My first words are words of congratulation to you, Sir, on your unanimous election to the Presidency of the General Assembly. The delegation of Argentina is pleased to have supported the election of the Bureau. Let me assure you that we will co-operate with you in your efforts so that the forty-second session of the General Assembly may contribute to the solution of the problems facing mankind.
At the same time I wish to acknowledge the wisdom with which my distinguished colleague Mr. Humayun Rasheed Chowdhury fulfilled his duties.
I wish also to express our congratulations to Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed in his new duties as under-Secretary-General for Political and General Assembly Affairs. From this rostrum, we often warn about the serious crises that affect our planet and we call attention to the misunderstandings and conflicts that threaten the harmony of mankind.
I believe that in 1987 we must begin recognizing the progress towards peace that has taken place in the world. One fact suffices to explain my statement, which is also the reason for my hope - the recent historic understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union concerning the dismantling of short- and medium-range missiles in Europe. It is the first time since the development of nuclear weapons that an effective commitment to disarmament has been initiated. The fact that common sense has prevailed in the relationship between the major ' Powers is, I believe, the event of the greatest political importance to affect the planet in recent decades.
All members of the international community have an important role to play in this regard. Nuclear disarmament is undoubtedly a priority task, which cannot be delayed, with that conviction, the leaders of Greece, India, Mexico, Sweden, Tanzania and Argentina are actively pursuing the initiative for peace and disarmament known as the Group of Six, which since its inception has postulated the adoption of decisions that might halt and reverse the nuclear arms race.
In the multilateral sphere, we feel encouraged by the progress evidenced in the disarmament conference towards achieving a convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. We hope to see that convention materialize in the near future, on a non-discriminatory basis. There is thus evidence in the world of a greater willingness to have recourse to negotiation as the proper way of approaching the solution of conflicts. Such an attitude must obviously be encouraged by all means - among these, our Organization, the United Nations, provides an ideal framework for the development of negotiations and understandings, in that sense, my Government wishes to stress the tireless activity of our Secretary-General, whose efforts to make the United Nations the most valuable element for peace available to us are widely recognized and appreciated. His work is a source of legitimate pride for his country - so dear to us Argentines - and for our regional group, from which he was chosen.
In its participation in the Security Council Argentina is inspired by its desire to make a concrete and effective contribution to the strengthening of the United Nations. Through our votes, and our participation in general, in the Security Council we have in view the consolidation of the system set forth in the Charter, convinced as we are that small and medium-sized countries may contribute significantly to the maintenance of international peace and security.
In that light, we have considered various international conflicts, some of them, such as the war between Iran and Iraq and the questions of southern Africa and the Middle East, are obvious and exert daily pressure on the international conscience through their manifestations of destruction and death. Others, such as terrorism and drug trafficking, constitute a more subtle and less orthodox, but none the less dangerous, form of violence.
As regards the armed conflict between Iraq and Iran, we have achieved, with the agreement reached among the 15 members of the Security Council, which led to the adoption of resolution 598 (1987), an instrument that allows us to act, to mediate and to promote conditions would allow both countries to safeguard their vital interests, preserve their national honour and dignity, and, above all, regain peace. But we are seriously concerned by the events that have taken place since the adoption of Security Council resolution 598 (1987). That is why, in the view of the Argentine Government, immediate compliance with a cease-fire is necessary as the primary and indispensable condition for achieving the objectives set forth in resolution 598 (1987).
The main challenge is, indeed, to achieve peace, but it also seems appropriate to state that we face another challenge - that of demonstrating the effectiveness of our Organization and, in particular, of its Security Council. Accordingly, my Government believes that, without ever putting aside the exercise of political restraint, the Security Council should - if circumstances so require - intensify the search for machinery that might ensure the effective implementation of resolution 598 (1987).
Also among the many promising signs this year is the fact that the two Koreas are analysing proposals for reducing armaments and troops and are considering the possibility of signing a non-aggression pact. We must likewise call attention to the meeting of the German leaders as another element favouring the reduction of tension.
Among these encouraging events, the Latin American countries would, obviously, also wish to emphasize the development of the situation in Central America. It would be hard to enumerate all the meetings, contacts, proposals and negotiations carried out by the Foreign Ministers of the Contadora Group and the Support Group. Today, we can say that nothing seems to have been in vain, that no effort has been useless. But for that to be so, if peace again becomes possible it will undoubtedly be due to the political will of the five Central American countries whose Presidents, resolutely confronting the regional crisis, signed the Guatemala agreement on 7 August last with a view to working out fundamental solutions with regard to security, the consolidation of institutions, and social and economic development. The Argentine Government continues to be firmly committed to its support of a lasting peace in Central America and has given evidence of that will in a practical way through Its participation in the mechanism for the verification and follow-up of the Guatemala agreements drawn up at Caracas on 22 August.
There Is therefore cause for rejoicing that peace in Central America appears possible, but we must also be aware that although the progress achieved is substantial, the situation remains fragile. No political will, no diplomatic skill, can ensure peace without self-determination, non-interference, pluralistic democracy and economic development. And we are all well aware how difficult it is to bring about these conditions. It is therefore essential that the entire international community co-operate in order to create the basic conditions for peace in Central America. If we rejoice at peace, if we search for it and preach it, let us all share the responsibility for its attainment.
The situation In the Middle East continues to be unstable and dangerous. We consider it imperative to continue to explore all feasible formulas for obtaining a just, honourable and equitable peace. We are convinced that this will become possible only if the solution Includes recognition, at the same time, of the Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to live in their own territory - with the authorities and forms of government they freely choose - and the rights of all States of the region - obviously including Israel - to live within internationally recognized boundaries. In that context, the convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations, with the participation and approval of all parties, would represent a definite step forward.
With regard to the critical scene in the Middle East we continue to follow with particular concern the situation in Lebanon, and we feel it is necessary to step up efforts to ensure that Lebanon may recover its full territorial sovereignty and exercise its inalienable right to live free of all foreign interference.
The growing deterioration of the situation in southern Africa and the problems of that region have a common cause in South Africa's persistent refusal to abide by the decisions of the United Nations. The continuation of the apartheid regime constitutes one of the worst and most urgent of today's problems. Argentina reiterates its solidarity with the oppressed people of South Africa and its rejection of the Pretoria regime, whose inflexibility endangers international peace and security.
In addition, the Government of South Africa continues to occupy Illegally the Territory of Namibia. It is imperative that progress be made towards the self-determination and Independence of the Namibian people. To that end, the Organization must fully assume its direct responsibility over the Territory, adopting the measures necessary for that purpose. In this connection, as in the question of apartheid, my country supports the adoption of mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the Charter, since we view that as the most appropriate and effective means to establish justice and the principles of the Charter in southern Africa.
Tense situations between States are often aggravated by acts of international terrorism. The General Assembly has unanimously condemned such criminal acts. We undertake to lend our support to the search for measures that would enable us to make co-operation in this area even more effective.
Argentina also wishes to reaffirm in the General Assembly its support for the legitimate and just aspiration of the Republic of Bolivia to recover a direct outlet to the Pacific Ocean. We have followed with interest and attention the talks that took place at Montevideo and we hope that the spirit in which they were convened may be renewed in the search for a solution through negotiation and dialogue.
The identification of our foreign policy with the principles and purposes of the United Nations is concretely evidenced In those subjects in which we are directly involved. Thus, with regard to the question of the Malvinas Islands, the Argentine Government Is firmly committed to the search of a peaceful and lasting settlement of the sovereignty dispute and related problems that at present exist between my country and the United Kingdom. In this context we have accepted General Assembly resolution 41/40, which requests both Governments to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Malvinas, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It is worth recalling that that resolution received overwhelming support, which included close friends of the United Kingdom. That wide support confirms the genuine interest of the international community in finding a solution to the question of the Malvinas Islands.
Unfortunately, that feeling of the international community has not been shared by the British Government, which has repeatedly rejected the idea of global negotiations without exclusions that may allow us to resolve the dispute between the two countries. The Argentine Republic, while reaffirming its sovereign rights over the Malvinas, South George and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding sea, also repeats its permanent willingness for dialogue, its decision to respect the
interests and life-style of the inhabitants of the Malvinas, guaranteeing their well being and prosperity, and its firm commitment to peace. In that sense ray Government expresses its permanent willingness to find mechanisms that may ensure peace in that region without altering in any manner its titles and claims over the islands.
The Argentine Government expresses once more its gratitude for the mission of good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in accordance with General Assembly resolutions, in the question of the Malvinas. My Government appreciates his efforts and is convinced that the Organization has an important role to play in the process of settling the dispute over the Islands.
Turning to another area, my delegation is duty-bound to express its gratitude to the outstanding and noble task of the World Commission for the Environment, presided over by the Prime Minister of Norway. The relative reduction in world tension will enable us to devote greater efforts and resources to environmental conservation and to ensure a harmonious and sustained development. From that perspective, for example, the Malvinas region, which today is an area of tension, might, through appropriate solutions, become a region for co-operation and détente that would generate progress and development, with a priority concept of environmental conservation. Once the Argentine territorial claim has been answered, the South Atlantic might become a formidable experiment for co-operation and progress with an inestimable effect on the economies of the Malvinas and Patagonia.
Today Latin America is confronting a triple challenge.
In the first place, there is a challenge to recover and strengthen the democratic political system in places where it has not hitherto existed or where it had been allowed to lapse. The 1980s signalled the recovery of the founding ideals and values of our region. Our destiny is once more in the hands of our peoples. Nothing could be more encouraging for universal peace, because a democratic Latin America is a guarantee of stability and common sense for all the international community.
In this new stage, in itself fragile because of the traces left by authoritarianism in Latin America, we are now confronted with a second challenge, the challenge of the threat of war in Central America, the consequences of which would undoubtedly affect the entire region. Contadora has shown that Latin America is capable of facing this second challenge, even at times when all hope seemed lost.
Our region also faces a third challenge, that of resolving the crisis caused by the external debt and the distortion of the international economic and financial system. Our peoples and Governments have also shown their abilities and decisiveness vis-à-vis this challenge, which casts the darkest shadows over our future.
The consequences of this crisis were defined with common sense and resolve in the Cartagena consensus, in which, with unprecedented courage, we initiated structural adjustment programmes that meant and continue to mean great sacrifices for our peoples.
At the same time, we understand that we are facing a re-organization of international political and economic relations and, in spite of the narrow perspectives of the present day, we have made significant progress towards shaping a common regional space. This is evident, for example, in the creation of the so-called Rio Group which, at the forthcoming meeting of the eight Presidents to be held in Mexico, will take one more step towards the integration of Latin America. Consolidation of political systems, a concrete contribution to peace, compliance with the demands of an exorbitant and unfair debt, far-reaching economic restructuring, substantial progress towards integration - these, in short, are some of our achievements in response to that triple challenge. Nobody could reasonably expect so much; nobody could reasonably demand more of us.
However, despite all this, our future is still dark. The present economic situation cannot continue without the chances of deep social crises, which would seriously affect all the progress that we have made. Latin America cannot and should not continue to subsidize the creditor countries as a net exporter of capital. Latin America cannot continue to be the victim of trade wars between the industrialized countries, which have caused an unprecedented fall in the prices of its traditional products, while markets are closed or lost because of the unfair competition created by subsidies. Common sense prevents us waiting passively for an end to that situation.
A few figures suffice to show the magnitude of the Latin American economic problem. In the last five years alone the main countries of the region have produced a net transfer of capital to the developed world of about $150 billion, which represents an annual reduction of approximately 5 per cent in the investment capacity of our countries, whose investment levels are already below those needed for sustained growth.
Those figures and that situation are applicable to all the other countries of Latin America, too, and we are sure that our Latin American brothers feel the same. We Argentines have no doubt that the main responsibility for change and growth in our country lies with the Argentine people themselves. Like all our Latin American brothers, we do not beg for help or shift on responsibility on the other shoulders. Having said this, we roust affirm that we have no doubt either how limited is the viability of our countries, however hard we try to achieve our own reforms, however much we reduce our concessions to legitimate social demands, however firmly we reject any demagogic temptation, as long as the present international situation persists. In present international conditions resulting from the debt and the restrictions on trade it will be very difficult to achieve the goal of strengthening democracy and securing an acceptable level of development.
The majority of the industrialized countries, if not all, often show their solidarity when an authoritarian regime afflicts our nations; similarly, they rejoice when we Latin Americans return to democracy. It is high time for us to state clearly that we Latin Americans hope that we shall not again in the future need that solidarity in our misfortunes, not having found solidarity in our reconstruction. In that case it would be, as President Alfonsin has so often said, a post-mortem solidarity.
Rightly, since we are responsible for our own future, and are determined never >gain to need that post-mortem solidarity, we believe that it is not possible to deal with situations which are no longer traditional and conventional with the traditional and conventional models and instruments. This is true of the debt. It is fair to acknowledge that in several developed countries there is a growing understanding of the need for a new, unconventional approach to a new problem. The United States Senate recently passed a Bill in which, analysing the question of the external debt, it proposed the creation of an international authority to develop new methods so that creditors and debtors might find a solution to this problem on which to a great extent the present and future of Latin America now depend. The viability of democracy, its continuity and its strength depend above all on the hope of the people, the conviction that it is democracy that makes possible the struggle for a better future. It must be made clear to the Assembly that in Latin America the persistence of the unjust situation created by the debt and discriminatory trade practices is destroying the hope of the peoples.


Allow me first, Mr. President, to congratulate you on your election to preside over the forty-second session of the General Assembly. You can count on the full support of my delegation in carrying out your important task. Is there some flaw in the design of the human species? Is there any possibility for us to change before it is too late?
These questions were raised in a speech by the much beloved Swedish writer of children's books, Astrid Lindgren. The title of her address was; "Violence, never"
Astrid Lindgren answered the questions herself by pointing to the children. It must begin with them, she said.
Children who encounter repression and violence themselves use violence when they grow up. Children who are received with love and respect themselves acquire a loving attitude to the world around them.
Children do not make a distinction between black and white, yellow and brown. To children, other children are simply children, regardless of their origin, their language or the colour of their skin.
My country, Sweden, used to be an ethnically homogeneous society. During the last few decades it has been transformed into a multinational and multiracial country. Certain suburbs of the nation's capital count more than a hundred nationalities, representing all parts of the world.
Adults like ourselves should learn from children. We should avoid letting racial prejudices create antagonism between human beings. We must launch an attack against the evils of racism, wherever they may occur.
Racism is senseless. It jumps to conclusions regarding the merit and characteristics of human beings on the basis of such superficial matters as the colour of their skin or hair; racism is pitiable. It often acts insidiously, fawningly and treacherously.
Racism is cowardly. It hides behind false phrases and spreads its poison in the dark.
Racism is egoistic. It denies and counteracts solidarity and co-operation. It pits man against man.
Racism is cruel. It constantly commits horrid crimes and acts of war and violence.
Developments in South Africa give cause for deep concern. The regime's hardening attitude since the May elections is ill-considered and tragic. The brutal outrages against the opponents of apartheid, trade union leaders and their organizations, and the escalated destabilization policy against neighbouring countries have seriously impaired prospects of a peaceful solution.
The determination of the minority regime to uphold the apartheid system must be met by the international community with increased pressure and firmer demands for change. This is necessary if we want to contribute towards breaking the violence and making way for a peaceful dismantling of the apartheid system. This must be brought about now. Otherwise, it will be too late.
The abolition of apartheid is the concern of the entire international community. A special responsibility rests with the permanent members of the Security Council.
It is disappointing that the Security Council has not yet been able to decide on effective, mandatory sanctions against South Africa. Pending such sanctions, Sweden and the other Nordic countries have extended their previous unilateral measures and introduced a general ban on trade with South Africa and Namibia, We hope that these measures will lead to other countries' following suit, thereby increasing pressure on the South African Government,
South Africa's occupation of Namibia continues. We support the Secretary-General's efforts to break the deadlock. A solution must be based on Security Council resolution 435 (1978) , without irrelevant conditions.
The countries of southern Africa have been hit very hard by the South African policy of destabilization. Increased bilateral and international development co-operation efforts are imperative in order to give them support and to reduce their dependence on South Africa. Assistance to southern Africa constitutes a very important part of Sweden's bilateral development aid. In the last five years about $1.5 billion has been allocated to the region.
Mobilizing and co-ordinating such efforts should be an important task of the United Nations. Assistance to the victims of apartheid policy and humanitarian aid to the liberation movements should also be increased.
Increased support for the front-line States would also create a more favourable start for the entire region - including South Africa - the day apartheid is abolished.
The war between Iran and Iraq has caused immense human suffering and enormous material losses.
Recent developments in the Gulf imply great risks of escalation and widening of the conflict. All the parties concerned must, in this explosive situation, exercise the utmost restraint. The Swedish Government welcomed the adoption of Security Council resolution 598 (1987). The resolution provides a good basis for a solution to the conflict and must be complied with. It is also a matter of the authority of the Security Council. The Secretary-General has my Government's whole-hearted support in his renewed efforts.
In the Middle East, Israel's long occupation of Arab territories constitutes a dangerous threat to both Arabs and Israelis. Agreement on an international peace conference under the auspices of the United Nations would bring to the region hope of peace and of an end to the occupation. Sweden supports the efforts to bring about such a conference.
The foundations for a settlement are laid down in Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973). Israel must leave the territories that were occupied in 1967. The Arab parties must recognize Israel's right to exist within secure borders. Furthermore, the Palestinian people must be allowed to exercise their right to self-determination and the right to establish a State of their own, It is important that the Palestinians be represented in negotiations by those in whom they have confidence. In our view the Palestine Liberation Organization enjoys such confidence.
In violation of international law, the Soviet Union continues its war in Afghanistan, now in its eighth year. The Soviet invasion forces must be withdrawn. The Afghan people themselves must be allowed to decide their own form of government and their future. That is imperative for success in the efforts to settle the conflict and to enable the millions of Afghan refugees to return to their homes. The efforts of the Secretary-General to that end has the Swedish Government's strong support.
To resolve the conflict in Kampuchea, it is equally crucial that the Vietnamese troops be withdrawn and that the Kampuchean people be allowed to decide their own future. The Swedish Government has noted with interest the recent contacts concerning the country's future. We hope that this development signifies the beginning of a real dialogue.
We welcome the agreement that has been concluded between the Governments of Sri Lanka and India on a return to peaceful relations between the ethnic communities in Sri Lanka. There are now better prospects that this distressing conflict can be resolved in a peaceful way. It is our hope that the increased activity shown by the two Korean States in their endeavours to resume their dialogue will be successful.
The agreement reached in August between the five Central American countries is an important step towards peace and co-operation in a region that has long been troubled by conflicts. These have their roots in social and economic injustices. They have been aggravated by foreign intervention, such as United States support - in violation of international law - for those who are waging war against Nicaragua's lawful Government. We welcome the fact that the Government of Nicaragua, through recent positive measures, is clearly demonstrating its will to implement the peace plan, in spite of the aggression directed against that country. The agreement expresses the aspirations of the Central American countries to shape their own future in accordance with their own wishes. Implementation requires the support of the entire international community. Everyone, in and outside the region, must be guided by the fundamental principles of the agreement: respect for international law and democracy. One condition for success is that assistance to the irregular forces cease. The Contadora countries and their Support Group, as well as the Organization of American States and the United Nations, have an important role to play in the continued peace efforts. As the President of Costa Rica, Mr. Arias, put it recently in Washington, "We have to give peace a chance".
Through its peace-keeping operations, the United Nations has in several cases been able to assist the parties to regional conflicts in cooling off the situation, thereby facilitating the search for a peaceful solution. Sweden's long-standing, active support for these operations is illustrated by our decision last year to pull a logistic unit at the disposal of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) .
Our positive attitude towards participation in peace-keeping operations remains. That applies also to the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). We regret that, above all, the unreasonable method of financing has forced us to withdraw out battalion from Cyprus. It is increasingly intolerable for such a ļ United Nations operation to be financed that extensively by the troop-contributing countries. Sweden will continue to participate with police and headquarters personnel in the United Nations peace-keeping operation in Cyprus in the future also. The efforts of the Secretary-General to bring the parties together have out undiminished support.
Violence and oppression must be combated. That is the only way to create the necessary conditions for a lasting peace for future generations.
One of the main purposes of the United Nations is to protect and promote human rights. With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as its foundation, an impressive structure of norms has emerged. International conventions on the protection of human rights have been adopted. More recently a convention against torture entered into force. It is important that States accede to these conventions. All States must respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.
There is every reason to stress the significance of the struggle against international terrorism, with its destructive violence. Co-operation within the United Nations and other international forums is of immense importance. It is our hope that the General Assembly during this session will reach agreement on increased co-operation in this field.
The narcotic-drugs problem has acquired world-wide proportions. At the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking held in Vienna last summer the participating States pledged to undertake forceful international measures to counteract drug abuse. In order to fulfil that undertaking, it is essential that the United Nations obtain the necessary resources to play a central role.
The importance of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) was highlighted at its meeting this summer. The Final Document shows an awareness of the interdependence of countries and the close relationship between different growth-promoting measures. The outcome of the conference was positive. It is now the responsibility of all Governments to fulfil the intentions of the Final Document in a constructive spirit. Two threats of annihilation hover over mankind: nuclear war and global degradation of the environment. The first can be unleashed at any moment} the second would take longer. If we do not have the ability to remove these threats, human civilization is in danger.
Two years ago our hopes of progress in the disarmament field were strengthened. At that time the leaders of the two super-Powers made their historic declaration; nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.
The Swedish Government welcomes the agreement in principle between the United States and the Soviet Union on the elimination of intermediate-range nuclear weapons. But it would be a serious set-back if these disarmament measures were to result in an arms build-up in other fields. It is essential that progress be achieved as soon as possible also in the current negotiations on strategic nuclear weapons and space weapons.
A comprehensive nuclear-weapons-test ban is becoming increasingly important. A test-ban agreement would render more difficult the development of new and ever-more-advance d types of nuclear weapons. It would also reduce the risk of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Such an agreement would be a definite sign of the will of the nuclear-weapon States to break the vicious circle of the arms race.

In the shadow of the nuclear-weapon threat, there are other weapons of mass destruction also. Some are more than a threat. At this very moment people are suffering from the horrible effects of chemical weapons.
We now have before us an opportunity to save future generations from those weapons, with continued progress at the negotiating table of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, a convention banning chemical weapons could become a reality in the near future.
Nor must we tire in our endeavours to reduce conventional arms at both the global and the regional level. Within the framework of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe there seem to be good prospects for reaching agreement on further developing the confidence- and security-building measures agreed upon at the Stockholm Conference last year. There also seem to be good prospects for initiating negotiations on conventional disarmament in Europe within that framework.
The Swedish Government actively supports the idea of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Nordic area and a corridor free of battlefield nuclear weapons in Central Europe,
Increased attention should be paid also to the naval arms race. It is high time that negotiations were initiated on confidence-building measures and disarmament in this field too. An appropriate first step could be a multilateral agreement on the prevention of incidents at sea to supplement existing bilateral agreements.
The world must choose development instead of the arms race. The International Conference on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development was a success for multilateral diplomacy. It is our hope that those who did not take part in the Conference will participate in the continued process. We are responsible for the world we leave to future generations. The World Commission on Environment and Development, under the chairmanship o£ the Prime Minister of Norway, Gro Harlem Brundtland, has shown convincingly how important it is to bring about sustainable development. If that development concept is applied, we can save our environment and safeguard our natural resources. If we do not manage to do this, economic and social progress will be impossible, and in the long run the survival of mankind will be jeopardized.
The current agenda of the General Assembly contains items concerning draft resolutions from the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on the report of the World Commission and on the action-oriented environmental perspective. We sincerely hope these will be adopted this autumn. If they are, a process could be initiated in which the decision-making bodies of the United Nations could revise policies, programmes, budgets and activities with the aim of promoting sustainable development. Similarly, all Governments should review their own national policies. That process has already been initiated in Sweden. Far-sighted management of natural resources and preservation of the environment will, furthermore, be established as one of the five objectives for Swedish International development co-operation.
As proposed by the Brundtland Commission, a second global conference on the human environment should be considered. Its aim could be to review developments since the first United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, to evaluate and assess the hazards posed by environmental problems and to agree on a programme of action to ensure sustainable development.
If there is wide support for that proposal, a new conference could take place in 1992, that is to say 20 years after the first Conference. Sweden is prepared again to act as host, if that is the general wish. The United Nations are going through a critical period of self-examination and change. To overcome the difficulties, commitment and patient work are required of all Member States. A good foundation for reform work was laid last year by the General Assembly, on the basis of the report of the Group of 18. The aim of the reform process cannot be budget cuts as such} the overall aim must be to attain a world Organization that is well equipped to perform its functions.
The purpose of the altered budget procedure we have agreed on is to make it possible for the programme budget to be adopted with the greatest possible support from Member States. In that way  the preconditions can be created to secure the necessary support for the activities of the United Nations.
If the reform process is to be successfully completed, it is of utmost Importance that all Member States should fulfil their financial obligations under the United Nations Charter. That applies not least to the Organization's largest contributor. Otherwise, the consequences could be devastating.
There is reason to recall the ideas on a more even scale of assessments put forward by Sweden's late Prime Minister, Olof Palme, at the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. That would be one way of making the world Organization less vulnerable. As things stand now, the scale of assessments agreed on has ceased to function. If this unsatisfactory state of affairs continues, we shall inevitably have to consider a revision of the scale of assessments.
The future agenda of the United Nations will have an orientation that is partly different from the one it has today. We are increasingly faced with issues and problems of global importance. Such challenges cannot possibly be met through national or regional measures only. For the Swedish Government, the conclusion is obvious: it is through more efficient and purposeful co-operation within the framework of the United Nations and the United Nations system that we can effectively tackle these types of issues. This applies to the threat posed by nuclear weapons, environmental degradation, and North-South injustices. It applies to serious diseases such as AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome), to the increasing drug abuse, and to refugee problems.
The United Nations system must be capable of adapting to these realities, but it is not changes in the purposes and principles of the United Nations set forth in its Charter that are required. The rules of international law embodied in the Charter must be unconditionally upheld. What is needed is to review and reconsider the structure and work methods of the United Nations system. The world Organization must be capable of effectively meeting the requirements of the 199Us and beyond. This applies not least to the economic and social sector.
But it is not just a question of being prepared for tomorrow. We must also make better use of the machinery the United Nations offers today.
Co-operation within the United Nations symbolizes hope for a life without fear, a life in peace and dignity for all people. It is our compelling duty to keep that hope alive.


Sir, you represent a country with which mine entertains the best of relations, and your election to the presidency of this session is a tribute to the contribution of the German Democratic Republic to the promotion of peace, social progress and international co-operation. It is also a recognition of your qualities as a statesman with which ray Government associates itself with particular pleasure since in your many activities in the United Nations you have demonstrated special understanding for the problems of the third world, particularly those that affect Africa.
To your predecessor, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, I offer, on behalf of my delegation, sincere gratitude for his effective and responsible manner in which he fulfilled the mandate that has been entrusted to him.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without congratulating the Secretary-General of the Organization on his timely and courageous initiatives at the administrative, political and economic level, in particular those for the benefit of Africa, thus meeting the challenges to multilateralism. He has our support and we wish him every success in his endeavours towards peace, his mediation efforts and the use of his good offices.
The last time we were able to welcome the adoption of a real disarmament measure was on 16 December 1971, on the occasion of the adoption of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. Since then, despite acceptance of the need for general and complete disarmament, and m particular nuclear disarmament, negotiations and discussions have centred on the concepts of limitation, reduction, control and verification. The objective demanded by the non-aligned countries of a world without nuclear weapons, has thus become increasingly illusory,' perhaps to the satisfaction of those whose strategies are still based on the precarious balance of deterrence, parity or, worse, superiority. The escalation of the arms race, the emergence of technologies at the service of theories and concepts that justify the deployment, possession and use of nuclear weapons, the promotion of a nuclear strategy based in space and the continuation of testing will continue seriously to affect international security, even if they temporarily enhance the sense of security of some states. Nevertheless, the problem is not insoluble.
The non-aligned countries have on several occasions proposed collateral deterrent measures such as the conclusion of an international treaty on the prohibition of the use, or threat of the use, of nuclear weapons and the creation of nuclear-free zones or zones of peace, while the two super-Powers and the two politico-military blocs have been engaging in countless initiatives in Geneva, in Vienna and elsewhere; without giving an exhaustive list, I shall mention the treaties on strategic arms limitation, the limitation of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes and the most recent proposals on the reduction of conventional forces in Europe, the freezing and reduction of military expenditures, and conventional as well as nuclear disarmament in central Europe.
We thus have a consensus which must be structured and harmonized if it is to be democratic and effective. To this end, we have available to us the Conference on Disarmament and the Disarmament Commission as well as the relevant departments of the Secretariat. We shall soon hold our third special session devoted to disarmament, the agenda for which includes the evaluation of new facts and trends, and the consideration of the role of the United Nations in the field of disarmament. These few indications convince us that the United Nations must be properly informed of the state of affairs and progress of negotiations on disarmament.
In any event we should be churlish were we not to hail, as is appropriate, the announcement made on 18 September last by the Soviet Union and the United States relating to their acceptance of the principle and the broad lines of a treaty on the elimination of medium- and short-range nuclear missiles. From 1972, the date of the first strategic arms limitation talks, to 1987, has been a long and difficult road. Imagination, a sense of compromise and a desire for dialogue were needed to reach this result, and we shall not attempt analysis, for in truth what matters is the spirit that allowed the adoption of this very promising decision. We support the joint declaration of the six nations which, on 22 May 1987, in anticipation of the event, stated, inter alia, that it had been proved that when the political will existed it was possible to arrive at major agreements on nuclear disarmament measures.
Unfortunately, such political will failed to materialize last month, when we completed our discussions on the relationship between disarmament and development. There were many points of agreement, but the doctrinaire perception of reality caught up with us at the crossroads. Indeed, if the world needs disarmament as much as it needs development, if they are the conditions for a system of international global and collective security, and if we admit the negative repercussions of the level and scope of military expenditures on the economic world situation, where is the harm in proposing the creation of a fund for economic and social development, financed through resources released as a result of disarmament measures or the limitation of armaments?
Some might tell us that the time is not ripe, although the question has been under discussion, on and off, for more than a quarter of a century. We may also be told that security has priority over all other considerations. If so, we shall respond that our security requires development and that to be convinced of this, it suffices it to look at the kind of development that has been bequeathed to us.
Though they use the usual language, there is agreement among international authorities and international experts - be they from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank or the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - that, apart from a few pockets of relative prosperity, the economy of the third world is on the verge of bankruptcy. The relevant statistics and figures are so grim that they are difficult to believe.
First, for 70 per cent of low-income countries, basic commodities represent 50 per cent of total export earnings.
Secondly, for half of such countries, the same commodities bring in 9Ü to 10 0 per cent of export earnings, out of which 8 0 per cent is devoted to the import of foodstuffs and fuels.
Thirdly, the average deficit in the commodities sector in the period 1980-1984, for all developing countries, has been assessed at $14.9 billion per year, half of which is the burden of low-income countries.
Fourthly, those countries have only received approximately 30 per cent of compensatory financial assistance, be it Stabex or Coiapex of the European Economic Community (EEC) or the mechanism of compensatory financing of the International Monetary Fund.
Fifthly, in 1986, the prices of industrial goods rose by 17 per cent. The export earnings of commodities dropped by an average of 26 per cent and the losses suffered by developing countries because of deterioration of terms of trade rose to $100 billion.
Sixthly, in 1986 an average of 37 per cent of export earnings were devoted to the repayment of debt, which is 50 per cent above the 25 per cent limit considered tolerable.
Finally, loans from commercial banks have declined by two thirds since 198Q. Commercial credits only represent one sixth of the 1981 level. The level of direct foreign investments has plummeted by approximately 50 per cent, and official development assistance has been reduced to half the 1982 level.
I need not continue, bet us simply say that we have reached the breaking-point, while international institutions are beginning to run out of steam and private banks, on which we have relied for the recovery of investments and free enterprise, are becoming more than reluctant in granting us new loans. Thus we are now bearing the overwhelming social burden of policies referred to as curative. The problems of commodities, trade and development, and indebtedness are intimately related. The reaction of some - inherited from the nineteenth century - has been to say that Oliver Twist is still asking for more. But if we wish to give real meaning to interdependence and international economic security at the dawning of the twenty-first century, let us really meet the challenge inherent in the relationship between disarmament and development. Let us think in positive terms about a common fund for commodities, and let us accept the need to establish an additional mechanism for compensatory financing while improving existing mechanisms. Let us reverse the negative trends of the transfer o± resources from developing countries and, above all, let us admit that it is important to embark upon a genuine dialogue on the problem of indebtedness.
The proposal to create a stabilization fund for commodities, a monetary fund and a development fund among third world countries, which was confirmed by the President of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar during the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of our Organization, seems, in view of these considerations, to be most timely.
It is true that in adopting resolution 41/202 and by the consensus that we supported during UNCTAD VII we have placed this dialogue in a general framework. But the dialogue must become political in nature, for above and beyond technical, financial and banking considerations it is the future and security of all our peoples for many decades to come which is at stake. That dialogue must also be open and not take place behind the screen of preconceived or rigid ideas. In other words, on the basis of the idea of shared responsibility, we must ensure that this dialogue is at no time overtaken by events. It is in that spirit that I should like briefly to recall the position of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar on the question of the debt.
Our shared responsibility with regard to the rising tide of debt imposes an obligation to undertake direct concerted action between debtors, grouped together in a club of debtors, so to speak, on the one hand and their creditors on the other. If the restructuring of the debt is to be viable it requires an amendment of the rules of the Paris Club and the London Club, a one-year moratorium on interest modelled on the practices of the International Development Association and the fixing of the percentage of the export earnings to be devoted to debt servicing on the basis of the figures for several years.
In this connection we have proposed the following alternatives; either to request or decide upon the freezing of debt repayment for the next 10 years or to limit the payment to a maximum of 10 per cent of the value of the export earnings of each country. The basic objective is to postpone payment of most of the debts to the year 2000.
The strategy must contain elements that allow us to bring about the recovery and strengthening of our national economies. That objective would involve reconsideration of the concept of adjustment programmes, which must be based on growth and must not exist simply for the repayment of the debt. In this connection it would be appropriate to have a more equitable distribution of the burden of adjustment and to proceed to an easing of the rules of conditionality required by international monetary and financial institutions and acceleration of the procedures for subscription to structural adjustment loans. Such measures must be coupled with structural reform of the international financial system.
We are pleased that elements of our position have already been reflected in some reference documents. It is not our intention to make these elements pre-conditions, for in the final analysis we must play the game of solidarity with both the developing and the developed countries if we want to avoid the blocking of the dialogue, to the detriment of the interests of all.
I have just dealt, in a somewhat linear fashion, with some of the problems inherent in disarmament, development and debt, in the firm belief that we must find solutions to these problems that will contribute to the strengthening of international security. Nevertheless, our efforts would be in vain if we did not use our imagination and work together to ease or eliminate the regional tensions and conflicts that continue to beset the third world, including Africa, the Neat East and Middle East, central Africa and South-East Asia.
Indeed, in South Africa the hopes born of the mass rebellion which occurred last year have been swept away by the maintenance of the state of emergency over the entire territory. Despite unanimous condemnation by the international community, the Pretoria regime continues to persist in its defiance by tightening the apartheid system. Under the pretext of better mastering apartheid by controlling it, it continues to ignore the needs of the black population. That same regime lends support to the illegal occupation of Namibia and increases its murderous acts of aggression against front-line States.
How much longer will we continue to accept this savage policy of domination, this hegemonism? How much longer will we continue to accept this policy which subordinates a man's dignity to the colour of his skin? Are we to be satisfied with mere talk of condemnation in the face of the humiliation of man, the image of God on earth?
It is those considerations that lead the delegation of Madagascar to congratulate and strongly support the Nordic countries, which have decided to impose economic sanctions against South  Africa, and to encourage all those that still hesitate to follow suit. We do not have sufficient power to act in these matters, much less the necessary resources to assist the front-line States, but we have the voice of reason and wisdom and we shall continue to raise it for as long as the South African regime exists.
In Palestine, what crime has been committed by the Palestinian people that it should be hunted as one hunts a deer in the forest? Is it the crime of claiming its legitimate rights or of recovering its lands, its homeland? what is the reason for the persistent rejection of peace, security and stability in the Middle East? Why is it that all the parties to the conflict in the Middle East persist in maintaining the explosive situation in the region, with all the dangers inherent in it? Can one sacrifice the life of an entire people to protect the conflicting interests of all sides? Can one condemn a people to wander, like a ghost, for its entire life?
We shall not cease to appeal to the international community to recognize the right of that people to self-determination and to a homeland freely chosen within the context of a peaceful overall settlement of the Middle East crisis. Such a settlement could be found through the convening of an international conference on peace in the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all the parties directly concerned, including the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the permanent members of the Security Council.
We cannot remain silent in the face of the equally crucial problem of the Lebanese people. The soil of Lebanon continues to be occupied by foreign forces. It seems that 12 years of conflict have only sharpened the will of the enemies of Lebanon to see the country torn apart, divided and subjected to contradictory spheres of influence. Therefore, with the Lebanese people wounded, torn apart and the victim of the conflicts in the Middle East, but refusing to die and determined to defend its life and its reasons for living, we demand the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanese soil in accordance with United Nations resolutions, so that the Lebanese people may regain its full authority over all its national territory.
With regard to Afghanistan, can we simply sit on our hands in the face of the efforts for national reconciliation? The Afghan people have suffered for many years. Some have confined themselves to purely and simply condemning the presence of foreign troops in that country. We will say mote; some are encouraging and continuing to support those who are against the regime. But why? Is it in order for one ideology to win out over another? Can we treat so lightly the identity and personality of a people? That is why, after considerable thought, we support the policy of national reconciliation in Afghanistan and condemn any attempt at blocking it.
The same goes for the reunification of Korea, which we most vigorously support politically and diplomatically. There may be a confrontation of ideologies, but people can engage in dialogue and reach understanding.
As for Western Sahara, we repeat our support for resolution 104 (XIX) of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and take note of the Secretary-General's decision to send a fact-finding mission to the Sahara. However, that mission might be a futile exercise in the absence of a prior political commitment for the establishment of an interim United Nations administration in the Territory.
With regard to the Chad-Libya conflict, we respectfully abide by the decision of our Heads of State or (Government at the last summit of the OAU, namely, confirmation of the Ad Hoc Committee's mandate to organise negotiations between the two belligerent parties to find a just and lasting solution to the problem, and the search for a negotiated political settlement to their border dispute.
In Central America we see a glimmer of hope, thanks to the commendable efforts of the countries of the region to ease tension and re-establish stability in that part of the world. Thus we unreservedly support the Guatemala Agreement of 7 August 1987.
With reference to the Iran-Iraq war, we cannot fail once again to deplore the fact that Security Council resolution 598 (1987), demanding a cease-fire, has not been implemented. Of course, one might fear that effective implementation of a cease-fire could be undermined by those who supply weapons, as that might run counter to what they regard to be their vital interests. Also, one wonders whether negotiations between those two fraternal countries - now enemies - could ever take place while they are obstinately clinging to their respective positions.
This war makes no sense and has lasted far too long. It represents an ongoing threat to countries of the region in particular, and in light of the present state of affairs could become internationalised. Furthermore, the concentration of naval forces in the region is a real danger for the whole world, and it is truly regrettable that security for international shipping has been affected and become practically non-existent as a result of this conflict.
Madagascar, through its President, has consistently called for the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a demilitarised and denuclearised zone of peace. But can we today still hope for such a development? Hence we wish to address an appeal to all parties in the Iran-Iraq war to remain calm and avoid inflaming further this most dangerous and critical situation in the Gulf. In particular, we appeal to Iran and Iraq to accept implementation of Security Council resolution 598 (1987) on a cease-fire.
It has never been Madagascar' s posture to remain on the sidelines of international affairs; thus we advocate an immediate cease-fire simultaneously with a halt on all arms deliveries to the belligerents, and the establishment of a fact-finding commission to determine responsibility for the start of the war. Finally, we support the establishment of an international force to ensure the security, safety and freedom of navigation in the Gulf.  We cannot conclude this analysis of regional conflicts without emphasizing in the Assembly that these regional conflicts might have been solved but for the persistent policy of interference in the internal affairs of third-world countries.
We have come here to seek peace, justice, social progress and co-operation - ideals and objectives which we shall attain by displaying the utmost responsibility and the needed generosity. A reading of the Charter always leads us to conclude that it is in keeping with the common good. Even though peace remains, as it should, our primary concern, in these 40 years priorities and realities have often changed.
Our Organization's role is also to allow for the necessary adjustments with due regard to our purposes and principles. And when initiatives sometimes reflect ideals set forth in the Charter it is not intended to counter or bypass them, but simply to clarify their scope by bearing in mind the evolution of international relations on the ideological, political, economic and social levels.
Thus, our support for the establishment of a comprehensive system of international peace and security stems from two considerations; to give the United Nations another chance to play its legitimate role, after the failure of our commitment to a system of collective security; and to recognize that the time has come to renew and ennoble our debate on the basis of tolerance, mutual respect, dialogue and interdependence.
It has never been a crime to proclaim one's dedication to peace and to advocate a security system for all individuals, peoples and nations. At the end of our quest and efforts, may peace, justice, social progress and co-operation reign į and no longer be empty words. May our Organization be the master builder. May the ; peoples of the whole world be the beneficiaries.


I should like first to congratulate Ambassador Florin on his election as President of the General Assembly. I am confident that with his experience he will guide the Assembly's work to a successful conclusion. The strengthening of the United Nations is the theme of this statement.
We ate meeting in the General Assembly at a time when it is more evident than ever before that the problems facing the world community can be solved only through joint international action. This is also a time of the year when we usually take stock of the state of our Organization. We do this in the knowledge that the many complimentary words uttered during the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations two years ago have been followed by an extremely difficult period for our Organization.
This year we may have better opportunities than we have had for quite some time to move forward. As the Secretary-Gen et al has stated so aptly in his report, there is "in the midst of a perilous sea, a light but favourable wind." (P/42/1, p. 2) That wind of change became significantly stronger last week, after the historic breakthrough in the negotiations on nuclear weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union. I should like to join others in welcoming the fact that the two nations have agreed in principle to conclude a treaty on all land-based, medium-range nuclear missiles. Rather than freezing nuclear arms at existing levels, as in previous accords, the new emerging agreement will break new ground by eliminating entire categories of United States and Soviet nuclear missiles.
It is our sincere hope that the impending agreement will open the way towards further progress in other critical areas of arms control and disarmament. All possible avenues should now be explored to reach agreements on strategic nuclear forces, on chemical weapons and on a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, as well as on reductions in conventional forces. These new developments will contribute to an Improved International climate and provide the basis for the solution of the many problems on the United Nations agenda.
What are the problems facing us today as Members of the United Nations? To answer that question we need look no further than to two documents now before the General Assembly: the Secretary-General's report on the work of the Organization and the report by the World Commission on Environment and Development, "Our Common Future".
The Secretary-General's report gives us a lucid overview of the state of the world today. Including the many areas where armed conflicts are raging or threatening. The most burning of those issues Is the Iran-Iraq war and the spread of that conflict to the Gulf area. That war has been going on for more than seven years. It has brought untold suffering to the populations of the two countries. It threatens International shipping and the supply of oil to other nations. As Members of the United Nations, we need to make every effort to stop it, both in the interest of the two nations concerned and to maintain international peace and security.
The report by the World Commission is a global agenda for change focusing on three main areas; first, it stresses the preservation of the environment, which is of vital importance not only to our own generation but also, even more, also to future ones; secondly, it highlights the inter linkage between economic growth, development and the environment} and, thirdly, it demonstrates the interdependence between nations and thus the need for strengthened multilateralism in a field where all countries - East, West, North and South - have a common interest. The report thus gives us a long-term strategy for sustainable development. It makes it very clear that there is no rational alternative to strengthened international co-operation in the interrelated issues of environment and development.
Both the Secretary-General's report and the report of the World Commission point to the extremely difficult situation still facing many developing countries. The impending ecological crisis, the problems caused by drought, new epidemics and other disasters, the political and social unrest in many countries, the heavy load of the debt burden - all are problems which require both pragmatism and vision. I very much agree with the Secretary-General that we need both, that many of these problems cannot be dealt with in isolation, and that a greater understanding now seems to be emerging of the interrelationship between economic and social - and, I should like to add, ecological - problems.
The States Members of the United Nations have shown repeatedly that a genuine political will to act together to solve international problems can often be found, especially in times of crisis. The individual wills of nations may not always be shared. Nevertheless, we need to ask ourselves: when there is a will, do we have the tools? How can we, the States Members of the United Nations, continue our efforts to strengthen the United Nations as the most important instrument for handling the many pressing problems facing the world community today? At the outset of the forty-first session last year, the United Nations was confronted with what is sometimes described as the worst crisis in its history. The consensus reached last year on steps to improve the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations proved, however, that the Member States could rise above their differences when the very viability of the Organization was at stake. I agree with the Secretary-General that the consensus reached last year "could signify a historic turning point".
We now need to discuss how we can continue the reform process to increase the efficiency of the United Nations. Organizational reforms cannot be the subject of one—time decisions. A reform process must be continuous and orderly, involving both member Governments and the responsible leadership of each individual organization. The member Governments have a direct interest in the sound financial management of the Organization. At the same time we, the member Governments must, out of obligation and self-interest, respect the rights and duties of the Secretary-General as laid down in the Charter.
At this point I should like to pay our compliments to the Secretary-General for his very active and constructive follow-up on the decisions taken last year. There are many interesting observations and proposals in his reports to which we will give further careful study. On this occasion I shall concentrate on four aspects.
First, concerning the strengthening of the fact-finding capabilities of the Secretary-General and the Secretariat, we welcome the establishment of a separate Office for Research and the Collection of Information. The strengthening of the early-warning capability of the Organization will help to identify potentially dangerous situations before conflicts break out. This could be an important step to make the United Nations better prepared to fulfil its tasks in the maintenance of international peace and security. We hope that this will lay the foundation for an even more active role on the part of the Secretary-General and the Organization in preventing and settling disputes.
Secondly, concerning the financial situation of the Organization, my Government agrees with the Secretary-General that prolongation of a situation of financial crisis will have an adverse impact on programme implementation, on orderly management and on the morale of the Secretariat staff. The financial soundness of the Organization should therefore be restored as soon as possible. That can come about only if all Member States accept the collective responsibilities inherent in the Charter of the United Nations. In this context we should perhaps examine ways and means which would make the Organization less financially dependent on any one nation or group of nations.
Thirdly, concerning the related subject of the peace-keeping operations of the United Nations, those operations have long been considered to be potentially the most important and innovative contribution that the United Nations can make to maintaining world peace. The Secretary-General's report mentions several areas where such operations could make extremely important contributions - in Namibia, in Central America and in the Gulf. We also have the suggestion that peace-keeping mechanisms be used for preventive purposes. But we also know the financial problems facing present United Nations peace-keeping operations. It is becoming Increasingly difficult to find countries that are willing to provide contingents for a peace-keeping force and acceptable to the parties. I believe that new and serious thought should be given to measures which could improve the present highly unsatisfactory situation. It should not be necessary to have new crises, conflicts or wars before this problem is given serious consideration by the members of the Security Council.
Fourthly, concerning follow-up on the reform process in the economic and social fields, my Government will continue to take an active part in the special commission established by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to study the intergovernmental structures and functions of the United Nations system in the economic and social fields. Like many other countries we welcome the very constructive proposal put forward by the Group of 77 at the meeting of the study group earlier this month for the strengthening of ECOSOC. We also find an interesting proposal in the Secretary-General's report on making EOOSOC a council of ministers for economic and social affairs in the world, with much more integrated responsibilities than it has today. In this connection let me even give support to the proposals to strengthen forward-looking and policy-planning functions within the Secretariat to make possible a more system-wide approach to these issues.
During the last year we have made high demands of the Secretary-General and the Secretariat to implement the strict austerity measures inherent in the decisions taken last year. We, the member Governments of the United Nations, now need to consider how we may get our own act together to follow up our consensus of last year in order to give new political impetus to our Organization.
One such step would be to increase the level of political participation in the meetings of the central bodies of the United Nations. Two years ago we saw the important meeting of more than 60 Heads of State or Government in New York on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of the Organization. We have also seen that the Security Council more and more often meets at the ministerial level when important issues are debated, the latest such occasion being during the adoption of resolution 598 (1987) on the Iran-Iraq war. We believe that this practice should be encouraged, regularized and perhaps institutionalised. In this context I also welcome the participation of Heads of State and Government at the General Assembly, I have already expressed our support for the Secretary-General's proposal to increase the level of participation in ECOSOC to that of ministers.
Perhaps we could also examine more informal ways through which representatives of Member countries could meet at political levels to discuss how we could strengthen the United Nations. One way in which we could strengthen the position and the influence of the United Nations would be to make more use of the machinery provided to us by the Organization to tackle the political problems facing us.
My Government will make clear its position on individual issues when the relevant agenda items are discussed later in the session. In this statement I shall concentrate on only a few issues.
The finding of a solution to the conflict between Iran and Iraq and the prevention of a further escalation of the conflict should continue to be given the highest priority by the United Nations. The Norwegian Government supports Security Council resolution 598 (1987), and we strongly appeal to the parties to respect the terms of the mandatory resolution  which was adopted unanimously by the Council, under Articles 39 and 40 of the Charter. We welcome the personal involvement of the Secretary-General to establish direct contacts with the leaders of the two parties and the report on his recent mission to the area. We would encourage him to continue his efforts to bridge the positions of the two parties. No stone should be left unturned in attempts to find a peaceful solution to this tragic conflict.
We support the diplomatic efforts led by Under-Secretary-General Diego Cordovez as the best hope of reaching an early negotiated solution to the problem of the occupation of Afghanistan. We should not forget the dangers created by the lack of progress in the peace process in the Middle East. My Government supports the convening of an international conference on peace in the Middle East under the auspices of the United Nations as the best way of establishing real contacts and negotiations between the parties to the conflict.
In November this year it will be 10 years since the Security Council imposed a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. The United Nations embargo needs to be implemented more strictly and to be made more comprehensive. Norway will
continue to work with other member nations to strengthen the oil embargo. It is our view that comprehensive and mandatory sanctions adopted by the Security Council remain the most effective means to exert pressure on the South African Government.
In Central America, there are encouraging signs of a momentum for peace.
Norway has always supported solutions in the region, for the region and by the region. Thus, we support the peace plan adopted by the five countries of the region in Guatemala in August. We will continue to work with other nations to see if there are ways in which we can further support the peace process.
While we are meeting here at the highest State and Government levels to discuss the problems of common concern it is vital to remember that the United Nations is much more than its 159 Member States. At the outset, the Charter states; "We the peoples of the United Nations". To fulfil the intentions behind this sentence we need also to strengthen and further develop the ties between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.
Over the past 40 years we have experienced a remarkable structural change.
Much of this change has been brought about by public pressure, with people ahead of Governments. We have seen the importance of the work of non-governmental organizations in a whole range of areas, such as human rights, women's emancipation, disarmament, the North-South dialogue and environmental protection. This clearly shows that the establishment of closer links between the United Nations and non-governmental organizations is not only in the interest of the latter, but also in the interest of the Organization.
My statement, as I hope the Assembly has understood, has concentrated on the situation of the United Nations solely. Representatives may ask why. The explanation is that for a country such as Norway a strong United Nations is of major importance, it actually means a strengthening of our ability to take care of our national interests.
A weak United Nations means that more decisions with direct implications for our country will be taken without our participation in the decision-making process. For us, active involvement in the many activities of the United Nations in tackling the many problems facing the world is not an act of charity  it is in our own interest.


It gives me great pleasure to convey to the President the congratulations of the Tunisian delegation on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly. We are confident that, given his well-known experience and skill, he will conduct the proceedings at this important session with the utmost efficiency. I can assure him of Tunisia's co-operation with his country, the German Democratic Republic. Our two countries have always maintained excellent relations of friendship and co-operation.
I am also happy to pay a tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, who presided tactfully and effectively over the work of the forty-first session. Our deep appreciation and sincere gratitude go to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Peres de Cuellar, for his dedication and for his eminently active role in the service of the Organization and in pursuance of the noble objectives of its Charter.
In mounting this rostrum, from which the world's conscience is periodically expressed, sometimes in anguish and sometimes inspired by hope, I venture to request attention so that I may enumerate a distressing series of problems that have often been raised in this prestigious forum. I have, frankly, felt tempted to limit this statement to making a strong appeal for a radical change in all of us. Namely that in our deliberations we set aside individual problems and current differences and - in our thinking, in our statements and in the formulation of our resolutions - acknowledge the absolute primacy of a common creed based on the Declaration of Human Rights and the Charter of the United Nations. For it is time - I might say it is high time - to enforce compliance with those two instruments, which are not impractical products of man's idle invention but.
Indeed, irrefutable commandments and fundamental precepts that govern the conduct of each and every one of us.
It is indeed high time for States in their relations to eschew their obsession with issues deriving from dogmatic allegiance and with conventional rifts that result from a kind of short-sightedness in the evaluation of International relations.
It is time for us to join together in exorcising the demons of aggressiveness, hegemonism and tyrannical power so that mankind can finally live in peace and the peoples of the world can prosper through exchanges founded on fraternal relations.
I would have liked to conclude by saying that, but this session has begun at a particularly critical time. The world is going through a period of turmoil, and the direst threats are gathering momentum in more than one region of our planet.
In addition to the long-standing conflicts that have preoccupied the Organization almost since its Inception, such as the problems of the Middle East and southern Africa; in addition to the serious problems afflicting Asia, where both Afghanistan and Kampuchea are still occupied by foreign armies, and in addition to the convulsions in Central America, we now have a protracted war in a particularly sensitive region, which compounds the frustrations of the peoples of the Middle East, who have contributed so much to the development of civilization. I refer to the war between Iran and Iraq. That war is sapping the strength and potential of two fraternal peoples and may even jeopardize the future of those two great countries.
All our efforts should be directed towards bringing that tragedy to an end·
It is urgently necessary to establish a just peace, with no victor and no vanquished in order to terminate that particularly lethal and unjust conflict, a conflict that is all the more unjust as it involves two nations whose confrontation violates the very concepts of their traditional faith the Islamic religion, which preaches peace, brotherhood and tolerance for all mankind. The resolution adopted by the Security Council concerning the war between Iran and Iraq seems to us to offer hope by the very fact that it appropriately strengthens the role assigned to the United Nations in Chapter vu of the Charter. By assuming the task Incumbent upon it, our Organization can and must enforce solutions wherever peace Is threatened.
The authority of the United Nations must be the guarantee of law and peace. That is my country's position, Tunisia, inspired by Bourguiba, a champion of peace and the brotherhood of peoples, has solemnly vested supreme authority in international legality and the world conscience·
That authority is in perfect concord with the authority deriving from the spiritual values bequeathed by the Islamic message, to which ray country, while welcoming dialogue and keeping pace with progress, remains absolutely faithful.
I must express my sorrow at seeing the Islamic message perverted and bereft of its real meaning because of some individuals and some terrorist organizations deceitfully arrogating to themselves a mission of redemption while actually furthering their own political ends or unleashing a fanaticism foreign to the real meaning of that message of Islam.
Unfortunately this has been turned to their own account by the disparagers of Islam. Thus, a whole campaign of propaganda has been mounted against the sacred tenets and culture of Islam, propaganda that is sometimes based on ill will but most often on ignorance. In this all-embracing world of ours, how can we refuse to recognize the plurality of cultures, their originality, their message, their own dynamism and their evolutionary processes? In fact, the self-styled dominant cultures and civilizations simply reject what, through ignorance, they fail to understand. Let us therefore face up to the vital necessity, in an international community that has become one and indivisible, of dialogue between cultures and civilizations.
There is certainly one country which in its life, history and institutions has given us an example of such a dialogue, a country which is today enduring a tragedy that envelops its territory, its identity and its very existence, a country which certainly does not deserve such a fate - namely, Lebanon. No one with any sense of justice or respect for human values can ignore a cry that arises from the depths of his conscience, a cry that betokens his sorrow, indignation and, above all, his solidarity.
Without claiming to solve the world's problems it must be said that, by its history and geography, its culture and economy, and inspired by its universalist vocation, Tunisia is deeply sensitive to all the upheavals convulsing our modern world. Being both African and Arab, both Islamic and Mediterranean, Tunisia is situated at the crossroads of all the currents and turmoil that afflict the international community.
That is why President Bourguiba, the founder of modern Tunisia, as a profound peace-loving man, has always given priority and deep thought to all the problems that have persistently beset the region.
As regards one of the problems that is most difficult and important because of its historical and strategic implications, namely, the Middle East problem, ever since 1965 President Bourguiba has advocated recognition, as is now desired by all, of both the Palestinians and the Israelis, rejecting the racial confrontation aspect of this tragedy of historical, strategic and cultural-social dimensions.
It is now essential for all of us to acknowledge the cogency of this approach, and the Arab countries, for their part, endorsed if not the letter at least the spirit of this approach in the Fez plan, which they adopted virtually unanimously in 1982 and which constitutes a realistic basis for solving the Middle East problem and especially that which lies at its very heart, the Palestinian problem·
We are all aware, however, that for so long as Israel refuses to recognize the Palestinian personality and its right to self-determination and independence all efforts to reach a peaceful solution are doomed to failure. It takes two to negotiate and reach agreement. Fortunately, voices are now being raised in that country in favour of recognizing the Palestinian fact# which is an irrefutable reality. There is no doubt that if Israel's allies were themselves to accept this fact the international conference which we so earnestly advocate not only could be convened but would lead to the desired results. We hope that the efforts made in this direction by the Secretary-General will be successfully pursued so that the triple message of the one and only God, invoking peace and brotherhood, may once again resound from Jerusalem. Then, and only then, will genuine co-operation among all the countries of that region so crucial for the world, namely, the Mediterranean, be established.
It is always with a sort of nostalgia for the past that people speak of the Mediterranean region, overlooking the fact that even today it is the principle area in which almost all dilemmas are concentrated - and sometimes confront each other. Alas, it is precisely there that the problems and contradictions of East-West and North-South relations intersect. The establishment of peace in this region of exceptional geostrategic importance would constitute an incomparable foundation for building a more brotherly, more interdependent world.
The active participation of the great Powers in a conference on the Middle East could only help to further the necessary solutions and compromises. Moreover, they would be giving not only their own direct endorsement but also that of the Security Council and the United Nations as a whole.
It is the Security Council that must at all times be the overseer of efforts to solve all the serious conflicts that threaten international peace and security.
We shall not resort to an apocalyptic view of the future of our planet, where problems are indeed world-wide in scope. Rather, we shall strive confidently to emphasize the many signs and glimmers of hope that appear here and there.
Today we are relieved - and this feeling has been confirmed by the statements we have heard - to catch a glimpse of the possibility of a return to more harmonious relations between East and West# which holds out the promise of a slowing down of the armaments race, in other words the beginning of real nuclear disarmament and above all the hope of seeing West and East helping to solve the vital problem of peace in all regions of the world.
Indeed such concord would among other benefits open the way for the normal operation of the Security Council the only organ capable of eliminating the many disputes that are decimating the peoples of the third world in the Middle East Africa, Asia and Latin America.
Thus in the efforts to ensure fulfilment of the legitimate aspirations of southern Africa the Security Council has already made a major indeed decisive, contribution by adopting resolution 435 (1978), on Namibia. This is the only way to bring about the solution of that problem for which the United Nations will continue to bear particular responsibility until the total independence of that country.
Whether Namibia or apartheid is at issue, it is also high time for the will of the Security Council - as I have already said - to become, for everyone, an incontestable rule of conduct for our countries in their international relations in a world that is at last banishing recourse to force and aggression. The sufferings inflicted by the apartheid regime on the black people of South Africa will not crush its heroic struggle for liberation. Given South Africa's refusal to compromise either on Namibia or on apartheid, the Security Council must impose the requisite mandatory global sanctions in order to stop the massacre of populations whose only crime is that they aspire to liberty. It is in the light of this problem and of all the other problems confronting mankind that we judge the scope and nobility of the role of the United Nations.
We are therefore fully confident that the Security Council will fulfil its responsibilities under the Charter.
Convinced as we are that grave dangers and perils threaten our world, we would like to believe that we are witnessing the dawn of a general awareness of the major problems of our time, be they political, economic or humanitarian.
Accordingly, only the resumption of a serious, in-depth North-South dialogue inspired by our faith in the natural interdependence of peoples - in a community in which differences in the choice of ways of life cannot override strictly human aspirations and problems - can rescue us from the economic, financial and social anarchy characteristic of our present era, an era that is marked everywhere by the resurgence of poverty and violence, by persistent and spreading unemployment and by the irresponsible destruction of our environment.
There is a major problem that persists in the minds of the international community. Because of its universal and lethal character, it must continue to engage the serious attention of our forums: I refer to the problem of international terrorism and the taking of innocent people as hostages. These attacks on people's safety and dignity constitute a challenge that outrages the human conscience. This form of violence, particularly odious because it is carried out in a blind and craven manner, is perpetrated indiscriminately against innocent victims who, by chance or coincidence, happen to be in the path of the killers or their bombs.
Tunisia proclaims once again its condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and reaffirms its intention and determination to work for the enforcement of measures proposed by the General Assembly and of all other ways and means of putting a stop to this terrible scourge.
The deterioration in the sense of humanity in countries where the need has not arisen, the frustrations generated by the situation in the Middle East, the persistence of white segregationist domination over the peoples of South Africa and Namibia, and the armed conflicts in Asia and Latin America all contribute to a distressing picture of world-wide anarchy and disorder, which is only intensified by the armaments race, the economic crisis, monetary instability and the rapid decay of the environment.
Political crisis, economic crisis, social crisis - actually we are witnessing a crisis of civilization in a world that prodigious scientific and technical advances have enfolded into a single network of interacting and interdependent influences.
It is incumbent on the international community, which now constitutes an indivisible whole, to face up to the mounting perils created by many tensions, which are, for the most part, attributable to causalities and disparities often inherited from the colonial past. It is for us to eliminate the terrible anachronisms which, at the end of the present millennium, are represented by famine, poverty and sickness, mass unemployment and destruction of ecosystems which ravage the countries of the South by instituting in their stead a new world economic order capable of ensuring the viability, peace and security of our planet and by creating decent living conditions for the populations of the developing countries.
Tunisia, like so many developing countries and so many sister countries of Africa, has agreed to make considerable sacrifices, inter alia, in the context of a thorough structural and global economic reform, being aware of the responsibilities incumbent upon it as a full member of the world economic system.
In spite of these efforts and owing to the lack of substantial support on the part of their partners, the economic and financial situation of the vast majority of developing countries has now passed the critical point and continues to deteriorate, in particular in the most vulnerable countries.
The extremely serious problem of the developing countries, external debt and the mounting flow of capital from our countries to the developed countries clearly illustrate the unacceptable and suicidal perversion of the world economy. Current debt management would actually only contribute to a dangerous increase in economic, political and social pressures on the world system as a whole. Nevertheless we continue to nourish the hope that the North-South dialogue, which was finally resumed at the last session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), will be strengthened by addressing all questions relating to development and growth and will co-ordinate the action of the Organization itself with the action of all bodies making up the United Nations system, for development must not remain a challenge or a mere, albeit fervent, aspiration. It must become a wish and a reality.
The economic, monetary, trade and financial problems facing mankind as a whole have never been so great and never before have so many people, with the world population explosion, aspired to a better life.
Never have the differences between the communities of our world and within these communities been so shocking and inadmissible as they are today.
Perhaps there is no instant cure or magic solution for the present tragedy of the current rapidly worsening Imbalance between the overfed minority of humanity, living in superabundance and waste, on the one hand, and the majority, living in malnutrition and deprivation, on the other hand. Moreover, one cannot remain indifferent to the resources and sums of money expended on armaments when famine is ravaging millions of people and threatening millions more.
These are the main concerns that Tunisia wishes to share with the international community. There are others, more directly and more specifically relevant to our country, such as the Western Sahara conflict, which constitutes a major obstacle to the progress of the people of our region towards realizing their aspirations to form a Maghreb community.
Such a formation is certainly in the nature of things, but it has become more necessary than ever because of the close proximity of one of the world's greatest economic groupings, are which embraces all the traditional economic partners of the countries of our region within the European economic communities.
This indicates how extremely urgent our crucial and vital need has become to co-operate with this strong European entity because of the added power that we would acquire from the formation of a Maghreb economic community based on the planning of our industrial projects and on the smooth operation of our economic structure.
It explains the importance we attach to seeing the obstacle of the Western Sahara problem removed once and for all, so that our community can develop and assume the leading role that is expected of it, especially by Africa and the Arab world. We are particularly indebted to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuelar, for his persevering and imaginative efforts to find a solution to this thorny question. We consider that these worthy efforts are justified by the importance of what is at stake. By resolving the crisis and clearing the way for setting up a coherent and homogeneous Maghreb community, the Secretary-General will have helped to introduce an element of equilibrium, of political, economic and strategic stability, of co-operation and of prosperity into three regions of the world at present in deep distress: Africa, the Arab world and the Mediterranean.
It is, nevertheless, a fact that the whole world - not to say the universe - is confused and threatened by a destructive lack of order.
Never before has man been, thanks to scientific progress and the development of prodigious technologies, so powerful in the material sense. Never before, however, has he been so vulnerable and helpless, like the sorcerer's apprentice, overwhelmed by the forces, energies, weapons and achievements of his own creation, whose technologies he masters so well but which he uses so badly. For we know that science without conscience is soul-destroying.
It is, however, striking that the future is every day becoming a more shared future, in a world where pollution for some people generates sickness for others, where war directly involving some people may lead to death and desolation for everyone else, but where the advancement, enrichment and abundance of some people have not, unfortunately, led to prosperity for all.
Thus, if we want peace, security and development to be more than a mere slogan, we must all accept the comprehensiveness and interdependence of our responsibilities, so that we can join together in building a future that is no longer conceived and achieved in fear and anxiety, but is based on a fervent and irrepressible zest for life and hope.
With respect for human rights, and unfailingly inspired by the Charter, we shall turn that hope into reality and life will thus fully enjoy the values given it by the Creator.