with pride and confidence that I announce to this Assembly Brazil's decision to accede to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. With these decisions the people of Brazil take a step towards the democratic affirmation of our State and reiterate to themselves and to the entire international community a solemn commitment to the principles of the Charter and the promotion of human dignity.
In this task, I wish to stress the promotion of women's rights, which has gained new impetus in Brazil through the creation of the National Council for the Rights of Women, as well as the decisive participation of women in the transformations which are occurring in Brazilian society. This in turn is interrelated on the global level with the extraordinary movement of self-affirmation by women, the impact of which is causing a profound reappraisal of human relations as the century draws to a close.
We are at one of the many crossroads that have marked .the 40 years of existence of the United Nations. The peoples are aware that concessions made to the realities of power are a one-way process. Only the united will of the majority to adopt a new attitude can remedy the scenario created by confrontation and by the mechanisms of power.
"Not all is East or West in the United Nations ... The world has other cardinal points." (A/PV.1208, para. 6) So said Ambassador Araujo Castro, who was representing Brazil at the eighteenth session of the General Assembly. Brazil recognizes many negative aspects in international relations, but we have always sought to view the world from a generous, multifaceted perspective.
Let us use our time for co-operation and for science; natural differences should not now endanger coexistence. Celestial space has always been the purest image of peace. Let us preserve the infinite sky as a frontier that weapons must never violate.
Brazilians believe in such values as respect for the individuality of each country and a united responsibility in the face of the impasses and dilemmas of this waning century.
We witness with dismay the innumerable conflicts that affect the developing countries, paralyzing their efforts towards progress. These conflicts aggravate the difficult conditions created by the persistence of an unjust international order and place us at an even greater distance from the attainment of the ideal of peace and security. The transposition of themes from the East-West confrontation to the scenes of many of these conflicts adds a weighty element of exacerbation and disguises their true causes. We are surrounded by examples.
Brazil associates itself with other Latin American countries in proclaiming the urgent need for a political, lasting and stable solution for the conflicts that are tearing Central America apart. It is for this reason that Brazil fully supports the Contadora initiative, which reflects the feelings of all Latin America in seeking a solution that will preserve peace and understanding on the continent in keeping with 'the will of the peoples of Central America.
My Government joined with three sister nations in the creation of the Contadora support group in an effort to translate the broad backing that Contadora has been receiving into concrete initiatives.
The political and deeply ethical character of the Contadora Group is the Latin American response to theories of confrontation; it supports dialog rather than radicalization; it is an invitation to substitute negotiations for the threat of the use of force; it is a vigorous defence of self-determination and ncn-interference against attests to internationalize the conflict.
Brazil feels linked to all peoples in the Middle East by bonds of great friendship. The Brazilian society is greatly concerned about the disheartening atmosphere in Lebanon and recognizes the right of all peoples of the Middle East, including Israel, to live in peace within internationally recognized borders. Brazil wishes to see the creation of a national State of Palestine, this being the aspiration of that great people which has suffered for so long, withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories and acceptance of United Nations resolutions concerning the region.
Brazil, which is linked to Iran and Iraq by growing ties of friendship and co-operation, exhorts those two countries to take a peaceful, negotiated route toward resolving their differences.
He are very concerned about Afghanistan and Kampuchea. There will be no end to the violence in those countries as long as foreign troops remain there and as long as the right of their peoples freely to express their will is not explicitly recognized.

It is also incumbent upon us to press for constructive vision and stance with regard to the question of the Malvinas. Since 1833, Brazil has given its support to the just Argentine claim to sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, stressing that a negotiated settlement is the only way to resolve the problem.
Brazil will make every effort within its power to ensure that the South Atlantic is preserved as an area of peace, shielded from the arms race, the presence of nuclear arras and any forts of confrontation originating in other regions.
In keeping with its firm commitment to the effort to ban nuclear weapons from the continent, Brazil signed and ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco, whose pioneering goal is to transform Latin America into the first denuclearized zone on territory inhabited by mankind. The denuclearization of Latin America should be the first step in a new movement to deter the vertical and horizontal accumulation of nuclear arms, thereby releasing the $1.5 million squandered every minute on the arias race to be used to combat hunger, disease, ignorance and poverty.

The marathon arms race is a symptom of the evil which threatens lucidity and is a sombre hiatus cm the human conscience.
We are experiencing a new scientific revolution which is moment by moment transforming the world under our very eyes. Control over the advances which occur at dizzying speeds in state-of-the-art sectors of science and technology has become a vital matter of survival. The program of work of the United Nations in the next few years must contain a strategy to prevent the world from becoming fragmented into closed technological blocs; it must place scientific and technological knowledge at the service of the basic needs of all humankind.
Those are the visible problems. But there is another, greater problem, one which permeates international relations and which insidiously threatens all, poor and rich alike - the poor, through destabilization; the rich, through insecurity; and everyone through the possibility of total collapse should we persist in our posture of immobility.
I should like to address the economic problem, which concentrates its virulence in the third world, and in particular in Latin America. Crushed under the weight of an enormous foreign debt, the countries of the region are living through a scenario of severe difficulties with domestic repercussions resulting in recession, unemployment, inflation, increased poverty and violence. Ensnared in a vicious network of economic factors - namely, the rise in international interest rates, falling prices of commodities and the selectivity of markets in the developed countries - we are confronted with a crisis comparable only to that which assailed the market economies in the early 1930s.
The burden of foreign debt imposes an economic policy geared towards achieving trade surpluses earmarked for interest payments. The international organizations propose policies involving inadequate adjustments. This approach leads to recession, to unemployment and to giving up the capacity to grow. Such a policy weakens civilian leadership, renders the social crisis explosive, threatens institutions, jeopardizes order and, as a result, constitutes a threat to democratic structures. To add to our difficulties, the markets of the developed countries are being closed to our exports. Protectionist barriers are proliferating and we are unjustly accused of unfair trade practices. The protectionism that is sought to shield the obsolete sectors of the. developed countries is even confused with the legitimate right of developing countries to create favorable temporary conditions for the installation of emerging industries incorporating modern technologies essential for sustaining growth in the exercise of our sovereignty and independence.
And the paradox stems from the fact that all our efforts are being made precisely in an effort to transfer foreign exchange credits to the very quarters that beleaguer us and discriminate against us. we are thus caught between the threat of protectionism and the specter of default.
We are doing our utmost to compete. Our firms export with meager profits and our labor force receives low wages. It is sad to have to confess that our minimum wage is $50 per month.
To round out our difficulties, we are obliged to maintain a trade-balance surplus to pay, within four years, interest amounting to approximately $50 billion.
That is the situation confronting a country which has potential, which has a broad and diversified range of exports comprising commodities and petroleum derivatives, manufactured goods, machinery and even aircraft. One can readily imagine the impact of these factors on other countries lacking our advantages.

It has been our tradition to honor our foreign commitments. However, we have the obligation to alert the world to the fact that the existing scenario must be changed. It must be restructured, for it is unfair. And anything that harbors the germ of injustice or of the absurd simply cannot survive.
Brazil has no desire to make an ideological issue of the matter of indebtedness, nor does it wish it to be transformed into a source of confrontation between North-South and East-West. Brazil is a country of ingrained Christian and Western ideals, we believe that wherever free enterprise has collapsed, freedom itself has likewise disappeared. Hence we believe in enhancing the world market through competition, and, in denouncing the present order, we are not moved by any political motivation. We wish solely and exclusively to defend our most sacred interests - the sacred interests of Brazil. And we shall fulfill this duty by urging the international community to join us in seeking a solution. Moreover, this solution cannot be based solely on the laws of the market.
At the end of the Second World War, the victorious Powers understood that to achieve peace it was essential to establish a new disciplined international order to govern economic and financial relations among nations.
Fundamental to the establishment of this economic order was the perception that rebuilding Europe was indispensable for stability and international security itself. The success of the program for the reconstruction of Europe demonstrates the ability to carry out projects of co-operation amongst nations when they are conceived with a broad vision of the reciprocity of interests involved and a clear awareness of the connection between political and economic problems.
At present we are experiencing anew a situation which clamors for a creative vision for renewal. The pillars of the current order are eroded and obsolete. It is necessary for us to discuss concrete measures to adjust the international economic order to present-day realities.

Following upon the period of prosperity, with the advent of the recession, it was Bobbes's predatory jungle which began to reign rather than the harmonious, fruitful anarchy of Adam Smith.
The indebtedness of Latin America is no longer merely a regional problem, given the extent of its impact on the stability of the financial mechanisms of the Western world. Awareness of this problem led to the Cartagena consensus, a manifestation of solidarity amongst the Latin American countries most affected by the problem of foreign indebtedness, in an effort to devise a solution through dialog and understanding.
From the Latin American point of view, it is imperative for the indebtedness crisis to be negotiated in terms of its political dimension. Today, just as was the case 40 years ago, the Governments of the creditor nations must be made aware of the fact that there is an exceptional situation the solution of which transcends tiie mere interplay of economic forces.

In calling upon the leaders of the industrialized nations to come forward with concerted political action to resolve foreign debt problems, I do so with the serenity of a country which has not spared any effort to meet faithfully its international commitments.
He have made gigantic efforts. Nevertheless, even if we were to maintain our current rate of growth, only in 1990 shall we have matched the per capita income level we had attained in 1980.
Our people have reached the limits of what is bearable. It is impossible to demand additional sacrifices of a population as impoverished as ours. On the contrary, we must assure the Brazilian people that opportunities for employment will be increasing in the coming years.
Our vulnerability to rises in international interest rates is so great that all we have accomplished will collapse if exorbitant rates are renewed.
We shall face greater difficulties in shaping a liberal and pluralistic society if we do not maintain and expand our contacts abroad. However, the foreign debt crisis has been forcing our economy into a process of isolation and autarchy, resulting in minimal import possibilities and weakened and unsatisfactory ties with the international financial markets, we do not want isolation and autarchy; we have the right to expect of our international partners equitable and fair forms of co-operation and also that they will democratically accept a concrete share of responsibilities. We cannot rely merely on the rhetorics of economic adjustment, on the assumption that sacrifice is all that is required of a third-world debtor for the settlement of his foreign accounts. This narrow view disregards the fact that we are dealing with populations which have a right to a respectable standard of survival and with countries with legitimate national aspirations. Either we realize that the solution to the foreign debt problem is a joint task for creditors and debtors alike or we run the risk of setting fire to the powder-keg that threatens the whole continent.

This picture explains the social cauldron of Latin America, defenseless against Messianic and demagogic seductions and the call of totalitarian ideologies and trapped in an unfair situation resulting from accumulated errors of the past. It is a miracle that the glow illuminating Latin America at this time comes from the torch of liberty and democracy and not that of turmoil.
Brazil has taken its position. Debt does not lead to doubt. We have chosen to grow without recession, without submitting ourselves to those adjustments which would entail relinquishing development.
Brazil will not pay its foreign debt with recession, nor with unemployment, nor with hunger. We believe that in settling this account at such high social and economic costs we would then have to surrender our freedom, for a debt paid with poverty is an account paid for with democracy. I thus wish to affirm with all seriousness and firmness that there is no solution possible without a thorough reformulation of the international economic structures.
Lastly, I must speak of peace, the loftiest ideal of mankind. But what is peace? Is it merely the absence of war, of war between nations, of war between men? Or is peace something more transcendental which signifies the freedom of men from all forms of violence, from all forms of conflict? I believe it to be an inner state of mind projected by man as the conduct to be followed by all nations; but realistically we know that many generations vill pass before this goal is actually achieved.
The reality that sustains us is quite different. The raw material of our work is provided by the harsh landscape of our times: one beset with violence, egotism, retaliation, dependence Jtwardness, servitude, nuclear war, the ills of starvation, cultural disparities, assaults on the ecology, pollution, terrorism, greed and exploitation.

The peace of today is not yet true peace. It is war in disguise. The first path leading to peace is freedom; and the political organization of freedom is democracy. Free peoples do not wage war; there will be no war between democratic peoples that decide their own destinies without submitting to personal tyrannies and to ideological fanaticisms. War and democracy, war and freedom are incompatible terms. As Clausewitz pointed out, war exists only when sovereign States exist. Likewise, we can affirm that peaceful, consensual solutions prevail when free and democratically developed nations exist, with permanent institutions, with fully operational powers, and with the people themselves making the decisions. Thus the best way for the United Nations to work for peace is to work for democracy. We Brazilians follow this example. :e emerged from conflict through democracy. On the day the people felt that could decide, they did not choose violence. They opted for dialog, for negotiation.
We are approaching the end of the century. The task of the United Nations has been to manage circumstantial conflicts. It is time for us to react vigorously against this marginal role, restoring to the Organization the prerogatives and rights deriving from its overall responsibility to all peoples in matters pertaining to peace and security.
The priority for the fifth decade in the life of the United Nations should be a program of revitalization with the following objectives: to help defuse the tensions of the renewed confrontation between the two power blocs; to create a new economic order based on development and social justice; to explore the entire negotiating potential of the Organization to promote solutions for the regional conflicts which are proliferating in the third world; and to regain a major role in the negotiations for the reduction, control and elimination of arms, with emphasis on those with greater destructive power.

However, freedom is not restricted to the exercise of a political right. As a component of the well-being of each of us we have a great social debt, a moral debt to the poor of the entire world who are the human beings we call brothers but whom we treat as though they were not.

The meaning of freedom for contemporary man is not merely the absence of coercion or of interference. It is the prospect of a happy life for oneself and for one's own. Thence the concept of freedom which concerns itself specifically with the actual conditions of a free life and strives to promote the broadest possible equality of opportunity. Modern man is one whose life today reflects Jefferson's dream of the personal and collective pursuit of happiness.
Equality of opportunity is the mainstay of social freedom, enabling the market to serve mankind rather than mankind serving the market. Without a diversity of values and multiple ways of life, freedom does not flourish, but languishes in privilege and drowns in oppression.
Shortly before the creation of the United Nations, Churchill and Roosevelt held a dialog at Hyde Park. Roosevelt asked how peace could be assured and Churchill replied, "By an Anglo-American alliance." But Roosevelt retorted, "No: by improving living conditions throughout the world."
I repeat, that for there to be peace there must be democracy and freedom: a freedom without hunger. The world cannot enjoy peace so long as there is a single hungry mouth anywhere on the face of the earth, a single child dying for lack of milk, a single human being suffering for lack of bread. The coming century will be the century of socialized food. The image of the mater dolorosa in the African desert is humiliating to us. Foodstuffs cannot continue to be mere speculative commodities on the exchange markets. Science and technology are here, announcing a new era of abundance through genetic engineering. Man, who has been able to break through the barriers of Earth and take off for the distant stars, cannot be incapable of eradicating hunger, what is required is a universal will to do so. That is a decision which must be taken without vetoes. It is urgent to have a plan of peace for the elimination of hunger.

Brazil, which experiences the paradox of being a major producer of food while struggling to eliminate pockets of hunger from its own territory, is willing to take part with enthusiasm in an effort to mobilize the international community to wipe out the scourge of hunger before the end of the century. This challenge may prove to be an opportunity for the United Nations and its agencies to rise above the present discredited state of multilateralism, thus demonstrating their effectiveness and validity.
In order to accomplish this, man must have a humanistic vision of politics, otherwise he may be able to think of nothing and produce nothing but nuclear missiles and warheads.
The conquest of the seas brought to man the humanism of the renaissance. The conquest of the cosmos broadens our view to an infinite solitude: The world has become larger and yet at the same time smaller. We must be united on this voyage where all men are condemned to face the greatest temptations of life. The new humanism must be centered on solidarity and peace. Peace can exist only hand-in-hand with freedom, freedom with democracy, and democracy when we provide for the segregated, for the starving, for the unemployed. It will exist when in that poor nations we love our poorer regions, when in the rich nations we love the poor people, and when in the poorer nations we love the poorest people.
Forty years ago we built upon the stark ruins of war. Today we must work to prevent the ruins of an anonymous war, which is hunger. Poverty is the very negation of life.
This is the great mission of mankind: to transform life by transforming the world. The twenty-first century is in sight. Let us look upon the new times with the eyes of the lover of nature, with the eyes of the pursuer of dreams. Let us have the courage to proclaim that freedom and peace will spell the end of poverty and hunger.


I have the pleasure of congratulating you. Sir, on your election to the presidency of the fortieth session of the General Assembly. I am confident that under your guidance this session will constitute a significant and meaningful milestone in the life of the United Nations by giving us the opportunity to make an assessment of the past 40 years while trying to look constructively into the future.
I wish also to pay a warm tribute to the President of the thirty-ninth session, Ambassador Paul Lusaka of Zambia. His conduct of the work of the General Assembly contributed substantially to the success of the previous session.
I should like first of all to express, on behalf of the people and Government of Turkey, our profound feelings of sorrow and condolences to the people and Government of Mexico for the terrible earthquake that occurred in Mexico recently, entailing great loss of life and heavy material damage. As a country which has often suffered from earthquakes and other natural disasters, we fully understand the tragedy that has befallen the Mexican people and sympathize with them.
In trying to contribute to the collective assessment that the fortieth anniversary prompts us to make, I should first like to underline two major developments of the post-war era around which numerous other related issues seem to cluster. There have indeed been drastic and profound changes in the world during the past four decades and consequently in the thrust, scope and general orientation of international relations.
First, the end of the Second World war brought in an era of sharp divisions in the form of East-West tensions coupled with ever-growing security concerns of a different magnitude. Nuclear weapons and the dilemmas arising out of their existence are also not in their fortieth year. Efforts for a progression from a cold war to a stable relationship through the search for detente and co-operation, and for arras control and disarmament, have not yet taken us to a point that could correspond to the basic assumption oE the Charter.
Secondly, the world political scene has changed in more than one way, as reflected by the process of decolonization in which the United Nations has played such a decisive role. This process has in turn modified not only the composition and structure of the united Nations, but has also made a profound impact on the approach to the problems facing hundreds of millions of people as well as on their order of priorities. Decolonization has given effect and meaning to a large extent to the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter and to the universality of the Organization. This process has yet to be completed. On the other hand, the economic problems of the developing countries have not been adequately and effectively addressed. The vision of the founding fathers of this Organization which initiated a new political order of the world should be coupled with steps towards the adjustment and improvement of the world economic structure.
There is no doubt that the United Nations system has been instrumental in providing economic and technical assistance to the developing countries. However, basic problems, starting with hunger and poverty in the world and extending to the debt problem of the developing countries, have remained with us.
Many global issues and regional questions on the agenda of this session have been with us from preceding years, some in fact since the inception of the Organization. As we commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the new beginning made in San Francisco, persistent armed conflicts, confrontation and acts of violence continue to dominate the international scene.
My Government is committed to support every realistic effort aimed at improving the international climate and promoting just and equitable solutions to existing problems through peaceful means. My Government's basic approach to all international, regional and bilateral issues is guided by the overriding importance we place on dialog and negotiations. Our geographic location and our experiences constantly enhance our awareness of the fundamental need for both regional and international peace and security. These are the main pillars of the Turkish foreign policy laid down more than 60 years ago by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic.
Improvement of East-West relations is the key to progress in vital questions related to the future and indeed to the very survival of humanity. The search for detente through constructive dialog and broad co-operation, as well as the strengthening of peace by establishing a stable military balance at the lowest possible level of forces through arms control and disarmament, are the basic goals to which we reaffirm our commitment in this context.
We have welcomed the negotiations in Geneva between the United States and the Soviet Union on their strategic and intermediate-range nuclear weapons and defense and space systems. These negotiations, intended to work out effective agreements between the two countries, enjoy the support of all nations. Moderation and restraint in the general context of international relations would facilitate the search for agreement in all three areas of negotiation.
Lack of confidence has stood out- for too long as the most salient feature of the international scene and has cast uncertainty on the future by increasing tensions and risks of confrontation. The approaching summit meeting between the United States and the Soviet Union rekindled expectations for future efforts gradually to reverse this trend. We hope eventual progress towards a better understanding between the two countries will help pave the way for tangible results in other related areas.
Confidence building on a wider scale .constitutes an important prerequisite for the success of disarmament initiatives. Progress on all aspects of arras control and disarmament through balanced and verifiable agreements continue to be our basic aim in this field Negotiations have been under way for verifiable reductions in conventional forces in Europe, as well as verifiable confidence-building measures covering the whole of Europe which have yet to produce militarily significant and politically binding agreements. In a world-wide context, a comprehensive and verifiable ban on chemical weapons is the imminent task in the face of the proliferation and use of such weapons.
International co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion is one of the basic purposes of the United Nations. Human rights, as highlighted by the Charter, embody the concept of non-discrimination and are directly related to the concepts of international peace, security and justice. Gross and persistent violations, such as the system of apartheid, are bound to provoke the reaction of the international community and lead to tensions that endanger peace and stability. Racism and racial discrimination should be eradicated in all their forms. The grave situation and the social and political unrest in South Africa arising from the policy of apartheid have continued to place a heavy burden on both the human conscience and international relations.
Turkey has never established political or economic ties with the racist regime of Pretoria and on every occasion has raised its voice against the inhuman and degrading policy of the Government of South Africa against the black majority. We sincerely hope that all citizens of South Africa will soon enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Besides the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, 1985 also marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. In spite of the great contribution of the United Nations to the process of decolonization throughout these years, we are still faced with situations where colonization and oppression persist.
World public opinion has this year focused more than ever its attention on developments in southern Africa and has persistently called on South Africa, both within and outside the united Nations, to alter radically its policies with regard to Namibia. The United Nations has a direct legal responsibility for the achievement of Namibian independence, through the exercise of the right to self-determination by the people of Namibia in accordance with the unanimously adopted resolution of the Security Council.
It is clear then that unilateral action by South Africa in Namibia constitutes a direct affront to the expectations of world public opinion. . Neither the humanitarian dimension of the problem, nor the continued use of Namibian territory as an outpost for military operations can be overlooked or tolerated.
As a founding member of the United Nations Council for Namibia, we shall continue to give support to the legitimate and just struggle of the people of Namibia, as well as the efforts of the Secretary-General for the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions on Namibian independence.
Another area which requires better awareness and firm international co-operation is the question of terrorism in all its aspects. We hold the view that international terrorism is a direct threat to human rights. Since the right to life is the most elementary and obvious of all human rights, it should be more effectively protected against this menace. The formulation of measures and the promotion of effective international co-operation to prevent, combat and punish all acts of international terrorism have become an urgent task, when one remembers the linkages which have been identified and exposed between the illicit traffic in narcotic drugs, arms smuggling, and international terrorism, there can be no hesitation on the need to fight this very real danger against humanity and international life.
I regret to say that since the last General Assembly new mass violations of human rights have been added to those already existing. In some cases national minorities, safeguarded by international agreements, are being deprived of their basic rights. Widespread oppression includes such methods as the forcible change of names and identities, interference with religious practices, proscription against cultural and ethnic preservation and injunction against emigration. No distorted historical argument may justify such flagrant violations of human rights. We hope that the international community will find ways to remedy this intolerable situation that contradicts all basic standards of contemporary societies.
The tragic situation in the Middle East, which constitutes a serious threat to world peace, requires our utmost attention. We believe that a lasting solution cannot be found unless the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people are recognized. The common approach reached between Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) may provide an opportunity for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. We should like to hope that all the parties directly concerned will not fail to seize the opportunities this initiative has created, with reciprocal goodwill and political vision.
We are aware, however, that peace in the Middle East is indivisible and that a just and lasting comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, one that must satisfy the legitimate rights and concerns of all the parties involved, will continue to elude us until Israel withdraws from Arab territories under its occupation since 1967, including Jerusalem.
It is most unfortunate that Israel, instead of adopting a conciliatory attitude that would contribute to enhancing chances for a negotiated settlement, continues to aggravate the situation further. The recent act of aggression by against the sovereignty of a peace-loving country, Tunisia, should also be condemned as a flagrant violation of international law and the basic principles of the Charter.
Throughout the year, we have followed with growing concern and much anguish the developments that have tragically obscured hopes for the restoration of calm and order in Lebanon. We have always regarded the preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon as an essential element for the stability of the region. In this context, Lebanon needs and deserves support from all of us in its quest foe addressing effectively the threatening chaos that has regrettably been prevailing on its soil. We should, therefore, like to call on Israel promptly to withdraw those elements of its forces that are still in southern Lebanon. Any undue delay in the removal of the obstacles preventing Lebanon from recovering its territorial integrity and achieving national reconciliation, free from any outside interference, would entail further human suffering and would hamper diplomatic efforts for peace in the Middle East as a whole.
Turkey is deeply distressed by the prolongation and escalation of the war between Iran and Iraq, which endangers the stability and security of the region. Being the only neighbor of both Iran and Iraq, and having deep-rooted relations of friendship with them, we are exerting efforts to help bring the devastating war to an early end. We deeply regret the human suffering and material losses of the two nations. We also regret that the efforts made by the Secretary-General of our Organization, as well as by other eminent individuals, have not thus far produced solid results.
Turkey is also trying to make its contribution to those efforts both at a bilateral level and within the framework of the Peace Committee of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. We are maintaining our dialog with the two parties and we continue to be available for any assistance we can give them. We regret that common ground has not yet been found between the two sides which might provide a basis for a mutually agreeable, lasting and honorable peace. Meanwhile Turkey has contributed, through the Turkish Red Crescent, to the exchange of prisoners-of-war between the two countries, which may to some extent alleviate the immense human suffering in this war.
The situation in Afghanistan continues to be a major source of concern which adversely affects the international climate. We respect and admire the resolve of the Afghan people freely to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination, secure the withdrawal of foreign military forces from Afghanistan and ensure the voluntary return of Afghan refugees to their country. In this connection, we should also like to reiterate our appreciation to the Government of Pakistan for its sincere and constructive attitude vis-i-vis the efforts of the Secretary-General, as well as for its continued humanitarian assistance to millions of Afghan refugees. Meanwhile, repeated violations of Pakistan's air space and territory are a matter of particular concern.
No less important is the situation in Kampuchea. The policy of seeking a military solution in Kampuchea which destabilizes South-East Asia and entails grave human suffering should be abandoned. A comprehensive political settlement requires the withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea and the exercise of the right of the Kampuchean people to determine their own destiny. In this respect, we continue to support the efforts of the member countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which have consistently worked for a political settlement.
I should also like to stress the significance we attach to the continuing search for effective dialog in the Korean peninsula in order to develop peaceful solutions to all the questions between the two sides and thus pave the way to their representation in our universal Organization. To emphasize the humanitarian aspect of the existing problems would be most effective way to create the favorable climate necessary for meaningful progress. Therefore we welcome the recent efforts designed to diminish inter-Korean tensions.
Central America remains under the influence of regional tensions and armed conflicts despite the efforts of the Contadora Group. Strained political relations, combined with persistent economic and social problems, adversely affect the search for peace and stability in the region. The climate of confrontation, extending beyond the area, has made an unfavorable impact on international relations. We hope the process initiated by the Contadora Group will maintain its momentum and will continue to enjoy the genuine political support of all the interested parties.
Consistent with our basic approach of settling international disputes through negotiations, we support the good offices mission of the United Nations Secretary-General on the question of Cyprus. We regret, however, that a historic opportunity was missed at the summit meeting of 17 January 1985 because of the intransigence of the Greek Cypriot side. It should also be underlined that a serious obstacle to the solution of the Cyprus problem is the basic attitude of Greece, which rejects the agreed premises on which the talks between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots are proceeding.
In respect of the trends and prospects of the world economy, the overall results of the last few years require a comprehensive reassessment. The world economy is expanding after the longest and most serious recession since the end of the Second World War. However, this expansion is limited in scope and magnitude. Indeed it shows wide disparities from country to country. While growth has been quite rapid in some economies, it has been weak or negligible in others. In this context, the situation in many of the developing countries calls for immediate attention, as they are still facing acute economic problems which seriously hinder their prospects for the future. The current international economic situation also remains at risk, particularly because of unresolved questions related to structural adjustment, international trade, money and finance.
Most of the developing countries have been forced to cut their imports drastically because of the insufficient inflow of foreign currency. This situation may lead them into further impoverishment with serious social, humanitarian and political consequences.
Among developing countries, those who manage to increase their productivity and export capabilities are facing severe trade barriers and import restrictions from the industrialized countries. This situation leads in most cases to difficulties in debt servicing, and further cuts in imports and investments.
This makes all the more urgent the need for a new impetus to the North-South dialog, one of the most important tasks facing the international community. So far the efforts aimed at the establishment of a new international economic order have not lived up to our expectations. All countries have an important role to play in this regard. The efforts of the developing nations are not enough by themselves to produce the desired results. The recent experience of some developing countries which have implemented tight adjustment measures shows us that these efforts are bound to be insufficient if the conditions in the external environment continue to exert a negative influence.
In this connection, my country's experience may have some relevance. The success of the steps which we have taken since 1980, and their increasing momentum during the last two years, have been the result of our determination in implementing an effective adjustment program. However, the protectionist policies followed by the industrialized countries create major obstacles which frustrate our efforts.
Indeed, it is of particular importance to reverse the growing protectionist tendencies. Unless the developed countries clearly demonstrate a determination to take the lead in a process directed towards the relaxation and dismantling of restrictive trade measures, the developing countries will continue to face grave difficulties in successfully carrying out export-oriented growth strategies. On the other hand, it is also in the interest of developed countries to stop protectionist practices, since such practices have a restrictive impact on the overall level of their economic activities and divert them to lower productivity areas.
In the monetary and financial fields, appropriate national budgetary and monetary policies are necessary but not enough. International efforts are also required to find a solution to the debt problem and to improve conditions for increasing financial flows to developing countries.
We must also not overlook the human dimension of economic development. The round table discussion organized last month in Istanbul under the joint sponsorship of the United Nations Development Program and the North-South round table provided an opportunity for an overall assessment of this important subject.
As indicated in its concluding Istanbul Statement:
"recent national and international pressures lead to serious neglect of the human dimension in development. Unless remedied, this neglect will distort . and handicap the future development of at least a generation to come." The situation the world faces is not an optimistic one. Yet we believe that with common determination we can work out a more peaceful and prosperous future and we may overcome many difficulties confronting us.
We should all try to replace confrontation with conciliation and understanding, tension with dialog, restrictive economic measures with a global and more responsible approach to the economic problems of the world. We cannot let poverty and hunger prevail. The collective wisdom of the international community should not permit those problems to fester. We owe it not only to this generation but also to the generations to come.


Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to express to you and my personal congratulations and happiness, and those of my delegation, on your assumption of this office which represents the culmination of a long and brilliant diplomatic career which began almost at the time when this Organization was born. The considerable personal experience and wisdom which you have gained at the service of the United Nations for almost a quarter of a century, in various distinguished capacities, in particular the presidency of the Security Council, will be of special value during this anniversary session, which will be a time for self-examination, renewal and invigoration.
I would also like to perform another agreeable duty in thanking your predecessor, Mr. Paul John Firmino Lusaka, Permanent Representative of Zambia, for his distinguished, firm and efficient conduct of the deliberations of the General Assembly during its thirty-ninth session. He did honor not only to his country but also to the whole of Africa, and by his display of wisdom and remarkable diplomatic skills has further enhanced Africa's stature in our Organization.
Our appreciation also goes to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his fourth report (A/40/1) on the work of the Organization in which he has once more demonstrated his unceasing and almost obstinate determination to revitalize the United Nations and give it the role that its founding fathers had envisioned. In thanking him, we would like to assure him of our full co-operation in the discharge of his mandate.
To the people of Mexico, we express our deepest sympathy for the recent tragedy which has befallen them.
This year also marks the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the end of the Second World War. More than 60 per cent of the world population living today was born after that war. Many of them have grown up in a period of relative calm, free at least from the nightmare which their parents had to live through. They do not bear any responsibility for the horrors of the war and no burden of guilt can or should be laid on them. They have, in many.instances, shown a commendable desire to correct the injustices of the past and their efforts have contributed in a large measure to heal the deep wounds of the years of unbridled cruelty, violence and carnage.
There are, therefore, powerful arguments for putting the past behind us and forging ahead to meet today's challenges and those which lie ahead in the future. It does not mean, however, that we should either try to wish the past away or attempt to obliterate it. This is neither possible nor desirable.
Besides, as we look at developments since the end of the war we are sadly forced to admit that there are few grounds for satisfaction and that there are many grounds for apprehension. Over the years, others before me in this forum have been pointing out the dangers of the world divided against itself in which we art forced to live. The dialog necessary for continued peaceful coexistence, which has become the essential condition for our survival, seems to have been sadly lacking in understanding and generosity, not to say in sincerity. In place of the peaceful competition which we all profess to desire, the end of the war witnessed a scramble to carve up and establish spheres of influence, which has transformed the whole world into a potential battleground.
It has been pointed out that a world in which overt or covert attempts are repeatedly made to destabilize or overthrow lawfully established Governments because their system is not to one's liking cannot for long remain a safe world. The history of such attempts since 1945 in violation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter has been richly documented. On the other hand, it is becoming customary to hear the argument of national security and vital national interests advanced for the practice of shoring up unpopular client regimes, as if the peace and security of any country could ever be served by the use of brutal force against the legitimate aspirations of peoples.
Our predecessors who drafted the Charter of this Organization sought to establish peace on a more legitimate premise: by asking the international community to renounce the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State. We are painfully aware of the many violations of this sols ran undertaking to which all the Members of this Organization have subscribed. The international community has been forced to watch from the sidelines with growing helplessness as military aggressions and invasions become more and more brazen and as defenseless countries come under hostile foreign occupation. It has been powerless in the face of the shameless and unprovoked use of force to achieve so-called national security objectives. It has remained a passive, if indignant, witness as millions of people have been converted into foreigners in their own lands, denied the basic rights of citizenship, while others were being chased out and forced into permanent exile. The international community has been given the responsibility, but denied the means to act effectively to avert the outbreak of hostilities and to check them after they have started.
It is becoming commonplace to hear the argument that at least relative peace has been preserved for a period of 40 years. The argument, I am afraid, is based on ostrich-like reasoning. It does not take into account the scores of wars fought over the past 40 years and the wars which are still being fought in many parts of the world. The fact that the territories o£ some countries, former battlefields, have mercifully been spared the horrors of war can hardly justify the assertion that the world has enjoyed 40 years of uninterrupted peace. There are, no doubt, those who believe that wars fought outside their own national territories are somehow not real and therefore are acceptable. There are also those who believe that wars are inevitable but that, like games, they can be controlled or limited. From their perspective, it would be desirable and possible to confine any actual fighting to certain areas, to limit its scope. In many regions the rivalry between the super-Powers has created a context in which client armies, nourished on alien ideologies in the absence of other fare, face each other across hostile national boundaries. Less than 50 years ago many allowed themselves to be lulled into a false sense of security by the promise of peace with honor, it is now clear that the promise in fact meant throwing those perceived as weak to the wolves, in the selfish hope that their appetite would thereby be satiated. The development of the perception that conflicts can be managed or limited to certain areas deemed expendable is an extremely dangerous one.
The risk that one of the so-called regional or local conflicts might erupt into a general and total war haunts the world today as never before since 1945. In many regions situations of conflict have become the norm, peace the exception. The areas of peace continue to shrink, those of war to expand. The reaction in most cases, despite the obvious dangers involved, has been strangely muted and totally inadequate, when not amounting to indifference.
A million dead are the price of six years of war between Iran and Iraq, a war which continues with no end in sight. The consequences in terms of human and material losses are appalling. The dangers to the international community are well known. It is also sadly significant that the flow of weapons to both countries has continued uninterrupted throughout and that the number of suppliers has increased fourfold over the period. To the representative of a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, it is particularly disturbing that two developing countries should be at war with each other. There is a tragic irony in the situation, compounded by the fact that many of the weapons used by the belligerents are identical, manufactured in the same countries and provided by the same suppliers on the sidelines, to whom the war is nothing more than a god-sent occasion for business as usual. It is an additional ground for concern that both super-Powers are now observing a watchful neutrality, and many other states believe they have a right to feel vitally concerned in the area. If past experience is anything to go by, the involvement and the rivalry that is sure to follow will be far from constructive for either of the belligerents, or for the world community.
It is claimed that the conflict between Iraq and Iran, like many others today equally fraught with potentially global consequences, has roots deep in the past. It is true that the past cannot be ignored. It is, however, equally true that it is easy to rationalize current crimes and aberrations in terms of what we have inherited. In other times that we like to pretend were more barbarous than ours, countless numbers of people have been put to death on political, religious or ideological grounds. It is certain, though, that the majority of them were the victims of intolerance, the most corrosive of all feelings throughout the ages.
The same spirit is at work today in the eruption of ethnic and communal violence, of fanaticism, in the erection of racism in a system of organized repression, and in the bitter conflict of rival ideologies. It has within the last 15 years led to the occupation, then dismemberment, of the independent State of Cyprus. In Afghanistan it has pitted brother against brother in a bloody struggle fanned from outside. And in Kampuchea it threatens the total annihilation of a once proud civilization. Dialog without outside pressure and intervention can be positive and should be encouraged, like the direct contact between North and South Korea which should continue. We call upon both North and South Korea to continue peaceful negotiations towards reunification.
Deep-rooted prejudices, the will for total power and the confrontation of ideologies acting singly or as a combination of factors hinder the prospects of a negotiated settlement for each of these countries. In none, however, can a militarily imposed outcome provide the foundation for a lasting peace. We will take the risk of flying against the kind of conventional wisdom that declares war to be an extension of diplomacy, and suggest that the use of force is in most cases nothing more than part of the problem and not a means to a solution. We reiterate our conviction that a viable and durable peace in each of these situations must be a negotiated one, acceptable in the first place to the people most deeply concerned and affected.
In the light of the declarations of all involved that their aim is peace and stability, it would seem that the objectives should be readily attainable. It is, however, with deep misgivings that we are forced to recognize the wide gap between professed objectives and the realities of the brutal policies pursued. It is well known that long-established perceptions and policies deriving therefrom, however dangerous they might be to the world, do not and sadly cannot be expected to change overnight. It cannot be too strongly stressed, however, that what is needed in these circumstances is nothing less than a change of heart leading to the recognition that relative security for all is preferable to the chaos which hegemonic ambitions are certain to produce.
The will for hegemony in the 1930s expressed in the demand for living space inexorably culminated in war. It is known that those who were then actively -preparing for war claimed to be acting on so-called principles which they described as sacred. It is a matter of deep concern that, in some quarters, arguments which are dangerously close to those then advanced are new invoked to justify what threatens to develop into yet another State-organized genocide to disgrace our century.
The brutal repression of the peoples of southern Africa has been regularly and unanimously condemned by the international community. Yet outside this Assembly powerful voices have not been lacking to be raised in defense, if not of apartheid precisely, at least of the regime that perpetuates the policy. It is perhaps indicative of the times in which we live that people have been found who believe that South Africa is a democracy, a bastion of civilization defending the values of the free world. Others have been proclaiming that change is just around the corner and that what we need is patience, more patience and still more patience.
In another difficult period people tried to come to terms with the excesses of a brutal regime based on racism or subsequently claimed that they had been frightened into silence. Either way their silence, and therefore tacit complicity then, will forever remain as a stain against our humanity. It was with the objective of preventing the kind of racism that made the holocaust of the war possible that it was found necessary, in the words of the Charter:
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small".
The regime in South Africa has deliberately established itself on a denial of the principles of the Charter, thus choosing to place itself beyond the pale of civilization. To underline its choice it has arrogated to itself the right to encourage and assist destablilization in the surrounding territories. To emphasize its contempt for accepted norms of international behavior., it has engaged in a lengthy series of military incursions, raids and aggressions against its neighbors. It continues it illegal occupation of Namibia in defiance of the stated will of the international community and has effectively sabotaged patient efforts at negotiations by linking the question to completely extraneous issues.
We must reluctantly confess to a mounting sense of despair when confronted with the attempts at sophistry to excuse and rationalize a situation that is not merely unreasonable, but clearly illegal, inequitable and immoral. Because time is fast running out we appeal to the friends of the peoples of South Africa, to the friends of all the peoples of South Africa, to assist in averting the chaos in active gestation there. We believe that it is within their power to do so. South Africa with its 30 million people needs neither the inequities of apartheid nor the terroristic suppression of its neighbours to emerge as a prosperous country with a respected place in the comity of nations.
It is our considered view that the release of Nelson Mandela and other political prisoners will go a long way towards decreasing tension in South Africa and paving the way towards progress in a process of peaceful change. Mauritius, if called upon, will very gladly assist in the search for a peaceful solution and will offer its good offices. Further, Mauritius is ready and willing, if called upon, to be the venue for talks and positive discussions between the South African authorities and the genuine representatives of the majority of the South African population.
The enormous price in blood paid by our ancestors throughout history should at least teach us that progress towards peace and understanding has never been obtained by attempts to impose by force our own often narrow perceptions of truth on others. In today's politically and militarily polarized world, delusions about so-called chosen peoples or manifest destinies and the policies they generate can lead to consequences too frightening to contemplate. For the same reason it would be equally dangerous to attempt to impose our own exclusive security concerns on others. It is worse still when national security becomes the pretext for wars of aggression, illegal occupations, expropriations and annexations of territories, the denial of fundamental and basic rights to peoples and the dismemberment of entire nations.
We are confronted in the Middle East and increasingly in Central America with a choice that on the face of it seems simple: either to become partners in peace and to start by developing the will thereto now, or to continue to live with the same dreary uncertainties that have plagued us for too long. The peoples in the Middle East would have every reason to feel that their situation has become still worse than it was when this Organization was first seized of the question.
Tragically for the people concerned, the situation in Central America seems to be developing in the same direction of a protracted confrontation, with accelerated militarization, increasing armed attacks, hostile trading of allegations, escalating rhetoric and involvement of a growing number of foreign "advisers", ominously in the context of the rivalry between the super-Powers. The peace process initiated by the Contadora Group which has received unanimous approval seems to have been completely relegated to the background. Similarly, the conditions for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East have been repeatedly stated in and endorsed by this Assembly.
The crucial question is whether it will be possible to summon the imagination and the generosity to recognize that persistence in preconceived ideas and fixed certainties, far from being indicative of strength, is an admission of fear and weakness. Twice in global wars in this century we have witnessed the degradation of the human spirit which war brings with it. Successive generations have - if I may be allowed to put it in this way - fathomed the abyss of their collective soul to find the sombre demons lurking there. But it has rightly been said that the power to choose between good and evil is within us all, and we have also been a witness to the nobility of that same human spirit in its often demonstrated capacity to transcend current differences to visualize a better future for the world.
It is certainly not an accident that the people most revered by posterity are those who, instead of the arrogance of power, chose the humility of compassion in their search for solutions to the problems which confronted them. To them it was a self-evident truth, which it seems necessary to restate, that those whom we consider our enemies are not necessarily the demons we sometimes choose to paint them; but, like us, simply men, women and children - similar to us no doubt in their weaknesses but also in their aspirations, dreams and ideals, both for themselves and their children. The interdependence of humanity and the brotherhood of mankind are often proclaimed but, to our great misfortune, rarely lived up to. Today, however, we are in such a situation that we cannot afford to fail in our realization of this essential truth.
It has been said that people who do not understand the past are condemned to relive it. The parallels between the current world situation and that preceding the outbreak of the Second World War are too striking to be overlooked. It is not within anyone's power to undo the past, but we do have the power to use its lessons as guidelines to establish a course for an acceptable future for our children. In the process of doing so we have to face and answer the question whether we can find in ourselves the resources to overcome and reverse the obstacles to peace, or whether, lemming like, we are condemned to the same catastrophic path down the precipice followed in the past. The dangers in the trend today are readily identifiable, but as in the past, like people caught in some terrible recurrent nightmare, we seem deprived of our faculty to act to avert them.
Some of the best minds of the inter war period proclaimed their conviction that qualitative and quantitative improvements in arms could not create a safer world. Nevertheless, against sense and reason, policies continued to be based on the assumption that security could be made to rest on the accumulation of ever more destructive arsenals. In the run up to 1939 the commitment to internationalism was first insidiously undermined, then destroyed - its demise consummated by the cynical suppression of the independence of the oldest State in Africa. The reaction of the international community to an escalating series of other acts of
State terrorism perpetrated in violation of international law, solemn commitments and obligations is strongly reminiscent of the abdication today in the face of the same kind of transgressions. In the same period, under the delusion that they could thereby avoid the worst, a number of countries scrambled to a hastily patched system of adversary military alliances and security arrangements, even as the armies backed by their lethal weapons were unleashed upon the world.
Except for the fact that the armies of the rival blocs are mostly still confined to their quarters, the description could apply to the 1980s as to the 1930s. Millions of men throughout the world are working overtime to plan, devise and churn out the weapons of destruction to be used in the next, and what could turn out to be the last, war ever fought by human beings. It is an aberration that in a world where the majority suffer from chronic want and hunger military expenditure for 1984 is reported to have exceeded $1,000 billion. The passivity in the face of the growing "weapons culture" raises the question whether the world is not already on an irreversible collision course. It seems, however, that we have not yet seen the worst, as the major super Powers commit themselves to large increases in military spending with a strong reliance on improved technology and a strong emphasis on modernization and expansion.
The world-wide increase in arms production is matched by corresponding efforts to expand arms exports, marked by intense competition among a growing number of suppliers to provide ever more sophisticated weapons systems to willing clients. It is a devastating comment on the priorities which the world seems to have set itself when a decline in the flow of arms can be viewed and described as a "world-wide crisis". In some countries the dangerous perception that the sale of arms is beneficial, because it is thought to ensure economic gains and stability, is gaining ground. In an equally disturbing development many other countries, the main targets of arms transfer agreements, base their policies on the belief that the acquisition of weapons can guarantee security. In addition, both super-Powers, which are also the major suppliers, use arms transfers as a key element to attain their respective and adversary foreign policy objectives. It is therefore bitterly disappointing, but hardly surprising, that sustained international efforts to limit the global arms trade should have been thwarted.
The consequence is that today the world finds itself dangerously close to the brink. The threat to the human race is increased by massive investments to build or expand stocks of chemical weapons and to modernize and improve chemical warfare capabilities. It is also ominous that support within military establishments for biological research has increased significantly, raising the terrifying specter that in the eventuality of hostilities highly lethal diseases might be unleashed upon a world without any means to cope with the ensuing chaos. The regime of international law forbidding the use of chemical weapons has been shaken by allegations of violations, while the likelihood of an international chemical weapons ban has been declared not to be a real possibility in the foreseeable future. The conventional and chemical weapons in the arsenals of the world are by themselves sufficient to put meaningful human life as we know it today at risk, "the nuclear arsenals threaten to destroy millions of years of painful progress and to wipe away life itself from the face of the earth. We invite the leaders who hold the key to the future in their hands to meditate on the reflection which the first atomic test inspired in one of its witnesses. It reminded him, he said, of a line from the Hindu Scripture, the Gita: "I am become Death, the Shatterer of Worlds". These words have assumed a prophetic and sinister ring in the light of the destabilizing developments in nuclear weapons technology and new theories regarding their role in security policies.
The leaders of both super-Powers have agreed that a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore must not be fought. The logical conclusion, it seems, is that as a first step any kind of nuclear proliferation should be curbed and technological developments checked. It is profoundly disturbing to find instead that the world is confronted with massive programs to improve nuclear weapons and to extend their deployment. The international community is being held hostage to the view that parity - which is admitted to be militarily meaningless - must be maintained; that perceived imbalances must be corrected; and that technological improvements and an extension of deployment are necessary to demonstrate will.
Remembering the victims of the first use of atomic weapons in war, peoples throughout the world have united in prayer that such weapons should never be used
again. There are, nevertheless, policies based on the assumption that nuclear weapons could be limited to selective employment in battle areas and damage limited. There are, therefore, powerful groups which believe that the nuclear threshold could be crossed and its consequences controlled. The nuclear-arms race also finds powerful abettors in those who profess to believe that nuclear superiority confers political advantages. Within certain circles, the insane perception is developing that a nuclear war can he fought and won. It is inadmissible that they should be allowed to inflict the possible consequences of their obsessions and paranoias on the world. The existing state of confrontation encourages the formulation and development of tendentious ideas. The division of the world into rival blocs is the most urgent menace to peace today. The tensions between the super-Powers and bloc rivalries threaten us with the terrifying prospect that the third world war might be unleashed anywhere at any time.
We are aware that mere exhortations and expressions of hope will not do away with the deep political and historical differences behind the current conflicts. In the light of the perceived economic, security and political incentives, the production and transfer of arms may be expected to continue unabated. So long as notions of a so-called nuclear balance or equal security are allowed to dictate policies the world will be confronted with a qualitative arms race to achieve
military superiority. The militarization of outer space threatens to become an irreversible reality. The testing and accumulation of nuclear weapons will keep increasing - both vertically and horizontally - so long as current views on strategy and national security prevail. International peace will continue to be made to rest on the threat of mutual assured destruction.
More than 30 years ago, Albert Einstein warned us that the unleashed power of the atom had changed everything except our modes of thinking. The doctrine of deterrence at the center of current nuclear policies is based on a principle as old as the human race. The history of humanity is hardly proof of the validity of the principle. In the present circumstances, it does not offer any safeguard against errors or accidents, whether human or mechanical, or against some manic miscalculation. Besides, the professed rationale for the nuclear build-up is distrust of those perceived as "the other side". Yet proponents of the nuclear deterrent have to trust the "other side" not to use nuclear weapons. Such an expectation is unrealistic, and cannot be accepted as the basis for a durable peace. The call for new ways of thinking to overcome the current deadlock has been reiterated on several occasions. The community of nations is unanimous that there is an overwhelming common interest in establishing and preserving peace. Gathered in this Assembly, it has agreed on the objectives and principles of disarmament. The leaders of both super-Powers have stated that friendly competition must replace confrontation as the basis of super-Power relations. If the statements were meant seriously, then both super-Powers must be prepared to re-examine the implications of prevailing doctrines and policies on the use of force in international relations. It also follows that they must be willing to reconcile conflicting views on the substantive measures needed to increase confidence, ease tensions, strengthen security and establish co-operation. It might then become possible to establish peace on a commitment to joint survival rather than on a threat of mutual assured destruction. We believe that the resumption of negotiations and the forthcoming meeting between the leaders of the super-Powers represent opportunities which must not be missed. We can say without fear of exaggeration that these discussions hold the potential of determining the future course of our civilization. The right decisions would also pave the way for a fresh approach to the problems of development.
It has been recognized that in a world of finite resources, there is an organic relationship between expenditures on armaments and economic and social development. The second United Nations special session on disarmament concluded that:
"The vastly increased military budgets... and the development, production and deployment... of new types of weapons systems represent a huge and growing diversion of human and material resources... Existing and planned military programs constitute a colossal waste of precious resources which might otherwise be used to elevate living standards of all peoples; furthermore, such waste greatly compounds the problems confronting developing countries in achieving economic and social development." (A/S-12/32, para. 61) The economic situation in most countries, however, even without the constraints of military expenditures would have been grim enough. The current tragedy in many African countries underlines the case for new initiatives to resolve the most pressing problems confronting the world economy. It would be wrong to interpret the call for new initiatives merely as a plea for the transfer of resources. For the South to benefit, it is not necessary that the North should lose. The North-South debate on economic co-operation is increasingly being cast in the same vein as the political and military relationship between the East and the West. The language used and policy choices made are often confrontational. We want to stress the view that the rhetoric and policies notwithstanding the reality is one of inescapable interdependence.
This is clearly Illustrated both in the causes and consequences of the 1980-1982 recession, the longest in 50 years. Despite some recovery in the industrial countries the effects of the recession are still being keenly felt in most developing countries as we move towards 1986. International economic relationships continue to be threatened by the disorder in currency and capital markets. Recovery is hampered by the unmanageable debt situation and high interest rates. Growth and expansion are crippled by stagnation in funding, the drying up of international financial flows and restrictions on international trade. In the light of reduced demand in traditional markets, commodity prices remain very low. In most third-world countries, development in the 1980s has come to a halt, where it has not actually gone into reverse. The forced contraction in the developing countries in turn reduces the exports of the industrial countries, weakening the pace of their recovery.
There is substantial agreement on what is wrong with the international monetary and financial system and with current trade policies. It is recognized that unless policy induced efforts are made to remove the constraints on the expansion in the world economy, the prospects for the future will remain uncertain. The measures taken in relation to the debt crisis may have bought time and staved off collapse, but no long-term solution to the underlying problems has been developed. The so-called adjustments imposed as a condition for the provision of bridging finance and for debt rescheduling have, in many developing countries, resulted in severe contraction, involving excessive social and human costs, with adverse effects on nutrition, health and education. The combined effects of contraction in several developing countries may also cause damage to future development prospects and prove prejudicial to global recovery. Genuine adjustment should aim instead at expanding the production and exports of debtor countries with a corresponding expansion in the imports of surplus countries.
Recent experience in many developing countries has also demonstrated that prevailing interest rates negate improvements in trade balances achieved as a result of reduced expenditure. There is therefore an urgent need to reduce real interest rates, currently the highest in recorded history. Lower rates, however, are unlikely in the light of the fiscal and monetary policies pursued in the major countries, more specifically, in the United States. To the extent that high interest rates are the consequences of the mix of an expansionary fiscal policy and a restrictive monetary policy, decisions on the structural budget deficit in the United States will have a critical influence on the level of interest rates and in determining whether the debt situation can be managed.
In addition to policy choices in the United States, there is a pressing need for a comprehensive rescheduling arrangement for debts. The temporary measures of the last few years are inadequate to meet a problem that will be with us until ways are found to consolidate much of the present debts on a long-term basis. The proposals that have been made to that end deserve to be examined and discussed in a spirit of co-operation and understanding. Any arrangement arrived at must take into consideration the effect of the high interest rates on all debtor countries, the consequences of adverse external shocks on the poorest countries and the situation in the least developed countries.
Beyond the sterile debate on responsibilities for the present debt situation, a sustained recovery would also require the creation of conditions for the restoration of commercial lending to the debtor countries at appropriate levels. The absence of progress on this issue not only undercuts growth prospects in the developing countries but also jeopardizes the recovery in the industrial countries. The same powerful argument requires the international community to address itself to the problems created by the growth of protectionist pressures and the proliferation of trade restraints. For many in the industrial North, protection - in the shape of tariffs, quotas, safeguard clauses and other more covert forms, including subsidies - has become a means to prevent change by preserving outmoded industries. It not only threatens to condemn a large number of countries to permanent economic underdevelopment, but also damages the industrial countries themselves. Access to industrial markets is essential for many developing countries to improve their trade balance, service their debts and resume growth. The revival of exports to the third world is important to sustain the recovery in the industrial countries. There is therefore a strong case for global negotiations with the objective of increasing market access for the exports of developing countries.
Even on the assumption of a favorable solution to the current disorder in international economic relationships, we would still be confronted with the problems of the poorest and least developed countries. The recession combined with other factors, both internal and external, has had a devastating effect on their populations. The economic and social situation in many places is undergoing a process of rapid degradation, threatening complete disintegration. The impact of the decline in commodity prices has been confounded by stagnation in official development assistance in the face of increasing needs. The retreat from multilateralism, manifest in reduced support to multilateral concessional flows, exposes the divisions in a world, which the logic of facts proclaims to be interdependent, without an increase in the volume of concessional flows and immediate improvements in the external environment, the very existence-of some countries as organized political, economic and social entities would be placed in jeopardy.
We concede that in many developing countries there is a strong case for restructured policies to take into account the strengths and limits of their assets and resources. In particular, the arguments in favor of human resource development are overwhelming and deserve immediate attention. It is vitally important to identify and address the internal and policy induced constraints on development. It is equally important to establish priorities in the light of the needs of peoples and the capacity of countries to satisfy those needs. It is vital to continue to explore and develop the potential for regional and subregional co-operation in trade and production. Above all, the North-South dialog - now muted - based on a common realization of mutual interests must go on. The only alternative is to allow the current realities to play themselves out through interacting tragedies of missed opportunities and unrealized potential both in the industrial North and the developing South.
It is often alleged that addresses in this Assembly convey an unduly pessimistic view of the world. We do not wear rose-tinted glasses and, therefore, can only call the realities as we see them. We lack the kind of imagination that perceives glories in the bloodshed and mutilations of wars. We find neither patriotism nor heroism in the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children, and of soldiers and civilians alike. Some of the best brains of our age have made it their business to perfect the weapons of mass destruction which threaten the human race with extinction. In a superb display of indifference to the aspirations of the international community, the super-Powers continue to advance their nuclear pawns in a dangerous game of brinkmanship. Their political and military rivalry, along with weapons transfers, have transformed extensive regions of the world into potential powder-kegs.
In a world in which military expenditures consume a reported $1,000 billion annually, the sum devoted to world wide development assistance does not exceed $38.8 billion. The world spends more on military expenditure today than it does on health and education combined. Every year 15 million children in the developing countries are allowed to die through famine and malnutrition. This appalling tragedy occurs in a world which has the resources to feed them. More than two thirds of the world population live in a twilight economic zone, dependent on decisions over which they have no control. Many of them are condemned to the attrition of their living standards, to unemployment, hunger and a wrenching adjustment process, which for them takes place at the margin between life and death.
Yet there is another way. The potential for it is in all of us as individuals and as nations. It has recently been demonstrated by individuals in the tremendous outburst of solidarity for the victims of drought and famine. It has also been demonstrated by Governments in a provision of assistance which transcends political and ideological barriers. In many cases of crisis, individuals and nations have displayed a capacity for sympathy and generosity which compels hope for the future. It is recognized that the current arms race represents not only an enormous waste of resources, but condemns us to live in fear of a possible nuclear holocaust. It is also recognized that the current disorders affecting international economic relationships create the kind of instability which might make a catastrophic war inevitable. The challenge that we face therefore is to harness the intelligence and imagination at our disposal in the struggle for a peaceful and prosperous world. We have the resources to that end. We need the commitment.