I must first of all congratulate Mr. Lusaka on his election as President of the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly. His election is a tribute to the outstanding diplomatic skills which he has brought to the work of the Organization. It is also recognition of the important role played by his country in its attempts to bring peace not only to Africa, but to the world as a whole. I am confident that he will bring a steady hand to the helm in the deliberations at this session.
2.	It is fitting that in this year, 1984, a son of Africa should preside over the activities of the world's nations in convocation, for 1984 marks the one- hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the passage of Acts of Parliament to end slavery in the former British Empire. That slavery was the slavery of Africans snatched from their native lands and transported across the Atlantic. Those slaves endured conditions of human deprivation and moral degradation on a scale that defies civilized comprehension. It is a stain on the conscience of mankind that the justification for the brutality and savagery of African slavery was founded on a doctrine of racism—the assertion that Africans were less than human. But, if African slavery as it existed in the so-called New World, in the United States, in the Caribbean and in Central and South America, if that African slavery was a cause of moral indignation because of its foundation in racism, then it was even more a reason for universal shame because of its brazen exploitation of man by man. It remains one of the tragic symbols of human injustice that, when African slavery ended, the slave owners were compensated while the slaves were only delivered to destitution.
3.	In an attempt to remedy this grotesque blemish on the face of humanity and to recall mankind to its highest ideals, my country has proposed that at this thirty-ninth session the General Assembly should commemorate the one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the abolition of slavery. The world community can make little reparation for the past, but we can ensure that there is no need for retribution in the future. In this connection, my delegation looks forward to the support of every nation represented in the Assembly.
4.	While 1984 marks the one-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the formal end to African slavery, it fails to herald an end to modern-day slavery in South Africa, where apartheid holds the majority African people in bondage. The year 1984 also fails to record the independence of Namibia, to which the Assembly has dedicated itself year after year.
5.	Each day that passes with no change in the conditions in southern Africa diminishes the prospect for mankind's total freedom and enlarges the spectre of a major conflagration in Africa. These developments will have grave repercussions for the world as a whole, for, as Abraham Lincoln asserted, no society can exist half slave and half free. In this connection, the world will not subsist at peace while southern Africa remains troubled by the oppression of many by a few.
6.	My delegation wishes to place on record its repudiation of the efforts of the South African regime to perpetuate its apartheid policies by the farcical elections recently held and the fraudulent constitution recently proclaimed. The constitution continues to deny the majority Africans a voice in the political life of their country, and the election ignores more than 80 per cent of the Colored and Indian population, who showed their opposition to apartheid by refusing to vote.
7.	In a statement I made before the General Committee, I asked, on the question of South Africa: "Where are the super-Powers?".  And I will ask that question again: "Where are the superpowers?"
8.	It is not sufficient for us to make high-sounding moral statements about the excesses of the regime in South Africa and Namibia without recognizing that many, in this Hall, are contributors to apartheid's continuance. Apartheid could not survive without the support of the world's more powerful nations. Apartheid will only end when those nations are ready to place principle before profit and justice before avarice.
9.	It is well known that gold is the most crucial element in South Africa's strength. On the supply side, South Africa produces two thirds of all the gold that comes from non-communist countries, yet only about one fifth is utilized for practical purposes. But the price of gold is maintained artificially by the holdings of several Governments. The stock of refined gold in government hands is 30 times annual production and six countries alone have stocks greater than annual production. If even a small portion of these holdings were to be released, the total supply of gold in the world would rise and the price would collapse, bringing the South African regime down with it.
10.	Will the Governments with the power to do so act in the cause of human justice? Will they end the iniquity of apartheid and set the black people of South Africa free? Or will they falter and hesitate as they did with slavery until outrage turns to carnage and bitterness to bloodiness? Let no nation leave the Assembly absolved of the sin of support for apartheid, for if we do not act against it then, unpardonably, we act for it. Apartheid’s greatest friend is hopelessness. My delegation calls on the Assembly to reaffirm its commitment to end apartheid, to renew its resolve to free Namibia, and by so doing to turn hopelessness to resolution and resolution to victory.
11.	In addressing the question of apartheid in South Africa and the comfort which is given to the regime, my delegation is mindful of South Africa's involvement in the Antarctic Treaty1 of 1959. We noted, with sympathy, the position adopted by the delegation of Sierra Leone during the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly, at the 42nd and 46th meetings of the First Committee, that South Africa should be excluded from the present Treaty arrangement. We recognized that, while this view was not included in the resolution on the question of Antarctica adopted at the thirty-eighth session, it was none the less a view supported by many countries.
12.	That is as it should be, for as long as South Africa sets its people apart at home it sets its people and itself apart abroad. And the Consultative Parties to the Antarctic Treaty should understand quite clearly that the world will regard South Africa's continuance in the Treaty arrangements as an act of betrayal of international opinion.
13.	At the current session, the General Assembly will receive a study from the Secretary-General on all aspects of the question of Antarctica. My delegation does not wish to pre-empt the findings or recommendations of that study, but we must make it clear that the growing tendency for nations, rich and poor, to seek solutions to international problems through confrontation rather than negotiation and the widening chasm between the developed and developing countries intensify our sense of alarm over the arrangements which currently subsist in Antarctica.
14.	We still fear that Antarctica could become a final frontier for human conflict. It is of more than passing significance to us that all the nations with the capacity to participate in a scramble for Antarctica are parties to the Antarctic Treaty and therefore are able to initiate a review in 1991. Doubly significant is the fact that poor developing States with no vested interest in Antarctica have no voice in decision making about the area and are unable to influence the activities of other nations.
15.	But small States such as mine cannot abandon international responsibility for developments in Antarctica simply because they lack military might or economic clout. And nothing that the powerful nations have done so far in their relations with each other has convinced us that they should be the sole arbiters of the world's future.
16.	To add to all this, the world has changed enormously since the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959. There are now 159 Member States of the United Nations, most of which are developing countries. In 1959, they had neither the opportunity nor the sovereign competence to participate in events in Antarctica. It is not only unfair, it is unjust, to suggest that we should abide by decisions made without our involvement. Indeed, we would warn the world that if the status quo in Antarctica is maintained and further institutionalized a confrontation is bound to develop between the Consultative Parties and the rest of the world.
17.	In our view, it is in the interest of global peace and stability to address the democratization of Antarctica now, for delay will only divide still further an already divided world.
18.	Antigua and Barbuda is not so naive as to believe that the Consultative Parties would accept our tearing up the Antarctic Treaty and declaring the region the common heritage of all mankind to be administered by the United Nations. Nor do we see them agreeing to the area's being declared a repository for science or a park for the conservation of wildlife. Since a number of the Consultative Parties have benefited from fishing in the area, and over the last few years have been working on a regime to exploit the mineral resources, it is obvious that they will not surrender Antarctica to the world. However, no country can ignore growing world opinion that Antarctica should not be managed by an exclusive club, particularly when the ecology is so vitally important to global climatic patterns. In this connection, my delegation proposes the following: the retention of the Antarctic Treaty as a basis for administering the region; the creation of an authority, under the umbrella of the Treaty, to manage the Antarctic, with the existing Consultative Parties as members of the authority and equal membership by representatives of every region of the world; environmental non-governmental organizations with an established record in Antarctica to be observers at all meetings of the authority, with the right to speak; and the establishment of a system of international taxation and revenue-sharing administered by the proposed authority for Antarctica.
19.	We believe that our proposals, if implemented, would go a long way towards democratizing Antarctica and should be acceptable to all, except those with sinister objectives in the region. We have advanced the idea of a system of international taxation and revenue-sharing because we accept that certain countries will continue to exploit the marine life of Antarctica. But we feel they should do so in a controlled manner and within a framework in which the world and Antarctica itself no less, benefits from revenue derived from taxation. We propose that the revenues raised from taxes on fishing and, in time, mining should be placed in a special development fund for maintaining the Antarctic environment and advancing global human development. The fund should be subdivided in three ways: expenses for the maintenance of the Antarctic environment, hard loans to developed countries and soft loans and grants to less developed and least developed countries.
20.	It is only in these conditions of global participation in decision-making and global sharing of the benefits of Antarctica's resources that the region will be genuinely safe for all mankind. The alternative is an intensification of global confrontation and a fatal step towards the final frontier of human conflict.
21.	Much has been made of the close co-operation that exists between the two super-Powers in Antarctica. Indeed, their representatives have drawn attention to the fact that, while they cannot agree on arms control matters, goodwill and a genuine desire to find mutually acceptable solutions have made it possible to make Antarctica a zone of peace. But it is precisely this unprecedented level of co-operation between the two super-Powers which intensifies suspicions about Antarctica.
22.	Why can this co-operation not be repeated in other parts of the world? If the super-Powers could bring to Central America the same level of collaboration that has obtained m Antarctica, the problems of that region could be brought to an end, with enormous benefits for the people of the area and with a corresponding reduction of tension between the peoples of the United States and the Soviet Union.
23.	The world would breathe a sigh of relief if the super-Powers concentrated their efforts not on military escalation in Central America but on economic improvement. For, apart from a hard core of activists in the troubled countries of Central America, people want bread, not bullets. In this connection, would it not be a better role for the super-Powers of the world to act as intermediaries for peace rather than agents for war? The question needs no answer, for the response is self-evident. We must all hope that in time the super-Powers will come to recognize the value to the world of co-operating internationally in the same way as they have done in Antarctica.
24.	In the meantime, developing countries can offer an example of responsibility. In Central America, Belize has proffered the hand of friendship to Guatemala. These two countries can show the world a new way to peace by reaching out to each other and constructing a lasting solution to their problems, based on recognition of each other's sovereignty and co-operation in the social and economic development of their peoples. We would urge Guatemala to take the first step along the road to global peace by showing the super-Powers that developing States have the maturity and capacity to settle their problems in peace.
25.	Other developing States also have it within their power to demonstrate to the super-Powers that conflict resolution is not the exclusive preserve of those with the greatest might. The peoples of North and South Korea can strike a blow for dignity in the third world by acting on the proposals put forward by South Korea to normalize the relations of the Korean people.
26.	Action by developing States to establish peace and promote social well-being should cease to be dependent on the influences of one super-Power or another. Developing States should strive to change the image that we are incapable of dealing with our own affairs. We should eschew big-Power politics in our countries and seek our salvation by our own efforts. We should create the conditions for international respect for third-world States and reverse the derision to which we are so constantly subject.
27.	Far too many of our problems, which have their genesis in economic inequality, have provided opportunities for protagonists in East-West rivalry to interfere in our affairs. It is time for third-world countries to free themselves from such rivalry and assert their independence with dignity and pride.
28.	In the case of Cyprus, which has suffered the torment of strife for so long, my delegation would once again appeal for support for the Secretary- General in his efforts to extinguish the flames of conflict which so persistently threaten to set Cyprus alight. The people of Cyprus are remarkable for their ability to build on the ashes' of ruins. They are surely able to transpose this great strength to the future of their country by establishing a united, free and fully independent Cyprus in which the interests and rights of all are fully protected and guaranteed. The international community would bring a welcome respite to the people of Cyprus by promoting peace, not partition; unity, not disunity; nationalism, not separatism.
29.	I turn now to the question of the development of third world States. Developing countries have learned the hard way that voting strength in the Assembly and in other United Nations agencies does not convey authority in decision-making. Resolutions, laboriously drafted and painfully negotiated, produce no meaningful results. Hence, in the context of a North-South dialogue on development, there has not only been no progress, there has been nothing. Nothing has happened in the General Assembly; nothing happened at the sixth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, held at Belgrade; nothing resulted from the International Meeting on Co-operation and Development, held at Cancun; nothing came of the Fourth General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
30.	While nothing has occurred to advance a North- South dialogue on development, the nations of the world have rushed dangerously close to disaster. The one thing that has delayed the moment of catastrophe is that suffering and pain in many developing States is a norm.
31.	The norm of suffering is what has stopped the developing countries from exploding into violence despite the fact that the majority have experienced no growth for the last three years. The norm of suffering is what has pulled back more than 24 countries in Africa from absolute chaos, despite the fact that 30 million people will die this year and next from malnutrition and related diseases. The norm of suffering is what has saved developing countries from economic collapse, despite the fact that in 1983 the loss in income through reduced exports to developed countries was some SO billion.
32.	Paradoxically, it is this same norm of suffering in third world States that has helped to maintain the resoluteness of developed States not to enter into a dialogue on development. For third world suffering is expected in the equation of international politics. It is first world suffering that is not expected.
33.	Hence, it seems that the developed countries will only enter into a dialogue on development when their own economic conditions reach the point of inflicting pain upon their own peoples. It is a sad commentary on the state of human relations that mankind has reached such a woeful point.
34.	Given this situation and the further dimension of declining official development assistance and a constraint upon the international financial institutions to carry out reforms necessary to discharge their responsibilities, third world States may find value in promoting the concept of a greater co-operation among themselves. Indeed, there may even be relevance in creating a third world secretariat to institutionalize trade and other commercial arrangements among third world States and to provide expertise for more co-ordinated and beneficial negotiations with developed countries.
35.	My delegation agrees with the sentiment of Thomas Paine, so eloquently cited by the President of the United States, Mr. Ronald Reagan, in this very Hall on 24 September last, at the 4th meeting: "'We have it in our power to begin the world over again'". My delegation would urge developing States to ensure that, in any efforts to begin the world over again, we have a strong and effective voice.


May I first of all congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly. With your vast experience as a diplomat and as an outstanding representative of your good country, Zambia, I am sure you will guide the deliberations of the Assembly with success and distinction.
2.	Also, I should like to pay a tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Jorge E. Illueca, of Panama, for his skilful leadership of the thirty-eighth session.
3.	I join previous speakers in extending a warm welcome to the friendly country of Brunei Darussalam as it joins our family of nations. I congratulate the Government and people of Brunei Darussalam on the achievement of independence and offer them my Government's and my people's best wishes for the future. We look forward with pleasure to working closely with the delegation of Brunei Darussalam in the Organization, its related agencies and the Commonwealth.
4.	Last year, my Prime Minister, in addressing this great assembly of nations, voiced the concerns of the Government of the Solomon Islands about certain international issues. Today, I shall make no apology if I again touch on some or all of those same issues. In my humble opinion, it is our duty not to lose sight of the major issues that come within the sphere of responsibility of the Organization: disarmament for peace and security; social and economic development for human betterment, including human rights; the eradication of the traces and remnants of colonialism; and the development of international law and justice.
5.	Those are the noble aims and ideals for which this great Organization was founded; those are the issues that we must continue to address in our efforts to achieve those objectives, even if it takes us an eternity to achieve them hoping that meanwhile the world is not blown up by the pressing of a button.
6.	It is timely, I believe, to remind ourselves that four decades ago a single nuclear bomb brought peace to the world and today only man can keep that peace. This is the crucial question that should be answered honestly by those concerned. For us, small peace-loving nations, the threat of imminent bombing brings the nightmarish realization that our planet will no longer be safe unless a genuine effort is made to bring about peace in all the corners of the world. Thus, my Government earnestly urges the superpowers to resume disarmament negotiations at the earliest possible opportunity—not for the attainment of superiority, but for the definition of civilized behaviour in arms control.
7.	Twelve months ago, we were concerned about global peace and security, threatened as it was by the instability in certain regions. That same threat is still with us today, in spite of the noble resolutions and decisions of the General Assembly and the courageous and diplomatic efforts of the Secretary-General. My Government's position remains unchanged, in that the unstable situations in southern Africa, the Middle East, Asia, the Korean peninsula and Central America are still threats to global peace and security.
8.	In southern Africa, the question of delaying Namibia independence is a cause for concern and my Government would like to see the early settlement of this question, in conformity with the principles of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Related to the question of Namibia is the evil system of apartheid. Solomon Islands has consistently condemned that system and will maintain and uphold its condemnation until that inhuman and uncivilized practice is totally eradicated.
9.	The situation in the Middle East is also of concern to all of us. Peace in that region is an important objective of the United Nations. The principles of secure territorial integrity and sovereignty are involved here. The position of the Solomon Islands has always been that Israel's right to exist must be recognized and that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination. But the attainment of this depends on the search for peace by all the parties involved.
10.	In the Asian region, the occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet forces and of Cambodia by Vietnamese forces perpetuates the threat to peace in the whole region and m the adjacent region of the South Pacific. Therefore, we call again for the withdrawal of those forces from those respective countries.
11.	With regard to the Korean peninsula, Solomon Islands will support a negotiated reunification process, which should be pursued without outside interference. In the meantime, we would see merit in the admission of the two Koreas to the United Nations as a necessary step towards the process of reunification.
12.	I now turn to the danger we face in the South Pacific region, that is, the danger of nuclear pollution. We are convinced that our reefs and seas are endangered by the nuclear-testing activities that have been carried out in our region. Hence we have condemned and will continue to condemn the nuclear testing by France in Mururoa atoll. We are totally opposed to that and to the proposal by Japan to dump nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean. Japan has heeded our objections thus far and we are grateful.
13.	France, on the other hand, has shown no sign of willingness even to listen to our protests. Instead, it has had the arrogance to invite a team of scientists and to show them what they should be shown by the authorities in Mururoa. To this sort of unfriendly gesture, all I can say is that we are not developed industrially but we are humanly mature enough to tell truths from lies and rights from wrongs. It is morally wrong to lay the foundations for killing the source of our livelihood, that is, the resources of our seas and reefs, and for endangering our lives. The team of scientists made it abundantly clear that they were not allowed the freedom to observe certain crucial aspects of the nuclear-testing activities on Mururoa atoll and their conclusion is equally clear that there is no guarantee that, either in the short term or in the long term, there will be no adverse effects on our region and on future generations.
14.	In this connection, I should like to endorse the statements by my colleagues from the South Pacific who have already addressed this session with regard to our collective decision to work towards a nuclear- free zone in our region. We regard this as fundamental and important because that island States in this region depend very heavily on the resources of our seas. In fact, many of our people depend almost exclusively on marine resources.
15.	This is why we attach such importance to keeping our seas free from nuclear pollutants; this is why we subscribe so strongly to the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which stipulates the 200-mile exclusive economic zone and the 200-mile fisheries zone; this is why we are concerned about the spirit of international cooperation and about the fact that certain countries are still creating a serious obstacle by their refusal to recognize this Convention in its entirety.
16.	I have dealt with the issues that are a precondition of successful economic and social development. What will be the good of the development of our islands’ economic and social infrastructures if they are to be destroyed by nuclear pollutants and bombs? Of course, with modem technology these can be repaired in a matter of days, but for whose benefit? For the benefit of those who destroy, certainly, for they will manufacture equipment and machinery for repairs and reconstruction.
17.	Thus, in order to come to grips with the problems of economic and social development in small island nations such as mine, we have to appreciate and understand the fundamental and practical obstacles to development.
18.	Today's global economic situation must surely be the reflection of our unstable world. While economic recovery seems to have taken place in some industrial countries, the developing countries are still struggling and in the process are becoming worse off.
19.	There can be no universal economic recovery, in my view, unless there is a new international economic order which aims to bridge the development gap between industrial countries and the heavily populated developing countries; a new international economic order which allows for a fair and free flow of trade between countries and relaxed and investment-generating regulations for international and multilateral financial institutions. Unfortunately, the global negotiations on a new international economic order are still in limbo.
20.	Herein lies the interdependence of peace and security on the one hand and social and economic development on the other. The stalling of the global negotiations on a new international economic order is a direct result of the breakdown in genuine disarmament negotiations. The arms build-up, which has given rise to economic recovery in certain quarters, is a drain on scarce resources that are needed for development in the developing third world countries, which are the hardest hit by the recession.
21.	As I mentioned human rights in relation to social and economic development, I would like to assure the Assembly of the high regard for this principle in my country. All the fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations are provided for and safeguarded in our national Constitution. There are also various legislative frameworks within which are spelt out detailed provisions concerning certain constitutional obligations, such as our leadership code to govern the conduct of our leaders in the exercise of their powers and the fulfilment of their responsibilities when in public office, and the Ombudsman Act to protect and safeguard the rights of individuals in their dealings with Government and statutory institutions.
22.	In this context and in line with our policies and laws to safeguard human rights, I am pleased to see continuing efforts to work towards some regional and sub-regional institutional arrangements for the protection and promotion of human rights in the region of Asia and the Pacific. The proposal that resulted from the Seminar on National, Local and Regional Arrangements for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in the Asian Regions, held at Colombo from 21 June to 2 July 1982, can be commended for further consideration. We welcome the objective of establishing an open-ended working group to continue the overall analysis with a view to further promotion and encouragement of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including questions relevant to the work of the Commission on Human Rights within the United Nations system.
23.	These are noble goals, but here I sound a note of caution regarding regional institutional arrangements. Every care should be taken to avoid overlap and duplication, and, whatever we do, we should be mindful of the danger that such institutions, conceived in good faith, sometimes tend to lose sight of the purposes for which they were established and concentrate their efforts on self-promotion and self- perpetuation.
24.	Turning now to decolonization, I remind the Assembly of the communique of the South Pacific Forum relating to the question of New Caledonia, issued after its fifteenth meeting, held in Tuvalu on 27 and 28 August 1984. The relevant parts for our purposes are as follows:
"The Forum reaffirmed its support for the transition of New Caledonia to independence in accordance with the wishes of its people and in a manner which guarantees the innate and active rights of the Kanaka people and the rights, interests and aspirations of all its inhabitants. It urged the French Government and all political and community groups, including the Independence
Front, to keep talking to ensure that this transition to an independent, multiracial New Caledonia is achieved speedily and peacefully within a shorter time scale than presently envisaged.
"It was the Forum's view that the process of decolonization would he advanced by a public statement by the French Government that independence was the desirable, logical and acknowledged outcome of the Act of self-determination currently planned for 1989, and that this referendum should be brought forward by agreement between all parties involved.
"The Forum believed that France should transfer additional political and administrative powers to the Territory to ensure that it is adequately prepared for independence and take the practical steps necessary to guarantee the full and active participation of the Melanesian community in the Territory's educational, vocational and administrative institutions."
25.	The persistent refusal by France to re-inscribe New Caledonia on the list of Territories to be decolonized reflects a fundamental breach of the principle of self-determination and independence. My Government condemns this.
26.	The underlying fact is simply that the people who were actually colonized—the Melanesians, and not the settlers- -are the very people who are asking for self-determination and independence. It is these people who are asking for their disengagement from being a Department of the French Republic. There is a very genuine request and appeal to the United Nations, and we, their Melanesian brothers, very much appreciate their desire for independence. It is therefore my Government's obligation to put to the Organization the urgent proposal that New Caledonia be re-inscribed on the agenda for decolonization during this session.
27.	The Melanesian people of New Caledonia are being indoctrinated with two basic negative considerations: first that they are not ready for independence and, secondly, that if France left their Territory, their peace and security and that of the South Pacific region would be endangered.
28.	With regard to the first point, New Caledonia is the most developed Territory in the South Pacific. The city of Noumea is far more developed than the capitals of ail the independent island States in the region. What, then, is the basis for readiness? Is it political, social or economic development? If it is all of these, then, as the Melanesians themselves are saying, they are ready, and France should accept this. With regard to the second point, what threatens the peace and security of our region is the presence of colonial Powers.
29.	Independence has brought about the establishment of cordial and happy relations between the countries of our region, including Australia, Fiji, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands. This augurs very well for the peace and security of our region. Therefore, I ask all members to think very seriously about the situation in New Caledonia, for the longer we postpone the consideration thereof, the more serious the threat to peace and security in our region will become.
30.	Closely related to the question of global peace and security is the question of international cooperation. There is still much room for fairness. We have seen, and are seeing, injustice in the application of the new status of certain countries.
31.	I now turn to the United Nations itself. Much has been said about its inadequacies and weaknesses. There have been comments from certain quarters that the Organization is heading in the wrong direction. While these might appear to give cause for concern, we believe that, under the able leadership of the Secretary-General, anything that needs to be improved will be attended to. Overall, however, one thing is certainly very clear: the Organization has the vital role of serving as the forum within which we can meet and try to resolve our problems through dialogue instead of confrontation. The United Nations holds humanity's last hope of maintaining peace and security. It has also done much, and is now doing more, for the development of the developing countries.
32.	Solomon Islands is committed to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations. That is why, in spite of our difficulties in the areas of manpower and finance, we are trying to participate as effectively as we can. Thus, I am obliged to conclude this brief statement by reaffirming our commitment to this great Organization.


Sir, it is with special pleasure that I greet you, a distinguished son of Zambia and of Africa, as President of the General Assembly and offer you my warmest felicitations on your unanimous election. Yours is a heavy responsibility as you guide our work during a very difficult period for the United Nations, and I want to begin by assuring you of the fullest co-operation of the Malaysian delegation in all your efforts, because Malaysia's support for the United Nations is unstinting and unabashed.
82.	It is this support which has brought me here twice to address the Assembly although I have been Prime Minister of my country for only three years. For far too long, the United Nations has been abused, denigrated and ignored. For far too long now, we have been hearing about the so-called tyranny and irresponsibility of the majority, about waste and "paper" resolutions and double standards. We all know that the United Nations is not without fault, but in the face of ignorance and bigotry, of myths and falsehoods, we must continue to proclaim our faith in what the United Nations at its best stands for—a world which is secure for all, just for all, prosperous for all and humane for all.
83.	These were the ideals of international co-operation and justice proclaimed by the founding fathers of this institution: not a world in which only the rich and the powerful make the important decisions; not a world in which small nations fight proxy wars on behalf of big nations; not a world in which might is right; not a world half-rich and half-poor, half-well- endowed and half-deprived. What has happened now to those ideals? We who believe in them want also to believe that the founder-Members of the Organization meant what they said when they proclaimed the Charter of the United Nations. It is understandable that the excitements and the expectations of the dawn of 1945 should inevitably be tarnished in the cold light of experience over the last 39 years. But the sad truth is more than that.
84.	For the first 15 or 20 years of the Organization's existence, we did not hear anything about the disproportionate voting strength of small States— and there were small States—or about the tyranny of the automatic majority—and there was often an automatic majority. Instead, we heard about the virtues of a more democratic international life as exemplified in the United Nations. What has happened to those sentiments? Were we naive to believe that those countries which loudly proclaimed such ideals in the early decades of the Organization did, indeed, believe in them? What, then, are we to make of the constant barrage of perverse criticism, the threats and the denigration which have now become fashion in certain quarters? Is it because the United Nations can no longer be manipulated and manoeuvred?
85.	Malaysia, for one, would like to believe otherwise. Yet we see the big Powers continuing more and more to ignore and to belittle the United Nations. They have established a network of relationships outside the United Nations system to resolve world problems. They have formed their own economic clubs, to which from time to time the developing countries are permitted to make their supplications. But the clubs, like all exclusive clubs, essentially look after the interests of their members. In the meantime, in the economic as in the political field, the United Nations continues to be ignored. Indeed, we witness something even more negative, namely, the threat to withdraw from certain United Nations agencies. Unhappy about the direction and leadership of these agencies, they sometimes make these threats under the guise of management or budgetary concerns.
86.	To that I wish to respond: we, the small and the poor, also pay. What we contribute may not be much, but in terms of our own budgets it is substantial indeed, sometimes even more substantial than the contributions of big nations. We do not like to see anyone squandering our money any more than the rich. But what we would like to see is not savings through the destruction of the agencies but a thorough overhaul of the system to ensure that it is cost- effective and serves the agreed objectives. Undermining the agencies is definitely not the way to tackle the problem, and so let us say: enough of this short-sightedness; enough of cynicism; enough of distortions and falsehoods. As we stand on the eve of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, let us first of all pledge ourselves once more to the United Nations and, in that spirit, to a practical and realistic appraisal of where we can go from here.
87.	Looking back at the past four decades, I believe that from time to time we have succeeded in acting in the true spirit of the Charter. No one can deny that the United Nations has had its successes and it still does much valuable work, often in unspectacular ways. All this has been due to the consciousness that there exists an international community and that our national interest can in fact be safeguarded in the larger context of the international interest. It is this consciousness that we must constantly cultivate.
88.	The fact is that the further development of the United Nations depends first and foremost on the attitude of the major Powers. It is they, more than anyone else, that are in a position to decide the future of the Organization. This is because the major Powers cannot be ignored. The resolutions of the United Nations can be ignored, as they have been. The weak developing countries can be ignored, as they have constantly been. The question then is: do the major Powers want the United Nations to become what it can become—a centre for resolving conflicting interests and a catalyst for peaceful change—or will they abandon it because they can no longer manipulate it?
89.	But, of course, the responsibility is not theirs alone. The smaller nations are disillusioned at the ineffectiveness of the United Nations, which has been paralysed on so many occasions because the major Powers have prevented effective action. But Malaysia has always believed that just as the major Powers must avoid alienating the smaller .countries by their obstructive policies, so also must the small countries prevent the alienation of the major Powers from the Organization through the wholesale imposition of decisions by majority vote. Speaking as a representative of a small developing country, I am very conscious of the fact that a United Nations resolution that is obtained by majority voting along group, political or ideological lines will not in itself solve any problem. There is often a need for greater realism and restraint. More efforts can be made through the process of negotiation and consultation to arrive at solutions of principle that are both realistic and practical.
90.	But the principles must remain at the core of any solution. The United Nations, if it is to mean anything at all, must stand firm on principles, and there will be a need for adjustments and compromise on the means, the processes and the modalities. We, the smaller nations, cannot be blamed if we insist on that. It is hypocrisy to accuse us of being emotional or unrealistic, irresponsible or irrelevant only because those principles are now inconvenient to the major Powers,
91.	I turn now to another subject of equal importance to contemporary international and human relations. I refer to the misunderstanding that is so prevalent in the Western world, fed by deliberate distortions by interested parties about what is happening in the Islamic world.
92.	The fact is that there is a resurgence of faith in the Islamic world as well as among other religions. Do not allow yourselves to be manipulated so as to fear this resurgence or even the word "fundamentalist", which has triggered so many ancient suspicions and prejudices. Yes, we are the Islamic "fundamentalists", because we believe in the fundamentals of Islam—in peace, tolerance and justice—and, yes, there are extremists just as there are extremists everywhere in every religion and in every phase of history. Surely no one can deny that, historically, there have been aberrations in all religions and it is plain prejudice or deliberate distortion to allow these aberrations to determine our perception and our judgement. Let us ask ourselves: would it be fair to judge Christianity by the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition, or by the obscenity of apartheid, or of Nazism? Would it be fair to judge Judaism by the perversities that political Zionism represents?
93.	The answer is obvious. The current revolution in Islam deserves to be judged fairly and objectively. I do not deny that violence, injustice and much that is against universal good values have been perpetrated in the name of Islam. But the concentration on these aspects—which, I repeat, are aberrations typical in any historical movement—to the exclusion of all others that are true and good does harm to the world. It leads to misunderstanding, fuels suspicions and reinforces prejudices to the detriment of us all.
94.	And yet there are some who, for their own racist reasons, are only too prone to highlight and gloat over every excess, real or imagined, which they can focus upon. If all the money, time and energy spent on distorting what is going on in the Islamic world were spent instead on a careful and objective understanding of one of the most important developments in the contemporary world, how much better off we would all be. The great liberation movements after the Second World War could be understood only when people knew that Gandhi was not "a half-naked fakir", nor Kenyatta a representative of the forces of evil and darkness, nor Nasser an upstart and an irresponsible trouble-maker. Similarly, what is happening in the Islamic world today must be understood as a movement that seeks to consolidate political freedom, economic justice and cultural identity; a catalogue of values which everyone, if he is to be true to any notion of decency and civility, must surely support.
95.	It is not my purpose in these remarks to place the current Islamic resurgence in its historical context. There is a long and turbulent history of relations between Islam and the West during which many prejudices became ingrained. What is more tragic is that these are now being revived, fanned and exploited by the Zionists to serve political ends. The great peoples of the Book—the Jews, Christians and Muslims—have much in common with each other, have contributed much to human civilization and surely have much more to contribute.
96.	Why is it then that we allow one of the most significant movements of our times—the resurgence of Islam—to be wilfully misrepresented and misunderstood? Who stands to gain from such misunderstanding? Why cannot we instead turn to one another and learn from one another, from our respective historical experiences, from our dreams and hopes and fears? Let us find charity in our hearts; let Christians, Jews and agnostics alike find the charity in their hearts to recognize what is going on in the Islamic world for what it really is: a search for spiritual succour in a world that is confused and troubled. Let us be rid of hatred, of the anti-Islam propaganda of bitterness and prejudice that the Zionists continue to spew.
97.	I appeal therefore for understanding between Jews, Christians and Muslims. Many Muslims today are disillusioned and shocked at what they regard as contemporary' aberrations in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and this has resulted in a resurgence of Islamic orthodoxy and extremism. The Zionist-inspired Western reaction to this Islamic resurgence, as well as its aberrations of intolerance and self-righteousness, has further increased the separation and antagonism between the West and the Islamic world.
98.	It is time that we—all of us—put a stop to this. The contemporary aberrations in the Judaeo-Christian traditions and, similarly, the contemporary aberrations, in a few instances, within the Islamic tradition must not be allowed to obscure their fundamental virtues. Let us study each other's teachings. Let us be true to those teachings. God willing, the great understand that this will generate will help Jews and Christians and Muslims alike to contribute first of all to peace in the Middle East and then to greater understanding in the world. It will at the very least stop the machinations of those with selfish and narrow, racist ends who are seeking to exploit ignorance and suspicion and prejudice. It will be a development of historic significance.
99.	I would like to turn now to economic issues, and here my theme is consistency and fairness.
100.	For a long time, the banner of free trade was held high, and the colonies of the metropolitan Powers were vigorously taught the virtues of free trade. At that time, and for years after independence, we could not export anything except primary commodities and, true to the lessons we had been taught, our markets were open to imports of manufactured goods from the industrialized countries. However, now that we ourselves have learned the trick of manufacturing and exporting goods, although the amount is insignificant, what has happened to that proud banner of free trade? It flies limply or at half- mast in the industrialized countries. We see quotas and other restrictions, so-called voluntary restraints and other threats and pressures. We even see our industrialization policies, which seek to attract foreign investment through such devices as export incentives, preferential financing and so on, being challenged. We also see to our surprise labour unions in industrialized countries which in the days of empire had not been in the least concerned about the lot of our worker—who were then certainly exploited—suddenly become champions of our workers, urging them to demand higher wages and improved working conditions, even though our workers have already gained better treatment since independence. Why this unusual concern, we wonder? Is it coincidental that the result of this concern is that our products are less competitive?
101.	We will be forgiven, therefore, if in the face of all this we are a little cynical about the principles of free trade which they have been preaching and about the interest of their labour unions in the welfare of our workers. Therefore I say this. Do not merely preach free trade, practise it. Do not be so presumptuous as to think that you know better than our labour leaders how to look after the interests of our workers. We can compete with you freely and fairly in certain areas. These are usually those of low- technology goods which, in any event, you, who are much higher up on the industrial scale, can best leave to us so that in turn we can import the higher- technology goods that you produce. In this way, we can all mutually fuel international trade, which is an essential engine of growth and the only real solution to our poverty problem.
102.	I want to turn to another area in which the comfortable and the rich in the industrialized countries still have the colonial mentality and want to lead us by the hand. During colonial times, many of our forests were cleared for timber and for planting rubber, oil palms, tea, sugar, coffee, and so on. Little concern was then expressed about the environment. Now, as we seek to open up our lands for modern farming, for the generation of power and for industrialization, a whole host of environmentalists from the industrialized countries have descended upon us to educate our people about preserving the natural beauty of our tropical forests, and so on. Certainly, we want to preserve our forests. Certainly, we want to maintain our clean environment, our clean atmosphere. But, make no mistake; it will not be at the expense of the living conditions of our people. We will not accept a situation in which our rural people live in poverty and misery so that the rich, when they come by, can say "What unspoilt beauty!", tip the "happy" native children 10 cents to pose in front of a thatched hut, and then go their comfortable way. The preservation of the environment requires money, which we will not have unless we develop. We fully intend to develop, and it is we, and we alone, who will make the judgement about environmental standards and about the preservation of our natural beauty), which we, surely, more than anyone else have an interest in preserving. Help the poor countries to develop economically and the environment will be taken care of. Being poor in a beautiful environment does not mitigate poverty.
103.	While op the subject of environment, I want to draw attention to yet another imposition on certain poor countries. I refer to the pollution of the sea, specifically to pollution in the straits regarded as international shipping routes. More specifically still, I want to refer to Malaysia's experience in the Straits of Malacca. In the days when ships were not so numerous or so huge, their passage through the narrow Straits posed little problem for the littoral States. But now hundreds of these behemoths, filled with all kinds of goods, including dangerous chemicals and petroleum, clog the Straits. Every now and then they collide with each other, spilling their contents into the sea. While tankers no longer clean their holds in the narrow waters, other ships still do. There is still a considerable amount of rubbish being discarded into the sea. The net result is filthy Straits with patches of oil, pieces of paper, plastic and other rubbish. Eventually all this lands on our shores, making them equally filthy.
104.	In the face of those developments, the equipment and boats which Malaysia maintains to clean oil spillage at considerable cost to ourselves are no longer enough. Now we have actively to consider sweeping the sea of the wastes and rubbish thrown or flushed out of ships. I believe that in the circumstances we are right to ask that the maritime nations and the shipping firms, which obviously benefit from using the Straits, should help to maintain the facilities for keeping the waters clean. I have no specific formula in mind but I am convinced that the international agencies concerned must examine this question and make necessary provisions for keeping the waters clean. The developing countries which face these Straits should not be further burdened with having to equip and maintain costly facilities for dealing with oil spills and extensive damage to fishing, sometimes for years. Nor should their polluted beach resorts, from which they earn a few tourist dollars, be cleaned entirely at their own expense. The ships generally belong to the rich and they must defray the cost, at least partially.
105.	I have n these remarks focused on a number of broad issues affecting the United Nations, the Islamic world and the developing countries. However, I shall be failing in my duty in this general statement if I do not also touch upon certain other issues which are pertinent as Malaysia looks at current developments in the world.
106.	Before doing so, however, may I take this opportunity, first of all, to express the appreciation of my delegation to the outgoing President, who carried out his tasks so admirably during the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly.
107.	I would also wish to express from this rostrum, on behalf of the Government and the people of Malaysia, our warmest welcome and felicitations to the delegation of Brunei Darussalam as it takes its seat in the United Nations—an event which has given us very special pleasure. Brunei Darussalam is a neighbour of Malaysia and a fellow member of the Association of South-East Asian Nations [ASEAN]. Since 7 January this year, when Brunei Darussalam formally joined ASEAN as a full member, we have worked closely and amicably with it and we know that it will make many important and serious contributions to the work of the Organization. Malaysia looks forward to a future ci close and fruitful collaboration with Brunei Darussalam.
108.	As we survey developments around the globe, we cannot but be filled with a sense of foreboding at the downward spiral of international understanding, of outrage at so much blatant injustice and even, alas, of cynicism at the wide gap between professions of principles and their practice.
109.	Take the case of Palestine, which has been referred to for too long as an Arab-Israeli conflict.
That is a deliberate misnomer, because the conflict is in essence and in reality an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the root of which is the adamant denial by Israel of Palestinian nationhood. Of all those who insist on direct talks between the parties concerned, I ask: who are the parties but the Israelis and the Palestinians? Of all those who talk of democracy, freedom, self- determination and all the other lofty principles of justice and human rights, I ask: in the name of what can the people of Palestine be denied their right to their own independent homeland? Is it in the name of Israel's security, which can be ensured, in any event, in many other ways? Can this be seriously argued by countries which, at the same time, are vociferous in condemning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Vietnamese invasion of Kampuchea? No. The fact is that the Palestinians are being denied their freedom because Israel wants it so and it has the support of a powerful ally to enforce its will. Let us avoid debating points. Let us avoid dredging up minutiae of history. This is the basic issue. Despite the clear will of the international community and the undeniable rights of the Palestinians, Israel adamantly and violently opposes Palestinian freedom. If another State were to do this, it would be rightly condemned, as Israel is by some, and rightly repudiated, as Israel is not, because of its powerful ally. And yet Israel and its friend attempt to portray it as the victim, the injured innocent.
110.	Sometimes it is also said that the Palestinians, or more specifically the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], must first of all recognize Israel—and let us bear this m mind—not before Palestinian independence can be accepted, but before the PLO can be allowed to take part in any discussion on Palestine's future: an explicit recognition of Israel by the PLO, in return for which the PLO will be allowed an undefined seat in undefined negotiations about an undefined future for Palestine. This is insisted upon—never mind about the Fez resolution of the Arab Heads of State, never mind about the resolution of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, whose provisions about the security of all States in the Middle East are clear for all who wish to see. And yet, by the same token, have those supporters of Israel asked Israel for an explicit recognition of the PLO and for Palestinian freedom? The answer is no. Or even for an implicit recognition? Again, no. And, what is more, not only has Israel neither explicitly nor even implicitly recognized the PLO and Palestinian independence, it has quite explicitly and categorically rejected any possibility of dealing with the PLO or any prospect of Palestinian independence. In those circumstances, those who still point the finger of responsibility at the PLO cannot expect us to take them seriously. No doubt they have their own reasons for what they do, but they cannot expect us to believe that those reasons are remotely connected with any principle of democracy, justice or human rights.
111.	As to southern Africa, how can we adequately express our outrage at the manner in which the rights—and even the lives—of black Africans are being treated? At the risk of being misunderstood, I venture to suggest that if white people were treated by a black Government, or any Government for that matter, in the way that the black people of South Africa are being treated, the entire world would rise up and take decisive action. And yet what do we see? Certain countries press into service all manner of arguments under sophisticated labels, such as constructive engagement. They appeal for patience, they draw attention to practical realities and, in the case of Namibia, they even advance the almost incredible and totally irrelevant concept of "linkage"—arguments which they themselves would not tolerate for one moment if the victims of this monstrosity that apartheid and the racist regime represent were whites. I urge those Governments to leap beyond oblique intellectualizing, beyond calculations of economics or power politics to understand that what is at stake is a moral issue. How can you support a Government whose philosophy is immoral and whose methods are brutal and cruel? How can you justify denying to the black people of South Africa a life of freedom and decency in their own land? History will judge you, and do not be outraged that, in the meantime, we are judging you too.
112.	Looking elsewhere in the world, it is ironic to see in Afghanistan the contrast between professions of lofty principles and actual practice. In the name of good neighbourliness and fraternal relations, a vicious and bloody war is being inflicted on the people of Afghanistan. This violation, like any other violation of the independence and territorial integrity of a sovereign nation, must be resisted. Malaysia has therefore supported and will continue to support, in whatever practical way it can, the struggle of the valiant Afghan people for their freedom and honour. That is why we have given facilities for the mujahidin freedom fighters to have an office in Kuala Lumpur. That is why we continue to support the diplomatic efforts of the Secretary-General to seek a political solution to this problem. Faced with the might of stronger neighbours, small weak States need to know that the United Nations will not allow them to be trampled on by the boots of invading armies. Everything else must depend on this fundamental right to freedom and sovereignty.
113.	Nearer to us in Malaysia, we see the same cynical manipulation of words such as self-determination and fraternal assistance and human rights in order to justify what cannot be justified, namely, the Vietnamese invasion and continuing occupation of Kampuchea. The ASEAN countries, which had offered a hand of friendship and co-operation to Viet Nam at the end of the Viet Nam war in 1975, have opposed and will continue to oppose this blatant violation of Kampuchea's independence and territorial integrity. The situation is ironic because Viet Nam, which once earned the high admiration of many for standing up in defiance and, finally, in triumph against overwhelming odds to uphold the right of the Vietnamese people to freedom in their own homeland, is committing now exactly what it had accused its adversaries of attempting to do: namely, the imposition of its will by armed might on a smaller and weaker country. This tragic irony is compounded by the fact that those of Viet Nam's neighbours which are members of ASEAN have categorically shown that they are fully ready to meet Viet Nam's legitimate security interest. A further irony is that the ASEAN countries had agreed in 1971 to the concept of a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality in South-East Asia and it is Viet Nam's continued occupation of Kampuchea which is the obstacle to the realization of a conflict-free neutral area untroubled by the rivalries of the major Powers, which Viet Nam also claims to be its objective.
114.	The choice between conflict and co-operation is Viet Nam's. From the contacts and meetings, both public and private, that it has had with individual ASEAN countries, Viet Nam knows that ASEAN is flexible and sincere in its wish to bring the present conflict to an end, but ASEAN cannot and will not compromise with regard to the right of the Kampuchean people to choose their own form of Government free from any external coercion. We will stay the course. The position we have taken is not only in conformity with United Nations principles and relevant resolutions but offers a fair and honourable exit for Viet Nam. It is now up to Viet Nam to decide.
115.	I would like to turn now to the subject of Antarctica, to which I feel compelled to refer as Malaysia was one of the sponsors requesting the inclusion of this item at the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly. As we await the Secretary- General's study and the subsequent debate on this subject later during this session, I want to emphasize most of all that Malaysia approaches the forthcoming discussions with an open mind and with the hope that, by listening carefully to each other's concerns and views, we shall all be able to move forward together on this issue. I also want to stress that Malaysia raised this subject in a constructive spirit— to build, not to destroy. We do not dispute the good that the present Antarctic Treaty system has done. But what we are seeking to build is a broader basis and a firmer foundation for international co-operation in Antarctica which would be acceptable to, and in the interest of, the international community as a whole and thus ensure the long-term stability and effectiveness of the system. We have an open mind as to how that can best be brought about. Of course we have some ideas of our own: in the particular circumstances of Antarctica—a large land mass occupying some one tenth of the globe's land surface, situated in a strategic part of the world, with a fragile ecosystem and possessing rich marine and, possibly, mineral resources, a part of the world, moreover, with no settled inhabitants and where, indisputably, there is no recognition of the claims to sovereignty except between the seven claimants—we believe that there is at least a strong case for Antarctica to be in one way or another the common heritage of mankind.
116.	But we are aware that there are practical and legal realities as well as a great deal in the way of national sensitivities which cannot simply be swept aside. The United Nations has only begun to consider this question of Antarctica and all of us will therefore need to proceed cautiously and carefully. Hence, whatever Malaysia's views may be, we will approach the forthcoming discussions with an open mind and sensitivity to the concerns, views and interests of other Member States. We earnestly urge a similar approach by all concerned. It is in that spirit that we have proposed the establishment of a special committee on the question of Antarctica. It can be expected that the discussions which will take place later during this session will not be conclusive. Such a committee should build upon the discussion in the General Assembly and examine the subject in greater depth so as to arrive at a consensus on the objectives of a regime in Antarctica and the machinery to achieve such an objective.
117.	One matter that needs constant serious attention is the drug problem. As we are aware, the drug problem is international or global in character and knows no national boundaries. Thus, no country can handle this problem single-handed. It requires a serious and concerted effort at the international level by all countries and international agencies concerned.
118.	The present co-operation at the international level has not resulted in much. There are many reasons for this, of which the lack of commitment and co-ordination among the various countries is a major factor. This lack of co-operation is due in part to the conflict of interest which may be commercial and economic in nature. It is also observed that some countries are reluctant to implement United Nations decisions relating to the prevention and control of narcotic drugs owing to various factors, including the lack of political will. This could also be because many countries do not consider their drug problems to be serious, partly because of their outlook and partly because their problems are small.
119.	It should be noted that the drug problem not only brings with it criminal implications, but, if left unchecked, can weaken and eventually destroy the social and cultural fabrics of our societies. It also has security ramifications that can threaten the very survival of a nation. It is for this reason that Malaysia has adopted harsh laws to curb the drug menace. Other countries may take exception to these laws, but the best way they can help stop the harsh sentences on drug traffickers is by co-operating in the prevention of drug production and trafficking. We appeal to the world community truly to internationalize the prevention of drug trafficking.
120.	I have, in these remarks, expressed my views openly and frankly. I do so because I take the United Nations seriously and I do not believe that the general debate at each session of the Assembly should be an exercise in platitudes or politeness. We must mean what we say, and say what we mean. I have tried to do that, although in doing so I may have caused some uncomfortable feelings. Only frankness, an open mind, a willingness to work hard on the details of issues and to accommodate other views and, above all, a firm commitment to the vision of the Charter—a world of peace, freedom, justice and human dignity—will see us through the critical days that are upon us now. It is in that spirit that the Malaysian Government approaches its duties at, and to, the United Nations.


Mr. President, I wish to congratulate you warmly on your election to your responsible office. I am pleased to greet you as the representative of an African country with which the German Democratic Republic maintains friendly relations.
95.	I wish you, Mr. President, and the Secretary- General success in your activities.
96.	The President of the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly, Mr. Illueca, deserves our gratitude for his work.
97.	The German Democratic Republic congratulates Brunei Darussalam on its admission to membership of the United Nations.
98.	I must note with concern that a change for a healthier state of world affairs is not in sight. On the contrary, the danger of nuclear holocaust is greater than ever before. The arms race is assuming dimensions which exceed all previously known extremes. As recent developments show, the arms build-up is intended to extend even into outer space. Terms like "star wars" can give us only a vague idea of the threats to which mankind and the planet earth are exposed.
99.	This situation has come about neither suddenly nor unnoticed. It is the dire result of imperialist politics seeking military superiority and domination regardless of the cost. Nuclear war and nuclear blackmail are part and parcel of those politics.
100.	There was a straight line from the arms build-up decision taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization [NATO] in 1978 to the deployment of new nuclear first-strike weapons in Western Europe. The peoples have not forgotten that this fateful decision was taken in Washington at the same time when, here in New York, the General Assembly, in the Final Document of its Tenth Special Session, which was devoted to disarmament, expressed hopes for peace and a cessation of the arms race. From this rostrum, the socialist States—and definitely not they alone—cautioned against the ominous consequences of the arms build-up. They left no doubt that the stationing of United States intermediate-range missiles on Western European soil would inevitably change the situation in the world and entail a new round of the arms race, for that move was, in fact, the initial step towards a destruction of the approximate military balance existing between the Soviet Union and the United States, between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO. It was bound to be clear to everyone that the socialist States could not tolerate that. For then part, they had to take adequate countermeasures in order to preserve the foundation on which peace rests in the nuclear age.
101.	It is primarily due to this strategic military equilibrium that Europe can now, for the first time in this century, look back to almost 40 years of peace. The history of the United Nations and preceding events show that attempts at military superiority, world-wide domination and diktat are bound to result in war. Anybody who negates this experience assumes a heavy responsibility and proves to be opposed to detente and peaceful coexistence.
102.	The repeated warnings of the socialist States have unfortunately proved to be justified. The deployment of first-strike nuclear weapons poisons the atmosphere for negotiations on the basic issues of international affairs, disarmament and arms limitation. The danger of war has increased, and it is accompanied by immeasurable political damage, because confidence cannot possibly grow in the shadow of nuclear missiles that are aimed at the Soviet Union and the other socialist States. A heavy strain is thus put on peaceful international co-operation, which was, in particular in the 1970s, so hopefully advanced and of real benefit to East and West.
103.	On the eve of the fortieth anniversary of victory in the anti-Fascist struggle for liberation, the peoples are hoping, first and foremost, that a nuclear catastrophe can be averted and peace in the world again be placed on a more secure foundation. The accumulation of ever more destructive types of weapons can and must be halted, and international developments must return to a state of tranquillity and predictability.
104.	Firm action to achieve this aim is expected from the United Nations, which undertook in its Charter to do everything "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war".
105.	We share the view expressed by the Secretary- General that all States are obligated to co-operate when peace is in jeopardy. We also subscribe to his perception that the Charter of the United Nations is irreplaceable. Its principles are as valid as ever; they are and will remain mandatory norms of international life.
106.	When all States act in conformity with those principles, force and aggression can be removed from international affairs and conflicts between States resolved peacefully.
107.	As a representative of the German Democratic Republic, which on 7 October will celebrate the thirty-fifth anniversary of its foundation and which, like the United Nations, emerged as a result of the victory of the anti-Hitler coalition in the Second World War, I reaffirm on this occasion its commitment to the noble purposes of the United Nations. As it has done so far, the German Democratic Republic will employ and facilitate all possibilities to pursue international dialogue at this assembly of States and to contribute to effective steps in the effort to achieve a secure peace, arms limitation and disarmament.
108.	The dangerous evolution of the international situation can and must be checked. What is essential is the joint and determined action of all those interested in peace. As regards the position of the German Democratic Republic in this matter, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany and Chairman of the Council of State of the German Democratic Republic, Erich Honecker, stated when he recently met with representatives of the peace movement:
"In order to avoid a nuclear catastrophe we will join forces with all who are aware that there is no reasonable alternative to peaceful coexistence between States having different social systems. Anyone of sincere heart and goodwill who seeks feasible means to secure peace will always find the German Democratic Republic a reliable, constructive partner, whatever the ideological or political camp to which he or she owes allegiance." Should not all of those who are vested with responsibility let themselves be guided by such a principle?
109.	The history of two world wars tells us that we must fight the threat of war before the weapons speak. War must be checked before it breaks out.
110.	Arms build-up, territorial claims and chauvinism have always gone hand in hand when wars of aggression were being prepared. That is why we come out strongly against all revanchist and neo-Fascist tendencies wherever they appear, wherever they are tolerated or even encouraged. That is why any attack against the accords of the anti-Hitler coalition or the post-war order in Europe, that is, at the status quo, must be met with resolve, since any such attack is an attempt to revise the existing balance of forces, which has been the guarantor of peace.
111.	We want the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act to be strictly observed; their signature by the authorized representatives of the States participating in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe about 10 years ago was a reaffirmation of the existing post-war order in Europe.
112.	With the same firmness, the German Democratic Republic speaks out against the cancellation of provisions which, in conformity with Allied post-war agreements, imposed arms restrictions on some countries.
113.	With the Political Declaration of the States Parties to the Warsaw Treaty, adopted at Prague on 5 January 1983, the joint statement of leading representatives of those States, issued in Moscow on 28 June 1983," and the Declaration of the member States of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, issued in June of this year, the socialist countries have presented a comprehensive programme for the restoration of a healthier international atmosphere. That programme respects equality and equal security, as well as the legitimate security interests of all parties, and is therefore a realistic basis for concerted action. It combines political steps, which are suited to create the necessary climate of confidence, with proposals for arms limitation and disarmament, which would restrict the material potential for military confrontation. Consequently, it is a programme of material and political guarantees of peace.
114.	The prevention of a nuclear inferno remains the key issue. The key itself is the renunciation of attempts to achieve military superiority, and this presupposes an immediate end to the deployment of new United States missiles on European soil and the dismantling of the systems already installed. That would make the countermeasures taken by the socialist countries superfluous; the way would be opened for the resumption of negotiations on ridding Europe of intermediate-range nuclear forces as well as operational tactical nuclear weapons.
115.	The recent Soviet proposals which Mr. Andrei A. Gromyko outlined last week before the Assembly not only confirm the Soviet Union's readiness for serious negotiations, but also contain an urgent call for the holding of such negotiations. Those proposals are fully supported by the German Democratic Republic. We are similarly convinced of the necessity and usefulness of political dialogue, particularly in times of tension and danger.
116.	Political dialogue can create confidence and in that way produce results to the extent that the parties mutually respect each other's legitimate security interests. Mere declarations of willingness to negotiate cannot calm the international situation. The desire for peace and willingness to disarm can be measured by concrete deeds. What is essential in this context is the will to take practical steps for the prevention of nuclear war.
117.	In this regard, an agreement on certain norms to govern relations between the nuclear-weapon States would be of particular importance. Such norms should include: first, a treaty obligation upon all nuclear-weapon States not to be the first to use nuclear weapons—a commitment the Soviet Union has been the first to undertake—because that would reduce the nuclear threat and pave the way to disarmament; secondly, a general and complete prohibition of nuclear-weapon tests, because that would restrain the development of new types of nuclear weapons; thirdly, an end to the qualitative arms race in the nuclear field and, especially, the prohibition of the neutron weapon, because that would put a stop to the nuclear arms build-up; fourthly, agreement on a programme for nuclear disarmament and proscription of aggressive doctrines of "limited" or "winnable" nuclear war, because that would point the way for joint steps to reduce the nuclear threat; and, fifthly, the conclusion finally, to complement these measures reducing the nuclear dangers, of a treaty on the mutual renunciation of the use of military force and on the maintenance of peaceful relations, which would be a true confidence-building measure.
118.	The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones or corridors would be of great importance. The German Democratic Republic reaffirms its offer to make its entire territory available for inclusion in such a zone, provided that the Federal Republic of Germany is prepared to do the same, in keeping with the principle of equality and equal security. The German Democratic Republic regards the Joint Declaration of six Heads of State or Government from four continents, issued on 22 May 1984, as a constructive move, because it is aimed at preventing nuclear war. Its insistence on a nuclear-arms freeze as an initial step towards a further reduction of the nuclear forces is dictated by reason.
119.	In the face of the incalculable risks that would arise from an extension of the arms race into outer space, the German Democratic Republic supports immediate action that would prevent the militarization of space and would place States under the obligation to use outer space exclusively for peaceful purposes, as suggested by the Soviet initiative.
120.	The elimination of chemical weapons is a task in which the German Democratic Republic is cooperating without reservation. This applies both to a world-wide ban and to supportive regional measures.
121.	Arms build-up policies place heavy strains on economic development in the world. Many States, especially the developing countries, have to pay. The high-interest policy of big business to finance immense military expenditures deprives the developing countries of thousands of millions practically overnight. It is only legitimate that resistance to that policy should be growing in all regions of the world, for the tremendous social problems such as backwardness, hunger, poverty and disease can be mitigated and finally eliminated only in a healthy international climate. The reduction of arms budgets is indispensable for that purpose. This is what the Warsaw Treaty States proposed in concrete terms in an appeal to the member States of NATO on 5 March 1984. We also hold that there is no obstacle that would prevent States which are not members of those military and political groupings from being parties to the proposed measures.
122.	The socialist countries are working for broad, mutually advantageous co-operation and calling for a normalization of international economic relations. They support the early commencement of global negotiations within the United Nations framework on the crucial international economic problems.
123.	In conformity with its foreign policy principles, the German Democratic Republic continues to assist developing countries as much as ever, even though it also has to carry great economic and political burdens because of the imperialist policies of threat and extortion and the continuing impact of crisis developments in the capitalist part of the world.
124.	Thanks to greater efforts by its working population, the German Democratic Republic even increased its assistance to developing countries by five per cent in 1983 alone. We strongly demand implementation of the principles contained in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States and in the Declaration and the Programme of Action for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order. Though adopted 10 years ago, these documents are now more topical than ever.
125.	There is no reasonable alternative to the peaceful coexistence and co-operation of States on an equal footing, irrespective of their system of society, geographical position and territorial size. The German Democratic Republic calls for prudent action to remove acute sources of conflict scale down tensions and prevent the emergence of new conflicts. It rejects with the utmost firmness the imperialist policies consisting in direct and indirect interference and overt acts of aggression, such as are practised in particular against non-aligned nations in various regions. The German Democratic Republic strongly supports the proposal by the Soviet Union for the General Assembly to consider the "inadmissibility of the policy of State terrorism and any actions by States aimed at undermining the socio-political system in other sovereign States" as an important and urgent matter.
126.	The people of Grenada fell victim to naked aggression in 1983. Today they are subjected to brutal occupation and their social achievements are being destroyed.
127.	The undeclared war against Nicaragua is being carried on through massive political and military aid for the Somoza mercenaries and through secret-service operations. The mining of ports was condemned world-wide as a terrorist act of violence and a gross violation of democratic international law.
128.	The German Democratic Republic reaffirms its solidarity with the peoples of Central America. It supports Nicaragua's initiatives, as well as the efforts of the States of the Contadora Group to settle existing problems by peaceful means and without outside interference or even threat, on the basis of the Contadora Act on Peace and Co-operation in Central America.
129.	The subsisting volatile situation in the Middle East is giving all peoples cause for deep concern. Any comprehensive, just and hence durable solution of the Middle East conflict presupposes recognition of the rights of the peoples and States of that region, including the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to establish an independent State. Therefore, the German Democratic Republic urges the early convening of an international conference on the Middle East, with the participation of the PLO, the only legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine.
130.	The German Democratic Republic aligns itself with sorely afflicted Lebanon in its quest for sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity.
131.	Israel must immediately withdraw from all the territories occupied since 1967. Hegemonist intervention in the region must be ended. Only in this way can peace, security and development be ensured.
132.	We support Cyprus in its struggle for national independence and for a peaceful, just and enduring solution to the Cyprus problem based on the relevant United Nations resolutions.
133.	The German Democratic Republic condemns the continuing aggressive policy pursued by the South African racist regime with the backing of other imperialist circles. The German Democratic Republic is aligned on the side of all independent African States and of the ANC and SWAPO in the battle against racism, racial discrimination and apartheid and to organize their own lives in peace, security and independence.
134.	We demand the settlement of the question of Namibia strictly on the basis of United Nations decisions in their entirety, including Security Council resolution 435 (1978). This resolution allows of no "ifs" and "buts'" and no linkage whatsoever.
135.	We sympathize with the efforts of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to find a political solution to the situation in the region, but such a solution requires first of all an immediate end to the policy of interference in Afghan affairs which imperialist forces have been pursuing and to the warlike action which they have been instigating and directing against the Afghan people.
136.	The German Democratic Republic supports the endeavour of the Indo-Chinese States to establish lasting peace and stability in South-East Asia through dialogue and co-operation among all countries of the region, to reject any external interference and to concentrate all resources on resolving the urgent problems of their countries, as stated again at the Conference of Foreign Ministers held in Vientiane last July. The efforts made by the Lao People's Democratic Republic to achieve a peaceful settlement of the situation at the Lao-Thai border deserve United Nations support.
137.	The German Democratic Republic continues to support all efforts to convert the Indian Ocean region into a zone of peace. The Conference on the Indian Ocean to be held for this purpose must no longer be delayed.
138.	We regard as fully legitimate the insistence of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea on the withdrawal of United States troops from South Korea and its efforts to bring about the peaceful and democratic unification of the country without interference from outside. The same holds good for the proposal to hold negotiations between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the United States and South Korea with a view to converting the Armistice Agreement of 1953 into a peace treaty between the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the United States and achieving a declaration of non- aggression by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and South Korea.
139.	Both the precarious international situation and the forthcoming fortieth anniversary of the victory over fascism should give all States Members of the United Nations cause for redoubling their efforts to strengthen international security.
140.	The people of the German Democratic Republic, who live at the dividing line between the two biggest military coalitions and know the meaning of war from their own painful historical experience, have a vital interest in the achievement of that objective.
141.	Having risen from the ruins of the Second World War, the German Democratic Republic has grown since its inception 35 years ago to become a State of high political stability and great economic, scientific and cultural achievements. Neither the peaceful construction work of our own people nor that of other peoples must be allowed to be destroyed in a world-wide nuclear conflagration. Hence, the preservation of peace remains the overriding concern of the socialist German State. It is therefore the central issue of our relationship with the Federal Republic of Germany. Over the past three and a half decades, it has been the socialist State's peace policy and stability that have proved to be an important factor in ensuring that movements towards detente in Europe and to living together in peace have originated on German soil.
142.	It is only natural that we—and not only we— are worried when those in certain quarters, in spite of accepted obligations of international law, question the results of the Second World War and, in the up current created by the deployment of United States first-strike weapons, harp increasingly on an allegedly open German question and talk of "reunification".
143.	To make it perfectly clear, let me say that there is nothing open, nor can there be "reunification". The people of the German Democratic Republic have irrevocably opted for socialism. The socialist German Democratic Republic and the capitalist Federal Republic of Germany—which furthermore belong to opposite military alliances—cannot be merged, let alone reunited. It is as impossible as bringing together fire and water. Between the two States there can be relations only on the basis of international law and of peaceful coexistence. There is no peaceful alternative,
144.	This is why we fully understand those politicians who orient themselves on facts established by treaties and are worried about and warn against action to the contrary.
145.	True service to the cause of peace resides in helping ensure that the situation that existed before the deployment of nuclear first-strike weapons in Western Europe is restored; that the series of European treaties—the Final Act of Helsinki, the treaties of Moscow, Warsaw, Prague and Berlin, and the Quadripartite Agreement—are strictly observed and revitalized; and that post-war realities in Europe are, as a matter of course, made the basis for all action. Merely to call into question the relevant agreements would be to risk war.
146.	The United Nations has proclaimed 1986 the International Year of Peace. Let us, the Member States, begin now to create the best conditions for making it indeed the beginning of a turn towards lasting peace the world over. The German Democratic Republic pledges its active co-operation in that endeavour.