It is a great honour for me to address the General Assembly. Mr. President, I am pleased to extend to you France's congratulations on your election, which is testimony to the confidence all delegations have in you. We are convinced that under your presidency the work of the Assembly will be pursued with authority and efficiency. I wish you every success and assure you of our full co-operation.
In the time that has elapsed since the last session of the General Assembly the international situation has been marked by three principal characteristics.
First, there has been a disturbing lack of progress in resolving regional conflicts. Not only has none been resolved - either the situation is still blocked, as in southern Africa and Cambodia, or progress that had been announced, as in Afghanistan, or broached in outline, as in the Middle East with the proposal for a conference, has failed to be translated into action - but, even worse, in some instances the situation has deteriorated. That is the case with the conflict between Iraq and Iran, which, beyond the serious confrontations it periodically produces, threatens to spread to the whole of a strategic region whose equilibrium is Important for the entire world.
The second characteristic is the persistence of major economic and financial problems. In this respect too the period has not produced much to give rise to much satisfaction. The issue of indebtedness, despite some adjustments that have been introduced, continues to compromise the situation in a good many third-world States. Instability in the prices of many raw materials has continued to disrupt both International trade and, even more serious, the courageous efforts of countries whose fate is closely linked to the prices of those products. In these conditions, the development of those States continues to be handicapped, with demographic pressures still a factor even as the legitimate aspirations of the populations concerned grow.
The third characteristic that currently has centre place in international attention is the opening in American-Soviet relations. Along with the concerns and disappointments that I have just mentioned, 1987 will probably be marked as the year in which East-West relations were given renewed impetus. Each of us is naturally aware of the prospects that have been opened up, both in respect of an agreement on dismantling American and Soviet medium-range missiles, which new appears close, and in developing contacts among the peoples of Europe's divided continent, as witnessed - and you, Mr. President, are more aware of this than anyone - by Mr. Honecker's visit to the Federal Republic of Germany. In this same context is the work of the third meeting of the follow-up Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which will be able, we hope, to complete its work in Vienna between now and December with balanced results, including gains in the area of human rights and contacts among individuals.
However positive, the improvement in relations between Washington and Moscow remains for the time being confined within precise limits: United States-Soviet talks on disarmament have yet to focus on reducing the huge strategic arsenals of the Soviet union and the United States, They have centred above all on Europe.
Given the world situation as it now stands, three important questions have to be asked; How far can United States-Soviet talks go towards improving the climate between East and West? Can the change in East-West relations affect regional crises? Will we be more capable of grappling with ways to resolve the economic and financial problems confronting the world?
France believes that the international community must meet these three challenges: by encouraging progress but also by reaffirming the conditions for genuine detente between East and West) by bringing about conditions conducive to the search for solutions to regional crises by the countries concerned by bringing
imagination and courage into play to devise new ways to help resolve the problems of indebtedness and development.
A world of greater stability and interdependence must also be a safer world. France is well aware of the stakes, such as the ramifications of the present normalization of relations between the Soviet Union and the United States. We hope that this will not result in decreased security for other countries, especially in Europe. France has followed very attentively the preparation of the treaty to eliminate American and Soviet intermediate-range missiles. It has welcomed, as was fitting, the decisions by the Soviet Union to remove the obstacles that country had placed on the road to an agreement, whether concerning the link between the various aspects of the bilateral negotiations in Geneva, the claim to take into account British and French independent nuclear forces, or the request to maintain a number of SS-20s facing Asia.
Nevertheless, we must continue to keep our vision clear. More disarmament does not automatically mean greater security. We cannot, in particular, disregard the threats to Europe that come from the substantial imbalance in conventional and chemical weapons.
This is why as early as 1978 France took the initiative for a conference on disarmament in Europe and welcomes the gains made a year ago in Stockholm. Together with its partners in the Atlantic Alliance and in the context of the multilateral process of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, it will spare no effort to enable the second phase of the Conference, which, we hope, will begin in 198-8, to advance towards greater stability in conventional arms on our continent.
For this reason also, we attach the utmost importance to the Geneva negotiations to ban completely the manufacture of chemical weapons in the world and to destroy existing stockpiles. But until there is progress towards the destruction of those stockpiles known to be the largest, it is advisable to maintain the option of a minimum stock for security. Western Europe cannot be disarmed in the area of chemical weapons 10 years before the Soviet Union itself completes the verified destruction of its stockpiles.
With the proposed elimination of medium-range nuclear forces we should not lose sight of the fact that Europe will continue to be subject, without limitation at this stage, to the threat of a far more considerable number of intercontinental systems, which are also capable of reaching targets on our side of the Atlantic. France, therefore, hopes that the United States and the Soviet Union, without neglecting those aspects related to defensive systems and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, will at long last return to the teal priority of arms control, namely, the strategic systems of the two countries.
In this spirit, France welcomed the goal of a 50 per cent reduction in Soviet and American strategic arsenals that was set at Reykjavik last year. Admittedly, halving these arsenals merely brings the Americans and Soviets back to the level prevailing at the end of the preceding decade when SALT II was signed. Nevertheless, this would clearly be a step in the right direction and would establish, as a real priority, not the illusory quest for denuclearization but the gradual and verified reduction of the excessively huge central arsenals. There is virtually no other serious alternative and it seems scarcely reasonable to envision the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within the foreseeable future.
France will not decline to participate, when the occasion arises, in multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament. Such talks, however, would be justified only as a later phase of a process of nuclear-arms reduction in which the two super-Powers would already have made very substantial progress. The President of the French Republic, speaking here in September 1983, enumerated the conditions for his country's participation. I would like to repeat those conditions: Soviet and American arsenals must be reduced to a level at which the disparity between their arsenals and those of other nuclear Powers changes in nature  the defensive systems that could destabilize the current bases of deterrence must not be strengthened  the imbalance in conventional weapons must be eliminated  and the elimination of the chemical threat must become a fact.
Until such time as these conditions are met, France will not agree to its forces being taken into account, directly or indirectly, in negotiations to which it is not a party. As the Prime Minister, Mr. Jacques Chirac, indicated from this rostrum last years
"As long as French security rests on nuclear deterrence, the first requirement for my country is to maintain the credibility of its strategic forces at the necessary level. For that reason, France has naturally declined to go along with any form of planned obsolescence of its forces while other Powers retain a huge excess nuclear capacity. It will accept neither a quantitative nor a qualitative freeze on its arsenals nor will it halt its nuclear tests. That arsenal does not exceed the level considered" indispensable for our security and our independence. The nuclear tests are being carried out in unquestionably safe conditions ..." (A/41/PV. 8, p. 71). These have been acknowledged as such by independent experts from Pacific countries whose concerns for the environment we understand and share.
In the area of information, France is prepared to take a new step. After welcoming several Heads of State or Government from the region to the test site on Mururoa this year, it now invites the leaders of the Andean countries bordering the Pacific. Other States regularly carry out far more tests than France does, and have been doing so for a longer period. None, we believe, has so far offered such guarantees. The Improved climate of East-West relations has had no effect to date on the principal regional conflicts. Recognizing this fact, the international community must increase its attention and its effort, in particular to bring about conditions favourable to the search for appropriate solutions by the parties directly concerned. Yet we must make a distinction among the different types of crises confronting the world.
In some cases, the situation continues to be stalemated. This Is true of southern Africa. With Its sense of community with all of Africa, and especially with countries close to It because of history, language and exceptional human ties, France believes that new impetus can and should be given to the reduction of tensions, the resumption of dialogue and the restoration of peace in southern Africa. Prance has already taken action along these lines, for example regarding the unprecedented exchange of prisoners that recently took place following a French initiative and after the many contacts France had over a period of months with various States in the region. We hope that this exchange will be followed without delay by new developments as envisioned. The official visit to Paris at this time by the President of Angola, and the visit next week by the President of Mozambique, both of whom played a key role in effecting the exchange, will make it possible to assess the prospects that have been opened up.
But there can be no return to peace In the region in the absence of dialogue in South Africa itself among all the components of South African society that have together built that country. The release of political prisoners and the renunciation of violence and of preconditions are the prerequisites for this necessary dialogue. Its purpose can be none other than the dismantling of apartheid. The French Government whole-heartedly condemns the system of apartheid, which is intolerable. It has consistently supported, particularly within the European Community, he Implementation of restrictive measures designed to make the South African Government begin such a dialogue.
Somewhat different Is the conflict in Western Sahara; although no visible progress has been observed. It does perhaps offer more promising prospects for a solution, given the mediation attempts under way. The combined efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and friendly Arab leaders should at last lead to a settlement within the framework of the right to self-determination of the populations concerned. No country would welcome more whole-heartedly than France a solution that brings closer together the countries of North Africa with which it maintains truly privileged relations.
At the other end of the Sahara, the conflict between Chad and Libya has gone through a dramatic change over the past few months, but the final outcome has yet to be determined. Combining determination, courage and audacity, the Chadian army succeeded, under the authority of President Hissein Habre, in liberating from foreign occupation almost all the provinces in the north. There remains the dispute over the Aouzou Strip. Clearly, this dispute, with which the OAU and its ad hoc committee have been seized, will find a lasting solution in the present context only when it has been settled according to law. France, which brought Chad to independence and thus bequeathed to it its borders, considers this territory to belong to Chad. It is ready once again to communicate the documents in its possession to bodies that so request. For the rest, true to its commitments,
Prance will keep the purely defensive and deterrent military arrangements it now has there for as long as it believes necessary.
In Cambodia, despite the efforts of the ASEAN countries, the situation remains deadlocked. Nothing, however, warrants the foreign occupation which, by its continuation, has increasingly assumed overtones of colonization. Viet Nam should  understand the deadlock in which it now finds itself. It must try to find, together with its neighbours and with help from all, particularly Prince Sihanouk, whom Prance is pleased to be welcoming again, the paths towards a political solution. For the people of Prance, who are linked to the Khmer people by an old and ever-present friendship, such a solution can only be the restoration of a Cambodia that is free from all foreign occupation and free to determine its destiny.
There are other situations in which stated intentions have unfortunately not been translated into concrete actions. It is therefore incumbent on the international community to redouble its efforts and its firmness.
Covering Afghanistan, certain Soviet statements led to the assumption that the new team of leaders in Moscow had perhaps understood that the invasion, followed by the occupation, of this independent non-aligned country, which was not at all hostile to the Soviet Union, was a grave mistake. It is a fact that eight years of fiercely waged war have not shaken the determined resistance of a courageous people. Their unyielding determination, the sweeping condemnation of the aggressor by the international community and the resolute support for the cause of Afghanistan, and also for Pakistan, which has generously welcomed on its soil 3 million refugees forced into exile, should convince the Soviet Union that it cannot rely on time to impose a solution by force. While the conditions for a settlement have already been largely defined, thanks to the efforts of the Secretary-General and his special envoy, Mr. Cordovez, the fact remains that the Geneva talks on a timetable for the withdrawal of Soviet troops have still not achieved their objective. If the Soviet leaders sincerely wish to embark upon the path to a negotiated solution, they should act accordingly and, in order to end promptly this conflict of another age, fully accept the right of the Afghan people freely to determine its future. That is what France and almost all the countries represented here expect of them. To a considerable extent the evolution of the international climate will depend on this.
In the Middle East, after years of deadlock, the Israeli-Arab conflict recently showed renewed and hopeful signs of progress towards a comprehensive settlement in the revised framework of an international conference which would bring together the parties to the conflict and the permanent members of the Security Council. Since the beginning. Prance has been favourable to such a project, in which it hopes to take an active part. To our mind, such a conference should serve for reflection and advice, without imposing itself on or taking the part of the parties themselves. It should serve to sanction and enrich the dialogue which, thanks to the bold initiatives of certain Arab and Israeli leaders, has begun to take hold. The movement towards peace, unfortunately, appears to be at a standstill at this time. It is essential for its momentum to be restored, naturally on the initiative of the parties directly concerned, but also with the encouragement of the international community as a whole, and particularly States that have special responsibilities and therefore special duties. After 40 years of confrontation, it is more than time to ensure Israel's right to live in peace within secure and recognized borders, and that of the Palestinian people to choose its future by means of self-determination, with all that that implies.
At the centre of this conflict, against its wishes, Lebanon, a torn and ravaged country, is paying an ever heavier tribute to the crises of the region on which it has no influence. To the tragedy of war are now added the effects of an unprecedented economic crisis. Prance has decided to continue its presence in Lebanon in spite of the risks and dangers. It continues to be a part of the United Nations Force which, despite its shortcomings, embodies the commitment of the international community to Lebanon's sovereignty and territorial integrity. The entire world should now mobilize and make an exceptional effort on behalf of all the populations of Lebanon without exception. France, for its part, has Increased its aid again this year. It calls on everyone to contribute to the special fund set up by the recent summit of French-speaking countries. Lebanon, however, will find peace only in the reconciliation of the Lebanese themselves and the establishment of normal relations with the countries of the region. This is the position which we have consistently conveyed to each of Lebanon's leaders and each of the neighbouring States.
Lastly, one crisis, far from abating, seems likely to spread to an entire region. The devastating war between Iraq and Iran has been going on for seven years. In terms of the number of victims and ferocity of the fighting, this war must already be counted among the deadliest of this century. Forms of warfare have been resorted to that are particularly to be condemned, such as the use of chemical weapons and sending to the front children who are barely in their adolescence, today the fighting directly threatens other countries and seriously impinges on the principles of the freedom and safety of navigation endorsed by the international community.
France, along with the majority of States represented here, calls for an end to a conflict that can be dealt with only in its entirety. Over and above the cruel suffering of the two peoples, France is particularly sensitive to the concerns of riparian States of the Gulf and intends to demonstrate in concrete terms its commitment to freedom of navigation. Some of our ships are present in the region where they are ensuring the protection of our interests. But we are deliberately maintaining this action within specific limits and have declined to participate in any multinational actions that could give the situation the overtones of an East-West confrontation.
With a tenacity to which I should like to pay a tribute, the Secretary-General nine months ago called on the Security Council to try new efforts. After close consultations among the five permanent members of the Council and a constructive debate among all the members, these efforts led, on 20 July, at a meeting at which I had the honour of presiding, to the unanimous adoption of resolution 598 (1987). This balanced resolution should be implemented in its entirety, starting with the decision on the cease-fire it imposes.
Two months have since elapsed. The Secretary-General has been to Tehran and Baghdad. It appears that one of the two belligerents has confirmed its acceptance of the resolution in its entirety while the other seeks to impose its own reading of the text and its own conditions. The authority of the Security Council, which has acted under Chapter VII of the Charter, and the authority of our Organization as a whole are at stake. Great firmness is called for because, as our Prime Minister, Mr. Jacques Chirac, emphasized a year ago from this rostrum the stubborn pursuit of this absurd war, beyond the suffering it imposes on the two peoples, threatens to shatter the equilibrium of a region of strategic importance for the whole world.
Other regional crises in addition to those I have just mentioned remain unresolved and continue to retain our full attention. In Cyprus, a de facto situation, which France does not recognize, persists despite the efforts of the Secretary-General, who is in the best position to help bring forth a solution. In the Korean peninsula, where a remarkable process of democratization is under way in the south, we hope that direct contacts between Seoul and Pyong Yang will be resumed at an early date and that the Korean people as a whole will at last he represented in our Organization.
I should like finally to mention the situation in Central America, of which Costa Rica's President has just underlined the hopeful aspects. After more than four years of persevering effort at the initiative of the Contadora Group, the Presidents of the five countries of the isthmus have reached an overall agreement. Admittedly, no one supposes that the road ahead is without obstacles.
Nevertheless, an important step forward was made with the summit in Guatemala. The Central American countries themselves have demonstrated their determination to break the cycle of confrontation and settle their disputes themselves. The hopes occasioned by that meeting should be sustained. The commitments made should, by involving all the interested parties, make it possible to extend democracy to the whole region and lay the foundations for a lasting peace.
It is obvious that the improvement in East-West relations does not, of itself, imply a solution to regional crises. Solutions can result only from the efforts of the countries directly concerned and action by the international community to bring about conditions conducive to the success of those efforts, Europeans, who in the past have been torn by fratricidal wars and are today resolutely committed to building a common future, know this well. France, for its part, is ready to contribute to any regional attempt to settle conflicts and to act in a way that may allow Europe to contribute.  The serious economic and financial problems besetting the international community reveal the extent to which all too often selfish, short-term responses still prevail over awareness of the necessary Interdependence and shared interests. In this respect the European experiment is showing the way.
The European Community is growing stronger. Its enlargement in January 1986 to include Spain and Portugal has enhanced the Mediterranean dimension of the Community. The Single European Act, in effect since July 1987, has opened up new areas for action, while setting for the Community a key objective; the completion in 1992 of a huge internal market. Since its establishment nine years ago the European monetary system has become a pole of stability in an international monetary system in crisis. Technological Europe, lastly, has distinguished itself by achievements that at times go beyond the Twelve, as in the case of Ariane and Eureka.
Encompassing 320 million Europeans and open to the world, the Community is determined to acquire both a political and a security dimension enabling Europe to regain its rightful place.
Like its partners, France is convinced that this movement towards Europe's unity would lose its significance and thereby its force, if it led Europe to turn inwards on itself. The Twelve have demonstrated their firmness in the face of rising protectionism and continue to favour the development of foreign trade. The world's leading exporter, the Community is also one of the most open markets. The majority of its imports are exempt from all customs duties or levies, the exemption being applicable to 90 per cent of the products from the developing countries. The Lomé Convention, which governs the privileged relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, has established an exemplary form of North-South co-operation. The system of generalized preferences offers other countries important guarantees with respect to the flow of their products to the Community's markets. Finally, Europe has concluded association and co-operation agreements with regional organizations and numerous States, particularly Mediterranean States.
We are now prepared to go further, and accordingly the Twelve are entering on a new round of trade talks. These will include, as everyone knows, the sensitive area of agriculture. The Community, including France, are prepared to address seriously the imbalances of world agricultural markets, but we cannot be asked to call into question the principles and achievements of the common agricultural policy. The new round of trade negotiations that I have just mentioned offers an opportunity for considerable trade liberalization. World economic expansion is based on the further development of international trade, which should largely benefit the poorest countries, with each country or group of States doing its share.
There has been a greater awareness over the past year that the disorder in the international monetary system since the end of the 1960s has undoubtedly been one of the causes of the mediocre performance of the world economy. France has worked consistently for greater stability in exchange rates and the reduction of interest rates. In this respect 1987 has been characterized by changes in the right direction. The Louvre agreement, concluded in Paris last February and confirmed by the Venice summit, comprises, as we had hoped, specific objectives for the stabilization of exchange rates of the principal currencies and the convergence of economic policies. Such agreements have produced encouraging initial results, but clearly everyone realizes that much remains to be done to ensure a stable international monetary order.
We have long advocated concerted action in the area of commodities. Prices for these commodities continue to be unstable and low. Apart from sound market organization, diversifying the economies of the producer countries is a necessity. One of the headings of the Common Fund meets this objective. France hopes that this agreement will enter into force at an early date. 0f all the evils troubling the world economy, the most serious and the most fraught with danger is, of course, the issue of third world indebtedness. For some States the situation has become critical. Prance is aware of the difficulties they are encountering in this respect, especially in Africa; it is familiar with the adjustments and restructuring many of them have courageously undertaken, and the painful consequences that can result for the populations. These States should benefit most particularly from the international community's support, and the conclusions of the special session of the General Assembly devoted to the African continent should not be allowed to remain a dead letter.
France has made proposals regarding debt that would extend the grace period and time-frame for repayment in the case of the poorest countries. These recommendations have since begun to be implemented by the Paris Club. Financial flows to the developing nations should be substantially increased. All lenders should contribute, and the participation of banks is more necessary than ever, especially in Latin America. The multilateral institutions should also step up their efforts to help the third world. It is, therefore, indispensable for the resources of the World Bank to be enlarged and for the discussions on tripling the resources of the Structural Adjustment Facility to be completed before year's end so that concessional loans to the poorest countries can be speedily increased.
Increasing official development assistance remains an imperative need. In the case of Prance, it has been decided to raise aid for development to 0.54 per cent of the gross national product in 1988. We are continuing to move closer to the target of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product for development assistance. Our effort will be directed as a matter of priority to the poorest nations, whose situation should be examined anew by the international community. Accordingly we have offered to host the next conference of the least developed countries in Paris in 1990. Without consultation and dialogue control of the international economic situation will not be attained. For this reason we welcome the results of the recent United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), at which the European Community made a substantial contribution, as my colleague from Denmark, current President of the Twelve, has recalled. That Conference revealed the existence of a general resolve to address the third world's problems realistically, in a spirit of openness and generosity.
Efforts to come up with solutions to the problem of underdevelopment and, by the same token, to improve the material situation of the majority of human beings, cannot be separated from the international community's struggle to ensure greater respect for human rights in the world.
Human rights transcend East and West, North and South. At issue is the dignity of each man. It is inadmissible to say that one can look at the human person differently depending on place or circumstances, or to think that liberty may have several faces or that certain fundamental rights should have priority over others. France will never be silent so long as human rights ate trampled underfoot, whether it be in South Africa or Cambodia, Afghanistan or Chile. It will always be on the side of those who want democracy to live despite threats, whether in the case, today, of the Philippines or Haiti.
Precisely because Prance wishes to be above reproach on this score, it recently organized a vote on self-determination in New Caledonia. The New Caledonian population made a clear and indisputable choice, in conditions that were calm and beyond dispute, in favour of the territory remaining within the French Republic. In the spirit of open-mindedness that has always been its hallmark, the French Government is proposing, after broad consultations with all Caledonians, a statute for broad autonomy that should be acceptable to all.
Among attacks on individual rights, one of the most odious is terrorism because it systematically targets innocent people and resorts to the most cowardly actions - from a bomb thrown to kill in a place of worship or in a department store, to the taking of hostages, accompanied by blackmail for their lives, thereby submitting the victims to interminable torture and their families to unbearable anguish. Experience has shown dramatically that no State, however powerful, no person, however well protected, is safe from this scourge. No struggle, however legitimate, can Justify resorting to such crimes which constitute, along with the intolerance and fanaticism that feed them, an ongoing threat to the entire international community.
The measures that must be taken at the national level to prevent, fight and punish terrorism cannot be totally effective unless they are backed by a more concrete co-operation among States. The efforts against this outrage should be accompanied by unequivocal condemnation, no encouragement or complicity, even passive, should be tolerated. France urges all countries of the world to pursue this fight unsparingly, unceasingly, with absolute resolve, until this leprosy of our age is completely tooted out.
In conclusion, whether we are talking about East-West relations, the settlement of crises or responses to the major issues of our time, much still remains to be done. Were the international community, out of weariness or discouragement in the face of constantly new obstacles, to give up in one or another area, all our efforts would be reduced to nothing.
These are the responsibilities of the United Nations. It is easy to highlight the shortcomings, the defects, the red tape of the United Nations. There is nothing surprising about this since these deficiencies are our own and pertain to each and every one of us.
First we must adapt our Organization to the changes taking place in the world and undertake the necessary reforms while preserving the indispensable balances. We should be distrustful of reforms that would undermine the foundations of the system put in place in San Francisco it has proved itself irreplaceable. Real reforms should have as their objective a better Implementation of the Chatter and a better functioning of the machinery. This is why we believe the prompt implementation of the conclusions of the Group of 18 is desirable, and we are hoping for a settlement of the financial problem weighing over the life of our Organization and its specialized agencies. This is also why we, together with all the French-speaking nations recently represented at the Quebec Summit, are asking for the strict application of the regulations regarding the use of languages, especially French.
With regard to what has been done, as well as what remains to be done, we know that the Organization has been and will be able to rely on the man who is at one and the same time its soul and its principal officer, the Secretary-General. I should like to express again to Mr. Perez de Cuellar the French Government's high regard and appreciation for the remarkable services he renders the international community with a skill, talent and courage that has earned him the esteem and the constant support of all of us.
This mission, more than any other, is performed in the service of peace. Over-used and often misused, the word "peace" must remain the expression of our greatest ambition and, at the same time, the expression of the greatest reason. Our highest priority, of course, is to put an end to conflicts: solutions imposed by force will never be as enduring as a settlement freely negotiated and consented to. Efforts to bring about peace must also include organizing an effective and controlled disarmament that ensures our security. Working for peace, lastly, means addressing the causes of conflicts and bringing about the conditions that lessen tension. Security, disarmament and development, as was shown by the recent United Nations Conference devoted to this relationship, remain Interdependent,
Hence the reasonable ambition which is ours: namely, a genuine peace that la not dissociated from the reduction of inequalities in the world, nor from aid to development and co-operation.
Here again, we find the central role o£ the United Nations, together with all the specialized agencies of the United Nations family, in ensuring that the Immense wealth engendered by modern technology should benefit not a few peoples but the greatest possible number. There, transcending quarrels often Inherited from centuries past, lies the true challenge of our age.


I take pleasure, Sir, in congratulating you on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-second session. I wish you every success in discharging this important task. Our goal should be a constructive session where moderation will prevail. I am confident that you will guide the work of the General Assembly with diligence and skill towards that goal. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a warm tribute to the President of the forty-first session, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh. During the last session important decisions were reached, in particular on the efficiency of the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations. Mr. Choudhury personally contributed to the achievement of agreement on this vital issue, and the General Assembly was able under his guidance, to function effectively despite the constraints arising from the financial situation of the Organization.
I would equally like to pay a special tribute to our Secretary-General. The United Nations and the Members of the Organization have continued to benefit from his dedicated efforts on a wide range of international issues. I reiterate our confidence in him to promote greater international understanding and harmony.
The tasks of preserving peace, resolving international problems, strengthening international security for all and creating a more equitable economic environment continue to challenge our nations and Governments. Increased confidence-building and international co-operation ate the key to dealing effectively with many of those challenges.
Prom our vantage point between the continents of Europe and Asia we have always appreciated the value of and given firm support to the efforts towards stabilizing and improving East-West relations. Mindful of our geographic location, we have supported in the field of arms control and disarmament those initiative that have a chance of being translated into concrete, balanced and verifiable measures without diminishing the individual or collective security of any count or group of countries. These considerations will continue to shape our approach to disarmament questions.
We are pleased to note that there are at present new opportunities for genuine progress in East-West relations. Important steps have already been taken on the difficult road towards arms control and disarmament.
We welcome the agreement in principle reached between the United States and the Soviet Union for the elimination of all their medium- and shorter-range nuclear missiles. We have always supported the idea of the complete elimination of medium-range nuclear forces through the global application of the so-called double zero option. The agreement will go down in history as a major step forward, since it will entail meaningful and reciprocal reductions in the nuclear forces of the two major Powers for the first time in the nuclear age. Chancellor Kohl's declaration on the Pershing la missiles is an important and constructive step that facilitates that agreement. It is our hope that this agreement will pave the way for a treaty at the level of strategic weapons. The momentum that currently exists in the arms-control field must not be allowed to ebb away.
We believe that arms-control efforts should be considered as an integrated whole in all its dimensions, be they nuclear, chemical or conventional. An agreement on medium-range nuclear forces in Europe will accentuate the urgent need to address the question of conventional forces in a meaningful way. It is not possible to deal with nuclear weapons In isolation if we are seeking enhanced security. If there is no progress in the near future in the area of conventional arms control, further reductions in nuclear forces may Indeed prove to be very difficult to achieve.
There is a pressing need to establish a conventional balance in Europe at the lowest level possible, from the Atlantic to the Urals. Turkey participates actively in the negotiations to this effect currently under way in Vienna. I wish also to stress, as we have done in previous years, the growing urgency of concluding an international convention on the general and complete prohibition world-wide of chemical weapons and on the destruction of existing stockpiles.
The success of arms-control initiatives depends in the first instance on the establishment of an environment of confidence among the parties concerned. In this connection I would underline the importance of the Helsinki process, which has contributed to bringing about an environment in Europe through which unprecedented progress in nuclear-arms reductions has come within the reach of mankind. All three dimensions of the Helsinki process, which deal, respectively, with security, economic relations and humanitarian issues, are of equal importance for the establishment of mutual confidence and fruitful co-operation in Europe.
During the past year, as the attention of the international community has focused ever more on the continuing war between Iran and Iraq and the situation in the Gulf, that tragic conflict has caused further devastation and suffering, and I poses a growing threat to regional and international peace and security.
We are deeply concerned by this situation. We maintain the hope that resolution 598 (1987) will provide a suitable basis for both countries to bring the war to an end. We hope that the Secretary-General's contacts in the region will contribute in concrete terms of the peace process, since the outbreak of hostilities between our two neighbours we have maintained friendly relations based on mutual confidence with both parties, while remaining strictly neutral. We believe that we can contribute to the peace process. The escalation in the Gulf and the tensions that have arisen in the region have further complicated the situation. In this respect, we have been trying to eliminate the misunderstanding caused by a lack of communication and to maintain a dialogue among the countries concerned. We remain ready to do everything in our power to be of assistance in this respect, while pursuing our friendly relations with all sides.
In the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict still awaits a just and lasting solution. There Is a definite need to reactivate the search for peace. During the past year the idea of an international conference has gained ground. Turkey supports all initiatives which might lead to a just and lasting peace. Representation of the Palestinians in such a conference is an important issue. The views of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people should also be given due consideration in this regard.
We continue to support full recognition of the right of self-determination of the Palestinian people and the withdrawal of Israel from the Arab territories under Its occupation since 1967, including Jerusalem. The ultimate aim should be a just and lasting settlement which would create the conditions whereby all the nations of the region can live in peace and prosperity within secure and recognized borders. Economic co-operation among the countries of the region and projects serving common interests could increase confidence among the peoples of the region. That is our vision and that is why we have been working and consulting on an economic venture that will take the abundant waters of two rivers in Turkey as far south as to Saudi Arabia.
The situation in Lebanon continues to be a source of serious concern and sorrow. The tragic developments of recent years lead us to reaffirm once again our conviction that only national reconciliation will enable the people of Lebanon to address all its problems successfully.
The apartheid policies of the Pretoria Government have continued to be the principal cause of tension and violence in southern Africa. Since last year, unfortunately, the political situation in South Africa has not improved. The policy of the Turkish Government on this problem remains unchanged: so long as the South African Government does not totally abolish its policy of apartheid and embark upon a real process of dialogue and change, the international community should persevere in its efforts. The worsening of the situation in South Africa and the continued human suffering created by apartheid require more than ever a firm reaction on the part of the United Nations.
The Council for Namibia,, of which Turkey was a founding member, has this year marked the twentieth year of its establishment in 1967 as the legal Administering Authority for the Territory until it attains independence. It is a matter of the deepest regret that after so many years the Namibians have not been able to exercise their right to self-determination and that the United Nations plan for the Independence of Namibia, embodied in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), has remained un implemented. We reaffirm our full solidarity with the people of Namibia and our determination to continue to support their legitimate struggle for

independence under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), The immediate and unconditional implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), which was adopted unanimously, constitutes therefore the only universally acceptable basis for a peaceful solution to the Namibian question.
The threat posed by terrorism to every society and to all facets of international relations has not abated. On the contrary, acts, methods and practices of terrorism which were unequivocally condemned by the General Assembly two years ago have continued to claim innocent lives on an increasing scale. Turkey has for many years stressed the necessity of effective international co-operation against terrorism in all its forms, we shall work with other Members for a forceful new resolution on terrorism which reaffirms resolution 40/61 of 9 December 1985, Those who instigate or support terrorist activities with the intention of jeopardizing the territorial integrity and security of other States assume a grave responsibility and should be unequivocally condemned by the international community. There can be no double standards about terrorism. Attempts to differentiate between various forms of terrorism can only encourage new acts of outrage. Those who support or tolerate terrorism for political advantage will only live to regret their short-sightedness.
In the current year, there is no doubt that the International Conference on Drug Abuse and Illicit Traffic convened at Vienna in June was a timely initiative. We welcome all United Nations efforts directed towards assuring greater control over the drug problem, reducing the illicit drug trade, and at the same time alleviating the damage it causes to individuals and societies. As we stated at the International Conference, the close links between the illicit traffic in drugs and both organized crime and international terrorism constitute a serious and increasing threat to social stability and therefore necessitate concerted efforts by the international community to combat those scourges.
The Turkish approach to the Cyprus problem is realistic and constructive. In fact that the Turkish Cypriot side has accepted the Secretary-General's draft framework agreement of 29 Match 1986, presented after comprehensive and arduous consultations with the parties concerned, is another indication of this constructive attitude. It is regrettable that the Greek side seeks to prolong the dispute and pursue confrontation rather than accept the Secretary-General's draft framework agreement as the basis of a negotiated settlement. The Greek Cypriot efforts to blame the party that has accepted the Secretary-General's draft for the present stalemate constitute a manifest contradiction. By the same token, the Greek Cypriot efforts in international forums where the Turkish Cypriot people are not represented will certainly not be conducive to a settlement of the dispute. The Greek Cypriot initiative to open a debate on the Cyprus problem during the present session is yet another example of its efforts to divert attention from its intransigence. Past experience has shown that such initiatives render the problem all the more complicated and difficult to solve.
The Members of the United Nations are aware of our deep humanitarian concern over the plight of the Turkish minority in Bulgaria, a minority of one and a half million people whose status and rights are unequivocally recognized by bilateral and international agreements. We regret that the Bulgarian Government continues with its coercive policy of assimilating that community, denying its identity and its most elementary human rights. Bulgaria also denies its members the right of emigration. We are ready to accept all who wish to immigrate to Turkey. Many countries and organizations have appealed to the Bulgarian Government to abandon this policy of oppression and to restore the minority rights of the Turkish Muslin community. In fact, if the Bulgarian Government adopted a positive attitude in this regard, that would bring about progress in our bilateral relations, improve the prospects of Balkan co-operation, and reinforce the Helsinki process with regard to the application of its humanitarian principles.
With regard to Afghanistan, we continue to support the efforts made by the Secretary-General and his representative to help work out a political solution, regret that the latest round of proximity talks held at Geneva has been inconclusive and that it has not yet been possible to surmount the remaining difficulties on the way to a comprehensive settlement.
We strongly believe that the diplomatic process must be pursued and that Afghanistan must be allowed and assisted to become once again a truly independent country. In this connection we should like to reiterate our deep appreciation of the humanitarian assistance provided by the Government and people of Pakistan in hosting millions of Afghan refugees.
The prevailing tensions in South-East Asia and the plight of the Kampuchean people continue to be a cause of concern. The key to a just and lasting political settlement in Kampuchea continues to be the exercise by the Kampuchean people of their inalienable right to self-determination. We consider the eight-point proposal made by the Coalition Government on 17 March 1986 and supported by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) to be a valid framework for a comprehensive political settlement. We also believe that the recent efforts of the countries of ASEAN and the Secretary-General represent a constructive contributor to the search for a peaceful settlement in Kampuchea through negotiations.
I should like to emphasize once again the importance that we continue to attach to the efforts deployed to bring about a constructive and fruitful dialogue in the Korean peninsula. We welcome the initiative taken by the Republic of Korea to reopen the suspended dialogue between the two countries. We hope that the parties concerned will keep working on such a process and engender the conditions necessary to lead to their representation in the United Nations.
With regard to Central America, we hope that the new regional effort undertaken this summer on the initiative of Costa Rica within the framework of the Contadora process will promote peaceful solutions to the problems that confront the countries of the region. In this regard, we welcomed the peace plan adopted at that meeting of the Heads of State of the five Central American countries, held in Guatemala City in August. We hope that it will generate a new momentum towards resolving the problems of the Central American region through negotiations within a democratic process.
On the international economic scene, the major challenge before us continues to be the reactivation of the development process and the restoration of sustained growth in the world. We all know that events of recent years have not been favourable in this respect. Many countries in the developing world have registered negative growth rates, and the economic growth in the industrialized countries has remained slow as compared to the 1960s and 1970s.
I should like to submit that the international community cannot and should not be complacent about this situation. In fact, the possibilities and potential available in today's world can indeed turn the tide provided that the community of nations implements the necessary measures in a timely manner.
The seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) constituted a landmark in this respect. At that Conference a common approach was adopted by the international community in order to deal with the problems besetting both the developed and the developing world. Countries individually and as groups respectively made common commitments and accepted obligations which are clearly and exhaustively stated in the Geneva Final Act. The Conference was realistic and pragmatic, both in the assessment of the world economic situation and the in remedies to be applied. The concept of interdependence has acquired a tangible and meaningful substance. A strong consensus has emerged as to the need for higher global growth with a view to improving the international economic environment and rendering it more conducive to the solution of the problems of indebtedness and protectionism and acceleration of the process of structural adjustment.
I wish to focus on an issue of high importance to the developing world from the viewpoint of both integration and development. Protectionism has made deep inroads into the industrialized economies. UNCTAD VII rightly diagnosed the need to revitalize international trade as a means of creating the additional resources needed to overcome development problems. It is important that growth-oriented policies be accompanied by the removal of protectionist barriers. We hope that the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations will usher in a more open system of international trade. We support the idea of an immediate standstill and wider roll back in the early stages of multilateral negotiations.
Needless to say, the curtailment of access to the markets of the industrialized world will only compound the debt problem. Careful though Turkey is about its debt payments, we would none the less hasten to state that the time has come for more sustained and balanced trade to overcome the development problems of, especially, the middle income countries. We should like to underline the fundamental contradiction in introducing restrictions on imports from the developing world while expecting debt payments to proceed smoothly.
We believe that in addition to universal action there is much to be done at the national level. The Turkish experience is worth recalling in this respect.
Only eight years ago our economy was on the verge of collapse. Vital imports had ceased because of severe foreign currency shortages and production had come to a virtual standstill. As a result of the market-oriented and liberal trade policies that we have pursued, Turkey today maintains the highest rate of economic growth among the countries members of the Organisation for Economic Co—operation and Development (OECD), with exports having quadrupled since the early 1980s and industrial goods comprising 78 per cent of total exports. We are currently experiencing a boom in tourism and other services. In April 1987 Turkey applied to the European Community for full membership, confident that its economy had for the most part reached the level of competitiveness for such an undertaking. There are still big challenges ahead, but we are confident of our future.
Let me now stress the importance of initiatives which the developing world can take collectively. A concrete example is the Committee for Economic and Commercial Co-operation of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which held its third meeting in Istanbul earlier this month. Within a short period this institution has registered palpable achievements. One such has been the creation of a long-term trade financing scheme. Such possibilities and potentialities abound in South-south co-operation.
However, a sustained and organized impetus is needed in the form of investments and capital inflow, better access to the markets of the industrialized world and facilities for debt repayment in support of growth-oriented structural adjustment policies in developing countries. Increasing responsibility falls on the industrialized world to help overcome development problems by improving the international environment and sensibly raising their growth rate.
In concluding, I wish to express my hope that the forty-second session of the General Assembly will be able to contribute to the search for peace and co-operation in the world.


 It is with a renewed feeling of confidence in the United Nations and a keen perception of its vital role in the strengthening of peace and co-operation amongst peoples that for the third time I come to this podium.
Nearly all the nations of the world are represented here, protagonists in the universal and egalitarian communion that this General Assembly propitiates every year. Here the nations, large and small, raise free and sovereign voices in a discussion of important items on the international agenda.
Brazil has the privilege of opening this debate, which allows me to be the first to compliment you. Sir, upon your election to the presidency of this General Assembly and to convey to you our best wishes for your complete success in that capacity. I would like also to express my appreciation to Mr. Choudhury, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh, for the able way in which he presided over the work of the General Assembly at its forty-first session. I bear responsibility for carrying out the foreign policy of a Brazil reborn into the practice of democracy, strengthened in its commitment to the interests and aspirations of its people and open to candid dialogue at the international level.
I speak on behalf of a country which is absolutely loyal to its diplomatic traditions, one that is building its future with determination, without being intimidated by the obstacles raised by the reality of the modern world. This reality, unfortunately, is independent of the will and aspirations of most of the peoples of the world and is not always in tune with the lofty purposes of this Organization.
The so-called crisis of multilateralism undermines the attempt at juridical regulation of international life and saps the foundations of co-operation among States.
The world will no longer tolerate structures based on the supremacy of the few and the submission of the many. Attempts to impose oligarchic schemes on the organization of international society meet with increasing discredit. There is no place any more for rigid and exclusive formulas, Manichean dualisms, or theories that arbitrarily divide up world power - theories often inspired by geometrical figures. The world will come upon better days only when the international order is made effectively democratic and, to achieve that goal, the United Nations has an essential role to play.
No nation or group of nations has the right to impose its own conceptions and solutions on the increasingly complex picture of international relations. No one nation should seek to isolate itself or fail to take into consideration the universal aspirations of the community of nations.
I view with satisfaction the fact that the two super-Powers - by means of direct dialogue between their leaders. President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev - are seeking more fertile understanding and mutual confidence which, we trust, will result to the benefit of all countries. Along the same optimistic lines, it should also be recorded here that there was a recent important meeting between the leaders of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic - Chancellor Helmut Kohl and President Erich Honaker - an historic event that may well lead to positive developments for a mature and constructive relationship.
In multilateral diplomacy there ate perceptible signs of encouraging vitality. One of those signs was the decision to create a zone of peace and co-operation in the South Atlantic - a decision of undeniable significance for the fulfilment of the principles and purposes of this Organization. There is still hope for a peaceful settlement of the conflict that for over a decade now has been raging in Central America.
The United Nations represents the awareness of mankind that only by dialogue and persuasion can differences between States be resolved amicably. In unanimously adopting its resolution 598 (1987) on the conflict between Iran and Iraq, the Security Council showed its capacity to act in a constructive way to arrive at the peaceful and negotiated settlement of disputes. This action to restore peace, in accordance with the terms of the Charter, leads us to believe that in other cases it will be possible to have recourse to the authority of the Security Council, in the same conciliatory spirit. I am persuaded that the Council's diplomatic potential should be used to the fullest extent.
It was in the light of this conviction that Brazil decided to present its candidature for one of the seats allocated to Latin America on the Security  Council. Brazil believes that it is in a position to make a constructive contribution during the coming biennium in reactivating the Council's role and in settling problems that affect or can affect international peace and security.
Having been honoured with the unanimous endorsement of the Latin American Group, we hope to be equally worthy of a vote of confidence from this General Assembly.
The latest signs of a break in the clouds that darken the international political situation are in direct contrast to the indefinitely prolonged economic crisis. The magnitude of the challenges facing the developing nations and the total lack of progress in restructuring the international economic order are the two sides of the coin of the same deeply disturbing panorama.
There is no raising of consciousness about the drama and concerns of the nations of the third world and their right to a destiny of achievement and progress which is under constant threat. I am from a developing country that will never surrender this right and is not only convinced of the justice and legitimacy of its claims but also of the viability of its objectives in the economic and social fields.
An additional cause for concern in the international community is the persistence of political crises that have been aggravated by the resort to force in violation of the United Nations Charter. Only last year I remarked to this Assembly that, where force is present nowadays, stalemates are more frequent than either victories or defeats. The use of force or the threat of the use of force is not only illegal but is proving itself to be ineffective as well. This holds true in the Gulf region, where the machinery of violence is out of control. It is also true in southern Africa, with the persistence of the tense climate provoked by the apartheid regime, the unjustifiable delay in bringing about the independence of Namibia and the acts of hostility and aggression perpetrated by South Africa against its neighbours. Only the intolerance, short-sightedness and unreasonableness of the racist policies of South Africa can explain the continuing existence of this situation, which is an offence against human dignity and violates the principles governing relations between States.
On the other hand, it is becoming more and more urgent to give new impetus to attempts to achieve a lasting, comprehensive and just peace in the Middle East. Brazil believes that the need to convene an international peace conference, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the participation of all interested parties, is becoming increasingly pressing. In this context, I reiterate our concern over the suffering inflicted upon the people of Lebanon, a country whose integrity should be respected.
We are hopeful that understandings arrived at between the parties involved, with the participation of the United Nations, will quickly lead to the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan and the cessation of all forms of outside interference, so that the Afghan people may exercise their sovereign right to self-determination.
We also view with concern the continuing impasse in the case of the Malvinas. Brazil, which recognizes the sovereign rights of Argentina, hopes that the parties involved will heed the appeal repeatedly addressed to them by the General Assembly to attempt to reach through dialogue a negotiated settlement of all aspects of the dispute.
I am pleased to note that the proposals on the subject of the South Atlantic made from this rostrum in 1985 by Mr. Jose Sarney, the President of my country, were successfully made a reality in the initiative culminating in the General Assembly's approval of resolution 41/11, of 27 October 1986. The establishment of a zone of peace and co-operation of the South Atlantic signified the international community's recognition of the determination of the South American and African countries of the region to maintain their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity and to promote co-operation for economic and social development in conditions of peace and freedom.
For that decision to be implemented properly, other States must co-operate in good faith. This is indispensable. The militarily more significant States are called upon in particular scrupulously to respect the peaceful statute governing the region, and to avoid extending into the region rivalries and conflicts that are foreign to it. I cannot fail to point out that serious focuses of tension continue to exist there and that they are detrimental to the full realization of the objectives and principles of the decision adopted by the General Assembly.
From the rostrum of this peace forum I wish also to register the satisfaction with which Brazil views the possibility of the conclusion in the near future of the first agreement in history on nuclear disarmament. If, as we all wish, the United States and the Soviet Union come to a successful understanding on medium-range atomic weapons, we shall have the first real disarmament measure, in contrast with previous agreements, which amounted to nothing more than a palliative management of the arms race.
It is obvious that the more heavily armed countries bear the primary responsibility for the disarmament process. But it is equally indisputable that other States have the right to participate in the decision-making process on problems that, although caused by some, affect all, without exception. We therefore consider it indispensable for the negotiations between the super-Powers to be linked with the efforts made in multilateral disarmament forums, especially the Conference on Disarmament, which Is entrusted with a specific mandate.
I stressed in my statement at the Seventh United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the developing world has been plunged into a deep crisis, and the efforts we are making to resume economic growth are confronted with an adverse International reality, with structures that accentuate the differences instead of reducing them. I also affirmed then that the attempt to shape the new by using the models of the past impeded the resumption of growth and development on a world-wide basis and the formation of a more just and more equitable international system.
The understanding arrived at on the problem of the foreign debt, as set forth in General Assembly resolution 41/202, is an indication of the promising headway which has been made, progress which should now be consolidated. I repeat here the firm and clear position of my country; we acknowledge our International financial. We will settle our foreign debt under fair and reasonable terms and conditions. No one can claim that Brazil has not Itself made every effort to overcome its difficulties. Brazil cannot, however, jeopardize its development.
In their efforts to seize Increased economic opportunities, the developing countries encounter the severest restrictions imposed by their industrialized 	fields of finance, trade in goods and services, and, especially, the absorption of state-of-the-art technologies.
This is a tendency that undermines the heroic struggles of developing countries to assure their peoples a dignified and prosperous future. It is a tendency that dashes those nations' expectations of more just and equitable participation in the international economy - and more than their expectations: their irrefutable right.
Brazil has no alternative but to grow. We must meet the crucial needs of a vast population which, in many strata, has known nothing but poverty and suffering. Development is not an option for us; it is an imperative.
The efforts undertaken by the developing countries to create a new international economic order will produce results only if they are accompanied by effective action to offset the distortions that exist in the policy of transfer of scientific and technological knowledge. In this regard a vigorous endeavour can be noted on the part of some developed countries to seek to create a new international division of labour, but a division that would be more inequitable and prejudicial to our interests since it would thwart our legitimate right to have access to the latest scientific advances and mastery of state-of-the-art technologies. As President Sarney stated on 4 September, when he announced Brazil's mastery of the technology for enriching uranium, Brazil cannot forgo broad and unrestricted access to the entire range of available scientific knowledge and its practical applications.
In this connection I wish to reiterate my country's commitment to use nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes. This commitment not only is beyond dispute but also is supported by the positive effects which Brazil's technological advances in this field, together with those of its sister nations, are producing, to the enhancement of increased co-operation and mutual trust in Latin America. The initiatives of collaboration which are being implemented between Brazil and Argentina In particular, will assure the  mastering of the nuclear cycle without the development of atomic weapons in our continent. This common purpose was highlighted in the exchange of correspondence between Presidents Jose Sarney and Raul Alfonsin when the announcement of Brazil's mastery of the technology for enriching uranium was made public.
The fact that Latin America is showing its ability to find practical and creative answers to its own problems is most encouraging. In this regard I should like to cite the example of the dynamic action which the Contadora Group has been 'taking, with the political backing of the Support Group of which Brazil is a member, in its quest for a genuinely Latin American solution to the conflict in Central America.
On behalf of my Government I wish to praise the important understandings arrived at on 7 August last in Guatemala. On that occasion the Heads of State of the five Central American nations gave a clear and historic demonstration of political will to resolve the conflict. Brazil deems the accord signed then to be one which offers a unique opportunity to guarantee peace in the region. To that end it has lent its active and interested contribution to the understandings which resulted in the decision, adopted on 22 August in Caracas, to set up an international commission for the purposes of verification and surveillance.
In Brazil's judgement the results of the recent steps taken in the quest for a peaceful solution to the Central American crisis indicate that the countries of the region are themselves in a position to find ways to put an end to the conflict which concerns and affects all of Latin America. To accomplish this it is essential that all other countries with ties or interests in the region avoid displaying any attitude that might render such solutions non-viable. The same ability of Latin America to find its own solutions to the problems of the continent is corroborated by the creation of the Permanent Mechanism for Consultation and Political Co-ordination, instituted as a result of the fruitful experience acquired over more than two years of successive contacts among the eight countries which make up the Contadora and Support Groups.
The decision of those countries, arrived at last month in the city of Sao Paulo, to begin to hold periodic meetings at the presidential level is an indication that the process of regional co-ordination begun in Rio de Janeiro has rapidly matured. In fact the Group of Bight is an integral part of a process of broader regional understanding, another of whose multiple facets is to be found in the renewed efforts towards the integration of Latin America, which Brazil, as well as other countries of the region, has been fostering in various forums such as the Latin American Association for Integration, the Latin American Economic System, the Latin American Energy Organization and the Cartagena Consensus.
I wish to reaffirm before this world forum the importance my country attributes to the agreements for integration and economic co-operation concluded with Argentina and Uruguay at the beginning of last year. These are instruments of truly historical significance which attest to our fraternal determination to grow together, to strengthen our democratic institutions and to contribute to the success of the greater undertaking, which is today closer to realization than it was yesterday: the Integration of Latin America as a whole.
My words here today have expressed greater optimism and hope than I voiced in this forum last year. This attitude can be explained in the light of some positive aspects of the current International panorama. Along with this optimism and hope, however, I cannot disguise my disappointment and even indignation at the imbalances and inequities which persist on the international economic scene· Recent progress in the political field is not being accompanied by advances in the struggle against misery and poverty. On the contrary, the insensitivity and unyielding attitude of the developed countries are increasingly evident on issues of trade, finance and the transfer of technology
My country is currently experiencing a time of crucial importance for the definition of its political and institutional directions. We are about to approve a new constitution within the framework of perfecting our democratic way of life. Brazil is ready to continue along the road to peace and construction. This is the road that will lead to progress and prosperity for our people, in growing harmony and closer co-operation with all friendly nations.


I should first like to extend to you. Sir, our sincere congratulations on your election to the presidency of this session of the General Assembly. I am absolutely sure that your long experience and your well-known skills ensure positive results by this important session. We are particularly pleased to see in the Chair a representative of your country, which is a friend of the Jamahiriya and linked to it by strong relations of friendship and understanding. I assure you of our readiness to co-operate fully with you as you discharge your high task.
I express my country's appreciation also to Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury, who presided over the forty-first session of the Assembly with outstanding skill. We believe that his guidance as President played a large part in the success achieved by that session.
I pay a tribute also to Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar for the efforts he has made and continues to make to promote the role of the Organization and to achieve its purposes and principles, particularly in the maintenance of international peace and security.
I also congratulate Ambassador Joseph Verner Reed on his appointment to the post of Under-Secretary—General for Political and General Assembly Affairs. This is the forty-second session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, an organization which, despite its shortcomings and the loopholes in its Charter, remains the only hope that the international community has for the achievement of peace and security based on justice, and of the well-being and equality of peoples. The peoples of the world - and it is they who are mentioned at the very beginning of the Charter - have always looked to this Organization to fulfil their hopes and aspirations, in freedom, justice and equality.
When the Organization was established, everyone believed that that would be the beginning of the end of existing international struggles and struggles based n hegemony and racial and ethnic discrimination. The whole world opposed Nazism and fascism as aberrant phenomena. The family of nations joined hands to eradicate those dangers and to stem their tide. Libya, which was one of the victims of fascist aggression lost more than half its population opposing and resisting that aggression during a long and bitter period of struggle, fully appreciates the importance of the world's and mankind's victory over fascism and Nazism.
In the field of decolonisation the United Nations has achieved many successes and victories. The struggle of peoples in all the continents of the world, and in our African continent in particular, has been crowned by many victories, which led to the demise of colonization and the smashing of its chains. However, those victories in fighting fascism and Nazism achieved by the community of nations have encountered many setbacks because of the emergence of imperialism, racist Zionism and neo-colonialism. Today we see entire peoples facing extermination or dispersion.
The tragedy of the people of Palestine, a tragedy caused by the alliance between imperialism, world Zionism and colonialism, is seen in the attempts to eradicate the Palestinian people. That tragedy can indeed be considered the worst tragedy in our contemporary history. The United Nations, which was used as an instrument to legitimise the aggressor and deprive the victims of their rights through the creation of the Zionist entity, has a moral responsibility to correct that historical mistake.
The establishment of the racist regime in South Africa - the counterpart of the racist regime in Palestine - through the same instrument is but another example of the historical tragedies being forced upon peoples. The violation of the rights of millions of African blacks in South Africa and Namibia and the inhuman treatment meted out to them make this a shameful chapter in the history of our time. The racist regime in South Africa can be ended only if imperialist States cease their direct support for that regime. Furthermore, the independent of Namibia, to which imperialist Powers are attempting to create obstacles and which they are trying to prevent by creating new conditions, can be achieved rapidly only on the basis of Security Council resolution 435 (1978).
We believe that the time has come to impose economic sanctions on the racist regime to force it into line with the will of the international community. We further believe that the racist regime must allow the people of Azania to determine its own future in freedom and without any pressure whatsoever, so that we may at last hear the voice of the black majority, which has not been allowed to be raised at any time in the past. Nor has that majority been allowed to participate in ruling its country. Stability and peace cannot be restored to Azania unless the national rights of the black majority are fully recognized.
Despite the attempts by mankind and the family of nations to achieve peace, the savage campaign by the United States Administration against small countries and peace-loving peoples cannot but make the picture a very depressing picture and underline the nature of the State terrorism practised by that Administration. Mi у peoples have been in the past and continue to be subjected to that imperialist campaign, whether directly or indirectly, in every one of the world's five continents. The Vietnamese people was subjected to mass extermination·, Grenada is subjected to direct invasion and occupation; Nicaragua has been the subject of siege and aggression; Cuba is the subject of aggression; Libya was the victim of direct aggression from the north, while today it is subjected to the same aggression on its southern borders; Palestinian refugee camps have been and continue to be destroyed; there have been and continue to be attempts at the mass extermination of the Palestinian people, inside and outside occupied Palestine, with the use of American weapons of destruction and with the support of the American Administration. That Administration has provided the Zionist entity with all types of weapons to commit aggression against the Palestinian people and expand, at the expense of neighbouring Arab countries, in the Golan and in Lebanon.
Furthermore, American imperialism does not hide its enmity towards the Arab world and has widely proclaimed its strategic alliance with the Zionist enemy.
Old, traditional colonialism, which was kicked out of the front door, is today trying by all possible means to return through the back door. French colonialism, which suffered many setbacks in the African continent, faced defeat in Algeria and was forced to leave its colonies in the African continent, is today attempting to return through the back door. French bases on the African continent, and in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are all a direct threat to and aggression against small countries and peace-loving peoples. The continuing occupation by France of a part of the African continent, is in the case of the island of Reunion, and other parts of the world, such as New Caledonia, where the will of the people is being misrepresented, are outstanding examples of the remnants of this abhorrent colonialism.
Libya, which was one of the victims of aggression and direct French intervention, cannot but draw the attention of the international community and the world to the danger of French occupation, intervention and presence in the African continent, particularly in Chad. We have heard the Foreign Minister of France speaking of the "responsibility" of France. What responsibility is he talking about? Is it the responsibility of the wolf to its victim? Is it the responsibility of the master to those he wishes to continue to enslave? What role has France to intervene in Africa? Perhaps it is the right of the wolf as comparable to the lamb. We say to the French Government from this international rostrum the time when colonialism could use its heavy stick has gone forever.
Algeria is no longer French. Viet Nam, following Dien Bien Phu, is no longer French. Libya is no longer part of the fascist empire of Mussolini. The age of colonialist and fascist treaties and conventions to divide the world and its people has also gone forever. May I also recall that Libya, which fought fascism, Libya, which lost half its population defending its land and waters, will not give up any part of its territory under any condition. Aouzou is Libyan and will remain so. We do not need any French scrolls or documents to prove it is so.
We believe in the inevitability of the victory of peoples, despite all the tragedies and plights to which humanity has been subjected. The presence of such a large number of Member States which struggled in the past against colonialism and which struggle today against imperialism is resplendent proof that history cannot be rolled back; it is proof of the inevitability of the victory of peoples. Despite the attempts of imperialist Powers to divide peoples and to sow seeds of dissent among them, we can still say, and say emphatically, that the world today realizes more than at any time in the past the true nature of colonialist-imperialist plots.
What happened in 1948 when plots were made to partition Palestine, disperse its people and legitimise the aggressor will not be repeated in the name of the United Nations. The United Nations today is very different from the United Nations of yesteryear.
For the United Nations to undertake its role fully, it must be changed in a way that will never allow the Organization and the members of the international community to ignore new political and economic realities that have emerged on the international scene. The paralysis of United Nations resolutions, the rejection of its will, indeed the flouting of the United Nations and the non-observance by some major Powers of their commitment to the principles of the Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights must not be repeated.
Certain rights and privileges of some States - the right of veto, for example - runs counter to the simplest rules of equality among Member States provided in the United Nations Charter - are an obstacle in the way of a truly effective role for the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace ; d security. The right of veto has been continually used against the international will to defend the aggressor and justify aggression and occupation. The time has come for the international community to get rid of that privilege, which is clear y counter to the principle of equality among Member States provided for in the Charter of the United Nations.
We welcome all agreements between the two super-Powers to achieve disarmament and peace. However, as small peoples we have learned from our experience not to e over-optimistic. Imperialist Powers will not give up their ambitions or their objectives of hegemony and domination. Imperialist Powers exploit all attempts I peace-loving States to achieve peace and use every opportunity to attack small peoples, usurp their riches, monopolize their wealth and destroy their economies.
I have said that, despite the achievements of the United Nations, hotbeds o: tension, dispute and war exist in many parts of the world. Those Powers which reject peace and justice feed those disputes and, indeed, they lead to the fanning of more such disputes in order to try out their weapons and achieve their imperialist aggressive aims. The time has come for the United Nations to achieve peace and security, based on the interests of peoples, not on those of the monopolies.
The war in the Gulf must be brought to an end; it is a war between two neighbouring Muslim States whose resources must be devoted to the interests of their peoples} their joint efforts must be devoted to standing together with other Islamic and Arab countries in the region against the joint imperialist-Zionist threat. Only the imperialist Powers have an interest in the continuation of this war - a war through which those imperialist Powers attempt to gain a stronger foothold. By amassing forces in the region they wish to inflame that war. We express support for the Secretary-General's efforts to end that war as soon as possible, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions.
The situation in Latin America and Central America cannot be improved and peace cannot be restored to those two regions unless the imperialist intervention is brought to an end. Imperialism is supporting mercenaries in the area. We salute the efforts of the Contadora Group and the Support Group in Central America as represented in the Guatemala agreement, which we believe is the only way to solve the problem. We should also like to emphasize our support of, and solidarity with, the peoples of Nicaragua and Cuba against imperialist intervention and aggression.
I have mentioned attempts by imperialism and colonialism to sow seeds of dissent among African brothers. Allow me to say that the solution to the Chad problem can be found essentially - as has been emphasized by various parties and even by Mr. Habré himself - in an end to French intervention, the withdrawal of French and imperialist Powers from Chad, and achievement of national interests among all Chadian factions.
The Jamahiriya has always expressed its willingness to help in solving the Chad problem. Libya recently declared, through the leader of its Revolution, that it would leave the Chadians to solve their own problems and that it no longer considered that there was any problem whatever between it and Chad. Furthermore, the Jamahiriya has expressed its complete readiness to co-operate with the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the good offices committee assigned by that organization at its most recent meeting held in Lusaka to deal with the Chad problem.
To date, the problem of Western Sahara has not been solved in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity. We support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Secretary-General of the OAU" to solve the problem in accordance with the relevant resolutions and in a way that would ensure justice and equality.
The Jamahiriya, which has 1,900 kilometres of coast on the Mediterranean, is very keen to see it become a sea of peace and security for all Mediterranean countries and for the world as a whole. However - and most unfortunately - the Sea continues to be a region of tension owing to the presence there of imperialist fleets in its waters and imperialist-colonialist military bases on its shores, If those fleets and bases remain in the area, that will lead only to more tension and the possibility of new conflagrations in that area.
Libya has been the victim of treacherous American military aggression during which the waters and airspace of that sea were used. That aggression was directed against Libya in an attempt to abort the Libyan revolution and to kill its leader. In General Assembly resolution 41/38 the international community clearly condemned the aggression after having first agreed at its forty-first session to include an item in its agenda - item 142 - to discuss the issue.
The solution to the Cypriot problem can be achieved through co-operation between the two communities in Cyprus, Greek and Turkish, on the basis of a United, non-aligned Cyprus and the elimination of imperialist colonialist British bases there. The Jamahiriya supports the efforts of the Secretary-General towards the achievement of a peaceful and just settlement of the question of Cyprus.
In the Asian continent we notice many hot spots of tension. My country, which enjoys excellent relations with the Asian States believes that efforts to solve the problems and eliminate these hot spots of tension must be continued. The agreement signed by the Foreign Ministers of Indonesia and Viet Nam is likely to resolve problems in the area in a way that will guarantee the rights of their peoples and their socio-economic choices.
We in the Arab world have been subjected to efforts to divide us. We fully appreciate, therefore, the importance of the reunification of Korea in a peaceful framework. We support dialogue and mutual understanding towards that goal and we call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korean land. I cannot fail to mention here, however briefly, the international economic situation and the economic crisis faced by the peoples of the world, particularly the third world. The international economic crisis is becoming more grave every year, and it is the developing countries, my country included, that are most seriously affected. Indeed, the peoples of those countries are already bearing the brunt of those consequences. In fact, the developing countries have begun experiencing the effects of economic stagnation, as reflected in their inability t achieve the economic growth needed to guarantee a minimum level of development and progress. The least developed countries face the spectre of hunger and poverty as well as deterioration in all sectors of their economies, particularly in the African and South-East Asian regions affected by drought. The international economic crisis can be appropriately addressed only if the world moves towards dialogue and attempts to eradicate the factors that have provoked it, in the forefront of which is the flagrant injustice being imposed on the developing and the least developed countries because of instability in international economic affairs. The developed countries must restore balance if they are to avoid the effects of the current imbalance from spilling over into their own economies. Tariff barriers on imports must be removed. Furthermore, the developed countries must devote more attention to achieving real stability in the international monetary system.
The North-South dialogue will succeed only if the developed countries make concessions with regard to their selfish goals and exercise the moral responsibility they bear towards developing countries. That dialogue can be enhanced by a genuine South-South dialogue and solidarity among third world countries.
The world is going through a critical stage of large military blocs and many imperialist and colonialist interventions·, hence it is in dire need of the Non-Aligned Movement, The Jamahiriya strongly supports that Movement, for we are fully convinced that it has a constructive role to play to decrease tension and achieve international peace and security. We in the Non-Aligned Movement are this year celebrating its twenty-sixth anniversary. On this occasion we hail Its many successes, some of which, unfortunately, have made many of its members the object of imperialist campaigns merely because they have held strongly to the principles and objectives of the Movement as the sole hope for humanity.
May I, in conclusion, say that promoting the role of the United Nations - an Organization the imperialist Powers wish to weaken - will be a true guarantee for the achievement of its objectives·, international peace and security. Attempts to solve disputes outside the United Nations and dividing the world into blocs can only lead to undermining the Organization. Small countries, which make up the overwhelming majority of the membership of this Organization, bear the fundamental responsibility to support the Organization because small countries, including Libya, can but consider their membership of the Organization as one of the best guarantees of their independence and freedom. Pot that reason we must foster mutual effective co-operation in order to enable our Organization to fulfil its role free from any hegemony or intervention.