It is with real pleasure that, on behalf of the delegation of the
Revolutionary People's Republic of Guinea, we should like to extend
to Mr. Hollai our warm congratulations on his well-deserved election
to serve as President of this thirty-seventh session of the General
Assembly. My country maintains with the People's Republic of Hungary
the best relations of friendly and fraternal co-operation. We cannot
doubt that Mr. Hollai's election will indeed contribute to the
crowning of our work with just solutions to our many concerns. In the
quest for these just solutions, the President can be assured that the
delegation of the Revolutionary People's Republic of Guinea will be
available at all times to ensure our fruitful co-operation. We should
also like to convey to the Secretary-General the warm encouragement
and high hopes of President Ahmed Sekou Toure for a successful
discharge of the lofty tasks he has assumed as the head of the
Organization. The son of a thin world country, Mr. Perez de Cuellar
will, with his recognized wisdom, be able to deal with the pressing
problems confronting the international community. This session is
taking place at a particularly difficult and disquieting moment in
international life. The aggravation of political tensions, to which
has been added a chronic and testing economic recession, is the
hallmark of our time. Thirty-seven years ago, on behalf of perceptive
humanity, the peoples of the world endorsed the Charter in San
Francisco, thereby committing themselves: "... to save succeeding
generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has
brought untold sorrow to mankind... "... to establish conditions
under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from
treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained,
and "to promote social progress and better standards of life in
larger freedom". Never had a human act and the legitimate will of
peoples raised so much hope, confidence and faith in the future of
nations. Between 1945 and 1982, 37 years have gone by; 37 years of
thought, action and experience, 37 years of efforts crowned, to be
sure, with victories, but more often ending with failure,
disappointment and bitterness. This session is thus being held at a
moment when the international situation is from various standpoints
extremely unstable. The tragedy being acted out here and there
demonstrates to the world the degree of anguish and the urgency of
the responsibilities that must be assumed. On 29 June last, at the
twelfth special session President Ahmed Sekou Toure stated from this
very rostrum, in this connection: ' War, local though it be in a
given geographic area of the world, is always universal in scope.
"War is raging in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and Asia.
Lebanon is under attack by Israel, and Angola by the Republic of
South Africa. In Namibia, in Western Saham, ... in Afghanistan, ...
in El Salvador ... the fires of war have not been extinguished. Human
lives are lost and property is destroyed. Violence continues
threatening the life of man and the well-being of society.
"International forums remain indifferent or powerless... Is the
unhappiness of some creating the happiness of others?" The outrageous
attitude and the extraordinary stubbornness of racist South Africa,
which is continuing not only to oppress and exploit the Coloured
people of South Africa, but is obstinately maintaining a state of war
along the Angolan border and in southern Angola and is illegally
keeping Namibia under its colonialist domination, can be cited in
this connection. The Namibian question is a question of rights, the
inalienable right of peoples to independence. There is no ambiguity
as to the correct or incorrect exercise of this right.
Alibis arising from the Cuban presence in Angola, used to perpetuate
the grip on Namibia, are unacceptable to our delegation. The Cuban
presence in Angela falls within the sovereign rights of the Peoples
Republic of Angola. Angola cannot be told to renounce that sovereign
right. The open aggression of South African troops perpetrated
against Angola is inadmissible and repugnant. It is even more
intolerable to link that act of aggression to the Namibian question.
One can never say enough about the violations of the Charter and the
open arrogance of the proponents of the shameful system of in South
Africa, maintained with the complicity of certain Powers. It would be
appropriate now to reiterate our appeal to the international
community to give material, moral and diplomatic support to SWAPO and
to all the front-line States, which are the victims of the continuing
acts of aggression perpetrated by the South African regime. The
Government of the Revolutionary People's Republic of Guinea considers
that in view of the prevailing situation in southern Africa, the
United Nations must demand the full and immediate implementation of
Security Council resolution 435 (1978) for the decolonization and
accession to independence of Namibia, of which SWAPO is and remains
the sole legitimate representative. Elsewhere, we must recall here
the deep concern my country, the Revolutionary People's Republic of
Guinea, feels concerning Israel's arrogance in the Middle East. It is
high time for the State of Israel to face the obvious and to
understand that its peace, its development, its survival, reside
neither in its military policy, nor in war, but rather in a peaceful
and speedy settlement of the Palestinian problem. Israel's obstinate
pursuit of a policy of aggression, expansion and confiscation and
unbridled and systematic Judaization of Arab territories that it has
been occupying by force dangerously jeopardizes its own future. It is
time the world recognized that the Palestinian people, under the
aegis of the PLO, has the right to a land, to a country, to a
homeland; and that Al Quds Al Sharif should have an international
status which alone is compatible with its threefold religious
calling. The problems of the Middle East and those of southern Africa
are obviously not the only concerns of our peoples. Africa, through
its continental organization, is currently going through a serious
internal crisis. This points to the urgent necessity of finding a
just solution to the problem of Western Sahara. We consider that the
Committee established at the eighteenth session of the OAU Assembly
of Heads of State and Government should pursue its work to organize a
referendum in the Sahara. The convening of a special session of heads
of State and Government would also help to ease the crisis now
undermining and jeopardizing the moral standing of the OAU. To talk
about African problems is to talk about Chad, Mayotte, the Horn of
Africa and the serious worldwide economic recession, of which Africa
is one of the main victims. Our delegation notes with some
satisfaction the beginning of an internal improvement in Chad that
may lead to political stability and the strengthening of national
unity. It is appropriate now to appeal to all men of goodwill to
support the efforts of the Council of State of the Republic of Chad,
so that the work of national reconciliation can be completed. With
regard to the Comorian island of Mayotte, my delegation invites both
parties to conclude an agreement that would allow the return of that
island to the motherland. Another crisis is the deteriorating
situation in the Horn of Africa, the gravity of which my delegation
has constantly pointed out. Our concern is particularly great in the
light of the increasingly obvious intervention of foreign Powers in
events in that part of our continent. We call upon the two sister
countries, Ethiopia and Somalia, which are embroiled in that conflict
to turn to the art of African wisdom: constructive dialogue and
mutual tolerance. We must nurture peace where it reigns, restore it
where it has been breached, protect it where it is threatened.
Tension exists not only in Africa and the Middle East, but also in
the Mediterranean basin, in Cyprus, in the Gulf, in Korea, in
Afghanistan and in Kampuchea. Only yesterday, in the Falkland Islands
(Malvinas), such tension flared into open, murderous war. In sofar as
the situation in Cyprus is concerned, the Government of Guinea
encourages and supports all efforts at national reconciliation based
on dialogue between the Turkish and Greek communities and respect for
territorial integrity and for the unity of the Cypriot people.
With regard to the painful conflict between Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Iran, the Islamic Peace Committee continues to do all it
can. Despite the exacerbation of hostilities in recent days it will
continue its efforts to reach a cease-fire and promote peaceful
negotiations between the two Moslem sister countries, which should by
all rights be living in peace.
Peace remains fragile or threatened in many parts of Asia. Peace is
endangered in Korea because of the continued division of that country
and foreign interference in the domestic affairs of the Korean
people. That people-in the North as in the South- seeks peace,
independence and reunification of the country, which should be one
and indivisible. My delegation reiterates its appeal to the
international community to lend continuing and resolute support to
all efforts at a final peaceful settlement of the Korean question. We
endorse the idea of turning the current armistice into a peace
agreement and effecting the withdrawal of the foreign troops
stationed in South Korea, under the aegis of the United Nations. The
Government of the Revolutionary People's Republic of Guinea approves
the conclusions contained in the Lome Declaration, adopted in June
1982 at the African intergovernmental Conference in support of the
reunification of Korea.
In Afghanistan and Kampuchea, violation of the fundamental principle
of the Charter-non-interference in the domestic affairs of
States-which implies the inadmissibility of recourse to force in
relations among nations, is today creating tension and war. It is up
to the people of Afghanistan alone to determine freely its domestic
and external policies, without any pressure or interference.
With reference to Kampuchea, my delegation considers that a solution
to this problem will emerge from the sincere adherence of all
citizens of that country, without exception, to a minimal programme.
In this connection, the legitimacy embodied by Prince Sihanouk is one
of the components that must be taken into account.
Although the guns have been stilled in the Falkland Islands
(Malvinas), there is reason to fear that peace there remains fragile
and at risk. Recent events in the South Atlantic prompt us to support
the idea of negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom,
under United Nations auspices, in search of a peaceful solution to
the question.
This rapid review of some of the problems affecting peace and
stability in the world should serve to indicate that we are indeed
living in anxious and dangerous times, times when the spectre of the
apocalypse looming on the horizon troubles the peace of cities. At
the twelfth special session of the General Assembly President Ahmed
Sekou Toure said referring to the arms race "Indeed, is there a
decent person who is not increasingly alarmed about the negative
consequences, already disastrous in many areas, of this frantic race
being carried out at the expense of the lives of all the peoples of
the world? It is doubtful that such a person exists, for if he did
the internal light that God has given us would already have been
extinguished. This is not a problem which concerns the nuclear Powers
alone; rather, it is a whole set of concerns about which no statesman
of our era can be indifferent. "What actually is threatening peace?
It is the practice of colonialism, racism and apartheid hegemonism;
the downgrading of the fate of the so- called materially deprived
peoples; the flouting of international laws which guarantee the right
of every people to peace, security and progress." I should not like
to give the impression that I have come to this rostrum to talk only
about political problems. The order designed, desired and maintained
by those customarily called the "great" of this world persists and is
being perpetuated. Because of that iniquitous order, the rich keep
getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer. The disappointment
of developing countries is justified in the light of the Declaration
on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, acclaimed
here amid general enthusiasm-a new international economic order which
shall correct inequalities and redress existing injustices, and
ensure steadily accelerating economic and social development for
present and future generations. We note with regret the lack of
political will on the part of the industrialized countries to begin
global negotiations. However, the many discussions between North and
South, the various consultations held, and the adoption of Assembly
resolution 34/138 had made it possible for the various parties to
perceive a glimmer of hope in so far as the fortunate outcome of
those meetings was concerned. It now seems more indispensable than
ever for the developing countries to promote a sound and viable
co-operation among themselves. An open and frank South-South dialogue
would, we are convinced, make it possible for the developing
countries to reinforce their unity of action and to reaffirm their
common determination to solve the many problems arising from the
requirements of integrated and endogenous development. The only
possible way to ensure equality in North-South co-operation is to
establish fruitful relations of co-operation based on justice and the
reciprocity of interests, with the United Nations as the framework
for negotiations. Above and beyond economic difficulties, our
countries in some cases have to contend with natural disasters, which
remain the lot of the third world. In this connection, my delegation
believes that the restoration of the Fouta-Djallon Massif in West
Africa would make it possible for that subregion of Africa to play
its part as a regulator and supplier of water for West Africa and
would also make it possible to combat the problem of desertification
and its many disastrous consequences. By giving massive aid for the
implementation of the Plan of Action to Combat Desertification in
Africa, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 34/185, the
international community would be fulfilling its duty to act in
solidarity-indeed, to take preventive action-within the framework of
international co-operation. We shall continue to repeat that, in our
legitimate desire to perfect the Organization and to make it possible
for the majority of Member States to play a full and responsible part
in solving the serious problems that afflict the world, we consider
it indispensable to begin to reform the structures of the United
Nations and its operations. As we said two years ago from this very
rostrum, the vitality of any institution depends on its ability to
adapt to the times and to events. We still believe that if we wish to
make international relations more democratic-and indeed we must do
so-the democratization of the Organization is essential. We therefore
reiterate our appeal that the Charter be revised so as to ensure
equitable representation of all the regions of the world within the
discussion and decision-making bodies. It would then be possible to
give the United Nations system the power to intervene effectively in
the settlement of conflicts by peaceful means and to promote a policy
of balanced co-operation among nations on a footing of equality.


Mr. Hollai, allow me to congratulate you on the occasion of your election to the presidency of the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly and wish you full success in your most responsible task. We had the opportunity quite recently of complimenting the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, when he visited the Soviet Union and held important talks there. He received a deservedly warm welcome. A session of the General Assembly is a unique opportunity to review the international reality in all its diversity and to sense more profoundly what is of greatest concern to people on different continents. And, one becomes convinced once again that of the multitude of problems in today's world the main problem, the one that stands out, is that of averting the threat of nuclear war. Virtually everyone agrees that world developments have been evolving in an alarming way. People are asking themselves whether the insane arms race can be halted and the slipping towards the abyss prevented. What should be done to counter the policies of those who are playing out various scenarios of nuclear war as if it were some kind of a game of chance rather than a matter that affects the destinies of mankind?
Those are legitimate questions. The Soviet Union is firmly convinced that peace, which is of the greatest universal value, can and must be preserved; and it must be a just peace, worthy of those heights which civilization on earth has attained. We draw this conviction from history itself, which contains many a tragic page but also examples of brilliantly devised solutions to the most acute international problems. Let us recall how the Charter, which is a universally recognized code of rules that must govern relations between States, came into being. The establishment of this Organization and the Charter crystallized, as it were, the experience of the struggle against and the great victory over fascism. At that time the hope was held out to the world that it would be possible to avert another global tragedy. For almost 40 years now, that hope has been a reality. Now let us look at the changes in international relations brought about in the 1970s, when the peoples of the world were given an opportunity to breathe the air of detente. Surely the differences in social systems and ideologies or in the world outlook were no less then than they are today. But even taking these differences fully into account, States and the leaders who guided their policies did find ways leading to constructive relations between nations. This constant in the experience of peaceful coexistence has taken root in the minds of peoples and in the fabric of inter-State relations, and it is not easy to discard. The urge to give orders to other countries, to dominate the world, must not be allowed to overshadow the experience of the past or muffle the voice of reason.
	The Soviet people reject the gloomy view that mankind has no other path to follow than building up piles of armaments and preparing for war. It would be a mistake to underestimate the rising menace of war. But it is an even greater mistake to fail to see that possibilities do exist for putting up an insurmountable barrier against war. The Soviet Union and the Soviet people are placing all their political and moral potential and all the prestige of their policy on to the scales of peace. This is surely demonstrated by the obligation unilaterally assumed by the Soviet Union not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, an obligation solemnly stated in the message of Leonid Brezhnev at the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament the twelfth special session [12th meeting]. That was an act of historic importance and it was seen as such throughout the world. Is it not time for our Western partners, the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO], to assess in earnest the opportunities opened up by the Soviet Union's initiative? We expect them to weigh it carefully once again. In seeking to minimize the importance of the Soviet Union's peace initiatives, many Western leaders speak of the need for trust in relations between States. But how would that purpose best be served? It would be best served by renouncing preparations for war, the policy of the arms race and of whipping up world tensions. Why do they not assume the obligation, as the Soviet Union has done, not to be the first to use nuclear weapons? It is sometimes said that it is not merely a question of nuclear weapons alone, for there are conventional weapons as well. Yes, there are. But there is a convincing reply to that, too: we insist that all States assume an obligation to renounce any use or threat of force in their relations. As far back as 1976 the Soviet Union proposed that a world treaty be concluded on the non-use of force in international relations and it submitted a draft treaty to the General Assembly for its consideration.
The draft treaty expressly provides that States would refrain from the use of force involving any types of weapons — and I emphasize, any types of weapons. It would be a good idea to inscribe this on the doors of every agency in Washington that is concerned with United States foreign policy. We note with satisfaction that the initiative concerning the non-use of force was endorsed by the overwhelming majority of States Members of the United Nations. Indeed, the Special Committee on Enhancing the Effectiveness of the Principle of Non-Use of Force in International Relations was even established to draft such a treaty. Why, then has no such treaty been worked out? Because State members of NATO are thwarting it. Can the situation be remedied now? Yes, it can. The Soviet Union is prepared even today to come to the negotiating table in order to formalize strict obligations not to use force in settling disputes and differences which exist between States. No one would venture to deny that quite a few such disputes and differences have accumulated. But there are no problems among them that would not lend themselves to peaceful solutions. There are none in any part of the world or in any area of world politics — if, of course, one is motivated by the objectives of peace. It has to be noted, however, that the United States of America has chosen a different policy for itself. The essence of this policy is the desire to impose its will upon other States and peoples. That desire underlies all plans for the production of weapons and underlies United States foreign policy.
The Soviet Union has repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that such a policy poses a serious threat to peace. The objective of gaining an edge in armaments has been openly proclaimed in the United States. The idea that it has to be number one militarily has become something of an obsession. Huge sums are being allocated for building up the United States war machine and the pyramid of weapons is getting higher and higher. In the mean time there is continuously at work an assembly line fabricating all kinds of falsehoods about the Soviet Union's armed forces and its foreign policy. People are being deliberately misled. Why is all this being done? Simply because in an atmosphere of lies, hysteria and chauvinistic intoxication it is easier to get astronomical military budgets approved; it is easier to divert the country's resources to war preparations and away from peaceful purposes such as eliminating unemployment and fighting inflation, away from using them for the benefit of people, which is what the Soviet Union is calling for. There is no dearth of versions of nuclear war being planned by the apostles of the arms race: a blitzkrieg, a protracted war, a limited war, an all-out war. Every conceivable and inconceivable definition is being put into circulation. With the cold-blooded composure of grave diggers, they are speculating on the number of casualties each side would sustain in a nuclear catastrophe. They deliberately hush up the fact that if a nuclear war were to break out under present conditions, there would be no winners, and few people today would disagree with that.
The Soviet Union has, on a number of occasions, including the sessions of the General Assembly, pointed to the dangerous nature of Washington's course aimed at upsetting the military equilibrium which has evolved between the USSR and the United States of America, and on the whole, between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO. Everywhere, on land and on sea, the United States is seeking to impose or strengthen its military presence and to set up new bases. Look at the bloody orgy that is taking place in the Middle East where a frantic search is under way for new clients to be harnessed to the Pentagon's militaristic strategy. It should, of course, be clear that the Soviet Union does not recognize anyone's fight to military superiority. And it will see to it that that does not happen. One of the principles recognized by the United Nations is non-interference by States in the Internal affairs of other States. It has been reiterated many times in United Nations decisions. However, the world is witnessing today a flagrant flouting of this principle. Who, we might well ask, has given Washington the right to tell sovereign States what they should and what they should not do in their own house? Who has given it the right to try to punish those who cherish their sovereignty and would not yield to pressure, to apply all kinds of sanctions, to impose economic blockades, and even to brandish arms? From what some say, it would appear that United States interests are being endangered almost everywhere in the world. This is an absurd thesis. Yet it is being used to justify crude interference in the affairs of others, used on a sweeping geographic scale, as regards both nearby countries and those situated many thousands of kilometres away from the United States. The Soviet Union has never permitted, nor will it ever allow, anybody to interfere in its internal affairs. This is the stand of the States of the socialist community, as well as of other countries which respect their independence and their legitimate rights.
I should like to express the hope that no calls for outside interference in the affairs of other sovereign States will be made from this rostrum either. Otherwise, this high rostrum will cease to be what it is intended to be. And may the United Nations emblem, which is before the eyes of all those present in this Hall, serve as a warning to those who fail to distinguish between what is theirs and what belongs to others. No review of the international scene can overlook the situation taking shape in some regions of the world. In the first place, attention is riveted on the Middle East, for this session of the General Assembly is taking place at a time when ashes have not yet settled in the streets of the ruthlessly destroyed ancient city of Beirut and when the blood of tens of thousands of victims of aggression has not yet been completely absorbed by the soil. An honest people all over the world feel outrage and disgust over the orgy of bloodshed staged by the aggressors in the Palestinian camps in west Beirut where defenceless Palestinians, mostly women, children and old people, were massacred. Could Israel commit aggression and perpetrate genocide against the Palestinians but for its so-called "strategic consensus" with the United States? As far as one can judge, in Israel they are now rubbing their hands gleefully. But this is what is called a Pyrrhic victory. The aggression was bound to turn, and has in fact turned, into a serious political and moral defeat for Israel. The rift between Israel and its neighbours has widened. New seeds of hatred and animosity have been sown, and they can bear the grapes of wrath. Those who determine Israel's policies seem to give little thought to the future of their country. And that is too bad, indeed. They are clearly hampered by chauvinistic intoxication.
The root cause of the Lebanese tragedy lies in Camp David. It should be clear now to every unbiased person that separate anti-Arab deals only put off the establishment of a just peace in the Middle East. The aggressor and its accomplices say that Camp David means peace. Such an assertion makes a mockery of the profound, humane and noble idea of peace. What kind of peace it makes is evident from the fact that more blood has been shed since Camp David than during the Israeli aggression in 1967. Washington's recent statements, which it is serving up as a Middle East settlement plan, confirm that they are still thinking there in terms of diktat and enmity with regard to the Arabs, rather than in terms of peace. The overwhelming majority of States hold it as a political axiom that there can be no durable peace in the Middle East unless the question of an independent Palestinian State is resolved. The Washington plan, however, states explicitly that the United States is against the creation of such a State. It is widely accepted and recorded in United Nations decisions that the problem of fulfilling the national aspirations of the Palestinians cannot be solved without the participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], whereas the American plan makes no mention at all of the PLO as a party to the settlement. In fact, Washington also fully evades such a fundamental matter as Israel's withdrawal from all the Arab territories seized by it.
All decisions taken by the United Nations proceed from the premise that genuine security in the Middle East can only be such as would be common to all States and peoples in that region. The so-called Washington initiative focuses everything on the security of Israel alone, and its interests are made paramount, with the United States itself, naturally, maintaining its arrogant and unjustified claims to a leading role in Middle East affairs. We regard positively the views on a Middle East settlement expressed at the Twelfth Arab Summit Conference at Fez. On the whole these views are on the same lines as those of the Soviet Union regarding a Middle East settlement.
As Leonid Brezhnev has recently stressed once again, a just and durable peace in the Middle East can and must be based on the following principles. First, the principle of the inadmissibility of seizure of foreign lands through aggression must be strictly observed. That means that all the territories occupied by Israel since 1967 the Golan Heights, the West Bank of the Jordan river and the Gaza Strip, the Lebanese lands must be returned to the Arabs. The borders between Israel and its Arab neighbours should be declared inviolable. Secondly, the inalienable right of the Arab people of Palestine to self-determination and to the establishment of its own independent State on the Palestinian lands which will be freed from the Israeli occupation on the West Bank of the Jordan river and in the Gaza Strip must be ensured in practice. Palestinian refugees must be given the possibility envisaged in United Nations decisions to return to their homes or be given appropriate compensation for the property they left behind.
I ask the following in this connection: has anybody annulled the decision adopted by the United Nations in 1947, which envisages the establishment in the former mandated territory of Palestine of two sovereign States an Arab State and a Jewish State? Nobody has annulled it. Then what are the grounds for talking about the legitimate existence of the Jewish State alone, while impeding in every way the establishment of the other, Arab, State for over three and a half decades? There have been no such grounds, nor are there any now. Thirdly, the eastern part of Jerusalem, which was occupied by Israel in 1967, where one of the main Moslem shrines is located, must be returned to the Arabs and become an inseparable part of the Palestinian State. Freedom of access by believers to the holy places of the three religions must be ensured throughout Jerusalem. Fourthly, the right of all States in the region to a safe and independent existence and development must be ensured, naturally on the condition of full reciprocity, for the security of some cannot be ensured by flouting the security of others. Fifthly, the state of war between the Arab States and Israel must be terminated and peace between them must be established. That means that all parties to the conflict, including Israel and the Palestinian State, must assume an obligation reciprocally to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each other and to settle the disputes that may arise by peaceful means through negotiations. Sixthly, international guarantees of the settlement must be worked out and adopted. The role of the guarantor could be assumed by, say, the permanent members of the Security Council or by the Security Council as a whole. The path to a durable peace in the Middle East lies through collective efforts by all the parties concerned, including the PLO, and the best way towards this end is to convene an appropriate international conference.
For almost two years now bloody hostilities have been going on between Iran and Iraq. This is a senseless war from the point of view of the vital interests of the peoples of the two countries. This conflict is also fraught with grave consequences. The fire should be put out before it spreads farther. The most reasonable thing to do would probably be for Iran and Iraq to put aside arms, to slip covers over the muzzles of their guns and to settle their differences at the negotiating table.
The Soviet Union has invariably come out in favour of putting an end to the war between the two States, with which our country has maintained traditional ties, and it is doing all in its power to bring that about. We expect that other major Powers will abandon attempts to take advantage of the conflict. Dangerous scheming is still going on around the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. The foes of the Afghan people, including those who flaunt their commitment to democracy, are trying to hinder the building of a new and truly democratic life in that country. While in words a political solution to the problems which have arisen around Afghanistan is being advocated, in deeds the achievement of such a solution is being impeded in every possible way. Opportunities for such a solution do exist. They are embodied in the constructive proposals of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, which the Soviet Union fully supports. Only one thing is required, and that is to stop the armed intervention from outside against Afghanistan and not interfere in the internal affairs of that sovereign non-aligned State. In the Soviet Union we view as a step in the right direction the start of negotiations in Geneva between representatives of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and Pakistan through a personal representative of the Secretary-General. We fully understand the legitimate concern of the coastal States of the Indian Ocean over the expansion there of the United States military presence.
One can literally watch it grow, posing a threat also to the security of the USSR from the south. We cannot but draw our own conclusions from this. The Soviet Union endorses the idea put forward by the non-aligned countries to turn the Indian Ocean into a zone of peace. If it were not for the attempts by certain Powers, above all the United States of America, to frustrate implementation of General Assembly resolution 34/80 B on this matter, an international conference which could be of tangible benefit to the whole of that vast region would have been convened long ago. Even now, without waiting for the conference to be convened, we call upon all the States whose ships use the waters of the Indian Ocean to refrain from any steps that could complicate the situation in that region. This means not sending there large naval formations, not conducting military exercises and not expanding of modernizing military bases of those non-coastal States which possess such bases in the Indian Ocean. One example of the way in which States with different social systems can fruitfully co-operate to mutual advantage and in the interests of universal peace can be seen in Soviet-Indian relations. This co-operation is a concrete and impressive contribution to the cause of security on the South Asian subcontinent and in the international arena as a whole. A new and powerful impulse has been given to it by the results of the recent talks in Moscow between Leonid Brezhnev and the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi.
In another part of the Asian continent, South-East Asia, the Soviet Union supports the efforts aimed at turning that region into a zone of peace. A series of initiatives put forward jointly by Viet Nam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Kampuchea opens up prospects for both deepening the dialogue between them and the member ; of the Association of South-East Asian Nations [ASEAN] and in general normalizing the situation in the area. These initiatives have been reaffirmed by such a display of goodwill as the partial withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Kampuchea. The peoples of Viet Nam, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Kampuchea have chosen their own road of social development. In their march along that road they are repelling those forces which are seeking to prevent them from building a new life. The USSR resolutely sides with those States. It is rendering and will continue to render them necessary assistance and support. The Soviet Union is prepared to seek, together with all the Far Eastern States, ways of enhancing the security of that region. Not so long ago we proposed that the time-tested experience gained in carrying out certain measures to build mutual confidence in Europe be considered from the point of view of its application to the Far East. The Soviet Union is ready to discuss this matter in a practical vein with the participation of the People's Republic of China and Japan. For decades now the situation on the Korean peninsula has not been normalized, which increases tensions in the Far East. The Korean problem can and must be settled by peaceful means without any outside interference, as is proposed by the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Socialist countries are taking the initiative in strengthening security on a scale embracing the entire Asian continent. This is the intent of the proposal made by the Mongolian People's Republic for the conclusion of a convention on mutual non-aggression and non-use of force in relations between the Asian and Pacific States.
 The Soviet Union supports this useful initiative. When a centre of tension appears in some part of the globe there can be no doubt that it is caused by the actions of those who have no regard for the legitimate interests of others. Not infrequently they are inspired by attempts to retain by force positions inherited from the colonial past. One case in point is the South Atlantic. It is to be hoped that the peoples have drawn appropriate conclusions from the recent events in that region. The Soviet Union has on a number of occasions publicly stated its position that a just settlement of the problem that has arisen there can be achieved through negotiations within the United Nations framework and on the basis of United Nations decisions. That continues to be our position today. Another case in point is southern Africa, where the South African racist regime, with the connivance of Western Powers, is actually waging an undeclared war against Angola and some other States of the region. Pretoria has been blatantly defying United Nations decisions on the granting of independence to Namibia. There is no doubt, however, that the Namibian people will attain freedom and independence.
Still another case in point is the region of Central America and the Caribbean, where a campaign of pressure and threats is going on unabated against Cuba and Nicaragua, whose only fault is that they want to live according to their own standards. Attempts are being made to portray them as the trouble-makers in that region. Those are attempts made in bad faith. Together with other peoples and States of the Caribbean, Cuba and Nicaragua are in favour of turning it into a zone of peace, independence and development, and the Soviet Union has full sympathy for this goal. Is there anyone who does not know whose advisers and instructors, both uniformed and other-wise, are now in El Salvador, and who rules the roost there, trying to prop up the corrupt and unpopular regime? The USSR has opposed and will continue to oppose such actions. The sympathy and support of the Soviet people are entirely on the side of all the peoples fighting for their freedom and for national and social progress.
If there was any lack of evidence that the peoples and States consider the continuing arms race to be one of the most critical issues of our time, the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament has provided such evidence in abundance. Ardent appeals to avert nuclear war and halt the arms race were voiced from its rostrum. The Assembly failed to reach agreement at that session on concrete steps in this field, and it is well known who is responsible for that. Still, the determination of the overwhelming majority of States to ensure peace and achieve disarmament was expressed in no uncertain terms. At that session the Soviet Union submitted a detailed programme of measures to curb the arms race, ranging from nuclear and chemical weapons to limiting conventional weapons and naval activities of States. As has been repeatedly emphasized by Leonid Brezhnev, there is no type of weapon which our country would not be prepared to limit or ban on the basis of reciprocity. And if the accumulation of arms is not only continuing but accelerating, if this tragic competition is proceeding at a pace that leaves behind accords on arms limitation, and if the agreements already reached in this field are called into question, all this is the direct result of the United States policy aimed at building up its military muscle. It makes no secret of this policy line; indeed, it is bragging about it.
To take a problem such as the limitation and reduction of strategic arms, that is, the most destructive weapons, the problem which is of utmost importance under present-day conditions, there had been many delays on the part of our partners before the Soviet-American talks started. Undoubtedly, the fact that they are being held is in itself of positive significance. But Chat alone is not enough. What is required is the desire on both sides to seek agreement. Without going into the details of the talks, it should, however, be emphasized that so far the other side has failed to show the desire to come to agreement. Surely one cannot take for such a desire the attempt to single out from the totality of weapons possessed by the USSR and the United States only those types of weapons in this particular case land- based missiles which constitute the backbone of the Soviet Union's strategic potential, and to make them alone the subject of reduction, leaving out all the rest, that is, submarine-launched missiles, strategic bombers and cruise missiles, where the United States preponderance is obvious. Certainly this lopsided approach promises no hope for the success of the negotiations. The principle of the equality and equal security of the sides must remain their unshakable foundation. Accuracy, science, balance of parameters, together with a careful evaluation of all elements of the problem — all these must be taken into account. There must be no room for deception, guile or juggling with facts, either in large or in small doses. It should be recalled that the Soviet Union has put forward an important proposal, namely, to agree to freeze the strategic armaments of the USSR and the United States quantitatively as soon as the talks begin, and at the same time to restrict their modernization to the utmost. We have proposed that for the duration of the talks the sides should take no actions that might upset the stability of the strategic situation. That is our concrete response to the mounting feeling in many countries of the world in favour of a freeze on the existing levels of nuclear arms, to be followed by their drastic reduction, which is advocated by the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, those who are conducting negotiations with us on this problem shudder at the mere words "a freeze on arms".
What has actually been frozen on their side, and quite deeply at that, is the realization that the talks must be frank, in good faith and free from any lopsidedness. What is the state of affairs at the Soviet-American talks on the limitation of nuclear arms in Europe? Sometimes encouraging statements are heard from the United States side in this respect. But this is an assumed optimism. The so-called zero option — or, to be more precise, pseudo-zero option proposed by the United States does not offer a solution to the problem. It provides for the elimination only of Soviet land-based missiles, including those which the Soviet Union has possessed for over 20 years now. As to the medium-range nuclear forces of NATO, they are not to be subject to reduction by a single unit and can even be built up. We have no doubt that Washington realizes that the Soviet side would not agree to a one-sided solution that would run counter to the security interests of the USSR and its allies. Therefore, what is doubtful is whether Washington is really seeking an agreement.
The Soviet Union's desire to come to agreement with the United States is buttressed by practical steps. As is well known, it has unilaterally discontinued further deployment of medium-range missiles in the European part of the USSR. And, what is more, ii is carrying out the reduction of a part of that force. Finally, we are not stationing any additional medium- range missiles beyond the Urals, from where Western Europe would be within their reach. The Soviet Union has faithfully kept its word in this matter too. Throughout the post-war period, since the emergence of the first atom bombs, the Soviet Union has been persistently seeking approaches to putting an end to the nuclear arms race. At that time it was much easier to ban the atomic weapon than it is nowadays, when there exists a huge arsenal of nuclear armaments. But even today this problem can be resolved. Mankind has no other reasonable option but to reduce the nuclear threat gradually though consistently, step by step, and ultimately eliminate it. In this context, it is extremely important to erect a barrier against the development of ever new types and systems of nuclear weapons a process which tends to destabilize the strategic situation for it entails the emergence of weapons which, because of their characteristics, would hardly lend themselves to verification. If this is so, the working out of relevant international agreements on their limitation and reduction is becoming more difficult. That is the reason why it is becoming increasingly urgent to stop nuclear-weapons tests and to erect a tangible physical barrier to the development of ever new kinds of nuclear weapons and thus slow down the arms race. The States of the world, with very few exceptions, demand a ban on all nuclear-weapon test explosions in all environments and for all times. Their will was reflected in a series of decisions adopted at the United Nations.
Moreover, when signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, all the parties to it, including the United States, undertook to do away with nuclear-weapon tests for good. In our view, it is the direct responsibility of the United Nations to demand that all countries, and the nuclear Powers in the first place, do their utmost to achieve that goal. As a nuclear Power, the Soviet Union declares that for its part, it is ready to do that. We propose the inclusion in the agenda of this session of an important and urgent item entitled "Immediate cessation and prohibition of nuclear-weapon tests". What is proposed specifically? It is proposed to speed up the working out and signing of a treaty on the complete and general prohibition of nuclear- weapon tests and to put the talks on that subject in the Committee on Disarmament on a practical footing. The Soviet Union is submitting to the Assembly for its consideration "Basic provisions of a treaty on the complete and general prohibition of nuclear- weapon tests" [see A/371243], a document which takes into account the measure of agreement reached during the discussion of that problem in recent years. It also takes into account the views and suggestions advanced by many States, inter alia on questions of verification. In order to create more favourable conditions for the elaboration of the treaty, we propose that all nuclear-weapon States declare a moratorium on all nuclear explosions, including peaceful ones, as of a date to be agreed upon among them. Such a moratorium would be effective pending the inclusion of the treaty.
In the context of the problem of the complete and general prohibition of nuclear-weapon tests, I wish to single out two more aspects of importance. First, the Soviet Union is prepared at any time to ratify — on a reciprocal basis — the treaties concluded with the United States on the limitation of underground nuclear-weapon tests and on nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes. Secondly, we are in favour of the resumption of the trilateral talks between the USSR, the United States and the United Kingdom. Those talks were under way. Then they were broken off, and it is public knowledge who was responsible for that. In the context of the struggle to lessen the nuclear threat, there is still another important problem to which the Soviet Union would like to draw the Assembly's attention. The number of non-military nuclear facilities, above all power installations, is increasing in various countries. This is an inevitable process, which is bound to grow in scope in the future. However, intentional destruction, even with the help of conventional weapons, of atomic power plants, research reactors and other similar installations might cause the release and dissemination of a huge amount of radioactive substances, which would have fatal consequences for the population. In other words, it would be tantamount in its effect to a nuclear explosion.
As calculated by experts, the consequences of the destruction of a large atomic power plant are comparable to the radioactive contamination occurring after the explosion of a one-megaton nuclear bomb. Therefore, the need for ensuring a safe development of nuclear energy is closely linked with the task of preventing the unleashing of nuclear war. Being desirous of lessening the nuclear threat in this area, too, the Soviet Union proposes the inclusion in the agenda of this session of an urgent item entitled "Multiplying efforts to eliminate the threat of nuclear war and to ensure a safe development of nuclear energy".
The Soviet Union proposes that the General Assembly declare the destruction of peaceful nuclear facilities with conventional weapons equivalent to an attack involving the use of nuclear weapons that is to say, it should equate such destruction with those actions which the United Nations has already qualified as the gravest crime against humanity. The question of a speedy elimination of chemical weapons presents itself in all its magnitude. This weapon is one of the means of mass annihilation. The unrestrained build-up of chemical weapons in the West, far from enhancing anybody's security, is only aggravating the risk of military conflicts with the use of these lethal weapons. The Soviet Union has consistently been advocating the exclusion of chemical weapons from the arsenals of States. The relevant proposals submitted by it have been referred to the Committee on Disarmament. We hope that its members will proceed, with all due sense of responsibility, to the elaboration of an international convention on the prohibition and elimination of these barbaric weapons. There is an increasing danger that the arms race will acquire a qualitatively new dimension unless the necessary measures are urgently taken. Washington is now planning a military thrust into outer space. We are convinced that the arms race must not be permitted to spread into the boundless expanses of outer space. The United Nations can and must play its part in this respect.
For a number of years now the Soviet Union has been seeking the conclusion of an international treaty prohibiting the stationing of weapons of any kind in outer space. The expanses of outer space should be an area only for the peaceful co-operation of States. A separate question and a major one is the reduction of conventional armaments and of the numerical strength of armed forces. The Soviet Union wishes to see this problem, too, firmly integrated into the fabric of international negotiations and agreements. In relation to Central Europe, these problems are under discussion at the Vienna Talks on Mutual Reduction of Forces, Armaments and Associated Measures in Central Europe. For nine years now, these talks have been, figuratively speaking, marking time, and the time to find agreements that would ameliorate the situation in an area with the highest concentration of the opposing armies is long overdue.
The Soviet Union and its Warsaw Treaty allies are doing their utmost to achieve that. It is a favourite allegation in the West that the Warsaw Treaty countries are superior to NATO in terms of conventional armaments in Europe. Yet at the Vienna talks the socialist countries are proposing to establish for both sides equal levels of armed forces stationed in Central Europe. Unfortunately, the conduct of our Western partners in the negotiations is not conducive to reaching such an agreement. Although some rouge, figuratively speaking, has recently been applied to their position, the essence has remained unchanged. So what is left of the so-called concern of the Western countries regarding the alleged superiority of the Warsaw Treaty over NATO? And what is worse, steps are being taken out-side the framework of the talks, which can only be described as provocative. What is there to say, for instance, about the recent agreements between the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States concerning the bringing from overseas of additional contingents of American troops under far-fetched pretexts? In other words, instead of reducing forces in that region, conditions are being prepared for increasing them by several more divisions. That is, of course, a mockery of common sense.
The same applies to the planned redeployment of United States military units to the immediate vicinity of the borders of the German Democratic Republic. In Europe, as well as on other continents, the Soviet Union is countering the policy of confrontation with the policy of good-neighbourliness and co-operation. We understand and appreciate the desire of the Europeans to follow the path opened up by the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. There exists a possibility of further progress towards making Europe a continent of peace and stability. The attainment of this goal would be largely facilitated by the implementation of the idea of convening a conference on confidence-building measures and disarmament in Europe. That is one of the principal issues at the Madrid meeting of the States participants in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. If all its participants adopt a constructive approach at its resumed session in November, general agreement could be reached both with regard to the convening of the conference and to ensuring the success of the Madrid meeting. Seeking to alleviate tension throughout the world, we have recently proposed that the decision-making bodies of NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization make declarations on the non-extension of the sphere of action of the two military and political groupings to Asia, Africa and Latin America. That would constitute a major step towards detente.
All the members of the Warsaw Treaty support this proposal. We hope that the NATO countries will study this proposal and respond to it in a positive manner.	In recent years serious obstacles have emerged in restructuring international economic relations on a democratic and equal basis. The root cause lies in the policies of certain Western Powers aimed at keeping the developing countries in an unequal position, at facilitating the attempts of the monopoly capital to exercise its sway over those countries. A recent vivid example of that is the attitude of some Western Powers to the enormous work accomplished by States in preparing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Many years of effort have produced a document whose provisions do not prejudice anybody's interests. And what has become of it? The United States is hampering the adoption of that convention. We would like to express the hope that it will stop being in opposition to a vast majority of States and will adhere to the convention.
	The USSR is in favour of democratization of both political and economic relations between States. As to our participation in rendering assistance to the newly freed States in overcoming their economic backwardness, in this respect to the Soviet Union is doing at least as much if not more than any of the developed capitalist countries. It is common knowledge that the foreign policy course of any State is an extension of its domestic policy. Our country sets itself economic and social tasks of vast magnitude. We need peace to accomplish them. The Soviet Union is extending its hand to every State which, for its part, is willing to maintain and develop good relations with us. That applies to Europe. We are prepared for a further expansion of co-operation with Western European countries on a peaceful and mutually beneficial basis. That applies to Asia, where the Soviet Union has long-standing and stable ties with many States. That applies to Latin America, where normal, business like relations are being established between the USSR and a number of countries, including Mexico, Brazil and Argentina. The same applies to the United States of America. We are convinced that from the viewpoint of a long-term policy of principle the deterioration of relations between the USSR and the United States is not in the interests of the United States itself. The American people is hardly different from other peoples as far as the desire to live in peace is concerned. Our country has on several occasions pronounced itself - in particular at the Congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and at the USSR Supreme Soviet — in favour of developing normal relations with the United States. The policy of the Soviet Government aimed at preserving and strengthening peace and preventing another war is endorsed by all Soviet people, since all they aspire to is a peaceful — and only peaceful — future. At the end of this year the Soviet people will mark an important event the sixtieth anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Land of the Soviets is invariably faithful to the peaceful behests of the founder of our State, V. I. Lenin. As Leonid Brezhnev has recently stressed once again, "concern for peace is paramount in the policy of the Soviet Union". This concern determines the fundamental direction of all foreign policy activities of the Soviet State, which are based on the Programme of Peace for the 1980s adopted by the twenty-sixth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. This Programme is being implemented by the Soviet Union together with other countries of the socialist community, cemented together as they are by a common political system and world outlook, by the identity of goals and ideals.
All the activities of socialist countries convincingly prove that peace is their policy aim. Every step, every foreign policy move made by them, serves the attainment of that noble goal. The Soviet Union has rebuffed and will continue to rebuff policies based on the cult of force. Those who come out for preventing a nuclear disaster and for strengthening peace can always count on its support and co-operation. All our actions in the international arena will continue to be inspired by our deep-held belief in the necessity and the possibility of saving the present and succeeding generations from the scourge of war.


I take great pleasure in congratulating, on behalf of my delegation,
the President on his election to preside over this thirty-seventh
session of the General Assembly. We are convinced that his qualities
as an experienced diplomat and his deep faith in the principles and
purposes of the Charter will enable him to direct the work of the
Assembly successfully. I should also like to pay tribute to the
President's predecessor, Mr. Kittani, of the fraternal country of
Iraq, for the outstanding way in which he led the work of the last
regular session as well as of the special sessions. I also take great
pleasure in paying a particular tribute to the Secretary-General for
his constant efforts to promote international peace and security. My
delegation is pleased to express to him its appreciation of his
struggle to preserve the principles of the Charter and to strengthen
international solidarity for the progress and development of mankind.

229.	The thirty-seventh session of the general Assembly is being
held at a time when the international situation is steadily
deteriorating. The harmful world conditions that we are experiencing
encourage the super-Powers to acquire zones of influence and make
their rivalries ever sharper. The super-Powers are using their
economic, scientific and technological advances to achieve their
objectives and designs.

230.	In this atmosphere of constant tension we remain concerned
and alarmed at the escalation of tension which is creating several
flashpoints in many parts of the world, especially in the third world.

231.	In spite of the constant efforts of the international
community in the quest for peace, we are every day confronted with
increasingly sophisticated wars, wars of attrition and of the
annihilation of nations. Never before in history have there been so
many wars in third world countries, with such great human, financial
and material losses. It is as if by some master plan they are
intended to exchange the natural resources of developing countries
and prevent them achieving their economic take-off.

232.	It is an act of treason towards that part of mankind living
in wretched circumstances to tolerate the useless waste of incredible
quantities of financial, scientific, technological and human
resources, when two thirds of the world's population are doomed to
live in dire poverty, suffering grave economic difficulties and
social imbalance. Moreover, there are a large number of refugees on
all the continents, half of them in Africa. Those refugees often come
to an environment where they still have to struggle to satisfy their
most basic needs-food, medical care and shelter.

233.	What human wisdom can allow for such waste, whose only
purpose is the destruction of all the best that world civilization
has been producing for the good of mankind? We cannot separate acts
leading to the waste of such immense human and material wealth from
those which are delaying the establishment of a new international
economic order.

234.	International economic relations are experiencing in our time
a grave crisis, which is becoming an obstacle in negotiations between
the rich and poor countries, a number of which-the least developed
countries-are living in precarious conditions. It is up to us to
exchange new ideas and co-ordinate our efforts with a view to
striving together towards a better life.

235.	After eight years of hard work the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea achieved its objective. The adoption
of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea constitutes a
land-mark in the history of mankind. The success of the Conference
has enhanced the prestige and credibility of the United Nations,
which can be an effective framework for dealing with all questions of
vital importance to all States and the international community.

236.	The political climate and security in the Indian Ocean area
has gravely deteriorated recently. The littoral and hinterland States
are worried about the increase in tension in the area, as a result of
the rivalries of the great Powers. There is an extremely urgent need
to implement the Declaration of the Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace,
pursuant to resolution 2832 (XXVI) of 12 December 1971. The situation
of insecurity and instability prevailing in the Indian Ocean requires
the speedy holding of the relevant conference in Colombo.

237.	Since its independence the Republic of Djibouti has expressed
its devotion to international peace and security. The objectives that
it has set itself are national unity, equality and peace.

238.	In accordance with our foreign policy, based on dialogue and
co-operation, we have chosen to live in peace with our neighbours,
with absolutely no interference or intervention. Our neutrality is
reflected by a policy of non-alignment, good-neighbourliness and
peaceful coexistence. We urge our neighbours to settle any disputes
peacefully, for we remain convinced that peace and stability alone
can guarantee the emancipation of peoples. Moreover, we urge all
leaders in the Horn of Africa to struggle for the creation of the
right circumstances to foster tolerance, understanding and confidence
among the peoples of the region.

239.	We attach great importance to regional and interregional
economic co-operation, and we are prepared to take an effective part
in those efforts, in accordance with the Lagos Plan of Action for the
Implementation of the Monrovia Strategy for the Development of
Africa' and the Charter of National Economic Action, adopted at Amman.

240.	In spite of its economic difficulties and its meagre
resources, the Republic of Djibouti takes in a considerable number of
refugees. The situation has worsened because of the devastating
consequences of a prolonged drought, which has displaced a third of
our population who have lost all means of subsistence.

241.	The Republic of Djibouti has embarked on comprehensive
programmes of revitalization and modernization of existing sectors of
the service economy as well as on the creation of a sound basis for a
productive, diversified economy through the development of new
sectors in industry, agriculture, animal husbandry and fisheries.

242.	My Government, which has decided to use every means available
to extricate itself from its socioeconomic difficulties, appreciates
the assistance and aid of friendly countries to help in achieving
those objectives.

243.	After 34 years of bloody wars, 34 years of sacrifices, 34
years of tireless and uninterrupted efforts, the international
community has just reaffirmed its support for the Palestinian cause,
by declaring that no just and lasting solution can be achieved
without recognition of the legitimate, inalienable rights of the
Palestinian people. It is with that in view that concrete proposals
for an overall peaceful solution have been formulated.

244.	Unfortunately these peace efforts are still pitted against
the political ambitions of the Zionists, who wish to relegate the
Palestinian cause to historical oblivion so as to promote their
expansionist policy. The Zionists do not wish to accept or tolerate
any talk of national rights for Palestinians; they wished to bury the
natural aspirations of an entire people under the ruins of Beirut. In
order to do that the Zionist war-lords unleashed the most devastating
and the most bloody aggression against Lebanon, using the most
sophisticated weaponry, with the avowed intention of annihilating the
Palestinian people, of liquidating the PLO and destroying its
organizational structure.

245.	For more than two months Lebanon has been subjected to the
most merciless destruction. Beirut, besieged, deprived of water,
food, electricity and medicines, constantly bombarded from land, air
and sea, has undergone an ordeal which no city has experienced since
the Second World War.

246.	During the first half of this century the Nazis, in their
wanton campaign for racial superiority, arrogated to themselves the
right to determine who should live and who should be deprived of
life. They institutionalized terror and mass killing as means of
achieving that goall.

247.	In the second half of this century the Zionist neo-Nazis have
espoused a similar concept, although more limited in scope. They wish
to eliminate the Palestinian people from the land where they have
always lived. For the Zionists, Palestine was a land without any
people awaiting the arrival of Jewish settlers to colonize it.
History has been falsified; the physical characteristics, the
demographic composition and the institutional structures of the
occupied territories are being altered so as finally to leave no
trace of the Palestinian heritage.

248.	In spite of that and in defiance of the aims of the Zionist
plan, the Palestinian reality asserts itself more each day, because
the Palestinian people, under the aegis of the PLO, its sole,
legitimate representative, has shown its unshakable determination to
struggle for the life of its cause.

249.	Strengthened by that determination, Arab Kings, Sovereigns
and heads of State were at one in making it crystal clear to the
world that just and lasting peace has always been their objective, an
objective that Israel has rejected and continues to reject, wishing
to deprive an entire people of its existence and of its identity.

250.	In Fez, the Arab leaders agreed on concrete and realistic
proposals aimed at restoring a just and lasting peace in the region.
These proposals, contained in what is now called the  Fez Charter ,
have created a legal framework which, without the slightest doubt,
has aroused hoper in the international community, which is determined
to find a solution to this painful problem.

251.	As usual, Begins response was to order the massacre of
children, women and old people. Once again, in defiance of
international public opinion, Israel has revealed its true face. Once
again Begin dashed the hopes of all peace-loving countries and
peoples by organizing the genocide at Shatila and Sabra. These
Zionists have unfortunately made us relive a tragedy which history
wished to bury at Nuremburg and which we thought had been removed
from our memories for ever.

252.	In the face of this situation which threatens international
peace and security, in the face of this genocide which definitely
could not have been carried out without the  assent and support of a
great Power, in the face of this holocaust of which the Palestinian
and Lebanese peoples are that victims, we reaffirm that a just peace
cannot be established without the recognition of the legitimate and
inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, without the withdrawal
of Israeli forces from the borders of Lebanon as well as from the
occupied Arab territories, including the Holy City of Jerusalem.

253.	Lebanon, whose only crime was to grant asylum to the
Palestinians who, because of Zionist terrorism, had had to flee from
their national land, must never again be the scene of these wars and
massacres. The international community must help Lebanon to regain
its sovereignty and its territorial integrity and in its
reconstruction.

254.	We note with deep concern the continuation of the Iraq-Iran
war, in spite of the efforts made by the Organization of the Islamic
Conference, by the non-aligned movement and by the United Nations.
255.	We hail the positive initiative taken by the Iraqi Government
in withdrawing its forces to the internationally recognized borders
as a sign of a desire for peace and we appeal to these two countries
to settle their dispute peacefully.	'

256.	The situation in South Africa and in Namibia remains of
concern. Tensions and confrontations will not be eliminated nor will
peace be established in that region so long as apartheid is not
dismantled and the black majority in South Africa is not liberated.
Apartheid must be condemned without hesitation, and all political,
diplomatic, moral and material means must be provided to the
liberation fronts. The peoples of South Africa and of Namibia are
entitled to use all means-including armed struggle-against the
practices of segregation, racism and racial discrimination, genocide
and exploitation.

257.	We strongly denounce the policy of baniustanization being
carried out by the Pretoria regime. We condemn also the criminal acts
of terrorism and the acts of armed aggression against independent
neighbouring countries. We state that the front-line countries have
the legitimate right to protection against the repeated acts of
intimidation and aggression perpetrated by the South African regime,
whose sole purpose is to destabilize those States so as to weaken
their moral and material efforts to assist the peoples of South
Africa and Namibia and their national liberation movements.

258.	The Pretoria regime has clearly demonstrated its belligerence
by accumulating arrangements and other means of oppression, by
acquiring a nuclear capability and by continuing political, military,
economic and cultural Collaboration with Israel.

259.	It is regrettable that South Africa, despite repeated appeals
by the international community, continues to practise apartheid in
defiance and flagrant violation of the Charter and of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.

260.	The question of Namibia remains unsolved because of the
illegal occupation by the South African regime, which is denying the
Namibian people the exercise of its inalienable rights to
self-determination and independence, in spite of United Nations
resolutions. This gravely threatens international peace and security.

261.	Through its political, economic and military activities the
racist Pretoria regime is trying to delay Namibia's accession to
independence. The policy of collaboration with the apartheid regime
of South Africa can only harm and betray the legitimate struggle of
the Namibian people to obtain its freedom.

262.	It is up to the United Nations to ensure that its decisions
are respected by South Africa. The United Nations must alert the
international community to South African manoeuvres designed to upset
the peaceful initiatives under way for Namibian independence.

263.	We applaud the initiatives taken by SWAPO, the sole
representative of the Namibian people, to facilitate the negotiations
under way, as well as its constant readiness to take part in free and
fair elections in Namibia in accordance with the relevant resolutions
of the United Nations.
264.	The Republic of Djibouti believes Security Council resolution
435 (1978) to be the only acceptable basis for negotiations on
Namibia's peaceful transition to freedom and independence. We,
sincerely hope that all the parties concerned will make a concerted^
co-operative effort to ensure implementation of that resolution.

265.	As regards the issue of Western Sahara, my Government
supports the efforts of the OAU to promote a just and lasting
solution and also welcomes the measures taken to organize a
referendum to enable the population of Western Sahara to express
itself freely and democratically in the exercise of its right to
self-determination.

266.	Although we support the principle of self-determination for
the Sahraoui people, we assert that the decision of the heads of
State and Government of the OAU taken in Nairobi is the only
authentic one.

267.	Without unity, Africa beset as it is by economic difficulties
and social instability-will remain a prey to foreign influences,
political blackmail and economic exploitation. Lack of un ty will
lessen the ability of the independent countries of Africa to assist
those which are still under the sway of colonization.

268.	For a long time now Chad has continued to be the scene of
fratricidal wars that have destroyed its human and material resources
and endangered its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. We
therefore urge all the forces concerned to enter into a constructive
dialogue and to make a common endeavour. We believe that to be the
only way that hostilities can be halted and order, peace and security
restored. We hope that the United Nations and the OAU will work
together to achieve that goal and will help in the reconstruction of
Chad.

269.	As regards Afghanistan, my Government expresses its great
concern over the military occupation of that country despite the
repeated appeals of the international community for an immediate and
unconditional withdrawal of foreign forces. We reiterate our appeal
for an immediate and total withdrawal of all foreign troops from
Afghanistan so as to enable its people to exercise its right to elect
a government of its choice. We advocate an overall political solution
based on full respect for the independence, sovereignty, territorial
integrity and non-aligned status of Afghanistan.

270.	The situation in Kampuchea is a problem of concern to my
Government, which is firmly opposed to foreign armed intervention and
to the presence of foreign forces in Kampuchea. The presence of
foreign troops makes it impossible for the Kampuchean people to
express its will through free elections. We therefore reaffirm the
imperative need for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from
Kampuchea. '

271.	With reference to the question of Korea, my Government firmly
believes that inter-Korean negotiations constitute the only political
means of solving all the problems that have arisen out of the
political division of that country. The earliest possible resumption
of the dialogue is essential to deal with the urgent need to reduce
the climate of tension, renew mutual confidence and establish lasting
peace in the Korean peninsula, which might finally lead to a solution
acceptable to the Korean people.

272.	We are convinced that the United Nations remains the most
appropriate forum for voicing our ideas, because all of us here share
the same concern and undertake the same efforts to preserve the noble
ideals of the Charter, indeed, to defend the Charter of the United
Nations is to defend the cause for which millions of people have
perished; it is to defend the cultural and political expression of
human dignity.

273.	Unfortunately, at the present time the world is beset by
grave crises which, if not solved, could threaten peace and security.
The crises are especially dangerous because they seriously diminish
the United Nations system's ability to act; moreover, they challenge
the ideals on which the Charter was based.

274.	We have in mind here the Shatila and Sabra massacres;	which
has been made into a political alternative; and the occupation of
countries by force. Is not threatening and shooting innocent people
in camps and treating people as subhuman the sort of thing that
prompted the creation of the Organization on the morrow of the last
world war?

275.	In conclusion, I wish the Assembly every success at the
thirty-seventh session. Members may be assured of my delegation's
positive contribution. For my part, I remain convinced that all the
nations represented here will fulfil their responsibility by
responding to the hopes of the millions of people who are looking to
us.