Mr. President, in the name of the Syrian Arab delegation and on my own behalf, I am happy to extend to you our warmest felicitations on the occasion of your election to the high office of President of the General Assembly. The unanimous support for your election to this high office reflects the great respect and appreciation which the world community has for your people, your country and your eminent self.
79.	We would also express profound appreciation for the constructive efforts which your predecessor, Mr. Adam Malik, exerted with ideal objectivity and which produced significant contributions to the positive achievements of the world Organization.
80.	We congratulate Mr. Kurt Waldheim on his election to the post of Secretary-General of the United Nations and wish him full success in discharging the onerous duties of his office with impartiality and effectiveness.
81.	While we welcome the new Secretary-General, it behooves us to express well-deserved appreciation for the work of his predecessor, U Thant, who directed the affairs of the United Nations through most critical and stormy phases. We shall remember with respect and appreciation the work and the personality of that worthy son of Asia.
82.	Every year we stop for a while to review and assess the work of the world community. If we assess the achievements of last year objectively and realistically we find that international relations have made little progress in promoting the freedom, security and welfare of the large majority of the peoples of the world. For, despite important developments aimed at reducing points of international confrontation, the majority of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America feel that their integrity continues to be endangered, their freedom constrained and their dignity infringed upon and that they are still exposed to the worst forms of exploitation.
83.	These peoples welcome the elimination of points of tension that involved dangers to the very existence of the human race. They are also gratified at the wider acceptance of the concept of peaceful coexistence. But it is also their ardent desire that the beneficial results of the new developments should extend to the peoples of the world, regardless of their size and power.
84.	In this respect the Syrian Arab Republic considers the proposed conference on European security a commendable step towards establishing security in a region which, like our country, borders on the Mediterranean. The Syrian Arab Republic has therefore expressed full support for the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin of 3 September 1971 and the treaties concluded between the Soviet Union and the Federal Republic of Germany on 12 August 1970, on the one hand, and between Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany on 7 December 1970, on the other.
85.	While welcoming the proposal for the holding of a European security conference, we would point out the inseparable connexion existing between security in Europe and security in the Mediterranean basin. The geographical situation of many European countries and the interaction between the interests of European countries and those of countries bordering on the Mediterranean make any arrangement for European security that neglects the security of the Mediterranean countries quite futile. And there can be neither peace nor security in the Mediterranean region unless an end is put to the continued Israeli aggression by ensuring the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the occupied Arab territories and by restoring to the Arab people of Palestine their usurped rights.
86.	Another significant development is the proposal calling for the convening of a world disarmament conference. As a developing non-aligned State, we fully support all international efforts aimed at complete and comprehensive disarmament that would free the world from its fear of a nuclear war by destroying existing nuclear stockpiles, prohibiting further production of nuclear weapons and establishing effective international control to see to it that these goals are fully implemented.
87.	We are not unaware of the hopeful vistas that have been gained through these welcome developments, but we cannot overlook the oppressive conditions from which peoples of the third world continue to suffer. The Israeli aggression is continuing. With the passing of time, its dangers and the miseries it brings are ever on the increase. The peoples of IndoChina continue to suffer from the imperialistic United States aggression, while extensive parts of Africa continue to be subjected to direct colonialism and to the abominable practices of racial discrimination, involving, as they do, acts of plunder, exploitation and complete disregard for human rights.
88.	Despite the efforts exerted by the developing countries, the gap between developing and developed nations in the economic, cultural, scientific and technical fields is constantly becoming wider. This is an inevitable result of the increasing inequality between the two groups of nations and of the pressure exerted from the outside on the peoples of the third world, which aspire to taking determined steps along the path of progress and equality and to making an effective contribution to the noble aim of ensuring a decent life to all human beings without distinction as to race, color or creed.
89.	An analysis of the prevailing international conditions would demonstrate that the system of international relations set up after the destruction of Nazi despotism has not proved a success, notwithstanding the terrible sufferings of the Second World War and the lessons humanity should have learned from them regarding the need to uphold the objectives and principles we have all agreed to respect in order to ensure a better life for all peoples. True, the balance of nuclear terror has so far protected us from total and sure destruction. But, in spite of its effectiveness in preventing a total war, it has produced little effect with regard to barring of the use or threat of force in international relations. Moreover, it has had no effect whatsoever on the inequality prevailing between the developed and the developing countries. Many peoples therefore continue to suffer from enslavement, exploitation, occupation and persecution a fact which reveals the extent to which we have failed to achieve the lofty aims of the Charter. In view of this regrettable and dangerous situation the Syrian Arab Republic continues to consider it a sacred duty to share in the pursuance of the struggle against the oppressive conditions that threaten world peace and violate the principles of the United Nations Charter.
90.	Indeed, the Syrian Arab Republic is struggling alongside those peoples fighting to ensure for humanity a future free from aggression, domination, oppression, fear, hunger and ignorance. Our country's determined opposition to new and old colonialism has entailed for us a great deal of suffering and sacrifice. As all members know, Syria has been and continues to be the victim of aggression, occupation and all kinds of threats and pressure. But we shall not budge from our position of unshakable determination to liberate our land and to fight imperialism and colonialism. We shall continue to maintain this position until the cause we defend is vindicated through the struggle of the peoples of the world to achieve for humanity freedom and a peace based on justice and equity.
91.	In consonance with the principles we uphold, we have firmly supported and shall continue to support the peoples of IndoChina, victims of United States imperialist aggression. We have supported the heroic struggle of the people of Viet-Nam to preserve their national unity and territorial integrity and to defend their right to determine their future freely and without foreign interference. We reiterate our belief that the seven-point plan put forward by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet-Nam presents a constructive attitude to the solution of the VietNamese question.
92.	We condemn the escalation of United States aggression against the people of Viet-Nam-the bombing of non- military targets, the deliberate destruction of economic establishments, dams and irrigation projects, and the wanton killing of civilians children, women and old men. The entire international community and the civilized world ask: Do not these acts constitute most hideous war crimes, directed against the whole of humanity?
93.	The Syrian Arab Republic also condemns United States military interference in Cambodia and Laos. We believe that the Cambodian Government of National Union is the only legal representative of the people of Cambodia. We support the Joint Declaration of the Summit Conference of the IndoChinese Peoples, held in 1970, and believe that peace in IndoChina can be achieved only through the withdrawal of foreign troops and the exercise by the peoples of IndoChina of their right to self-determination without outside hindrance or interference.
94.	The Syrian Arab Republic supports the new initiative of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea concerning the peaceful unification of Korea. We call for the dissolution of the so-called United Nations Commission for the Unification and Rehabilitation of Korea, the closing down of the United Nations Command in Korea and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Korea's territory.
95.	In perpetrating their crimes against the peoples of Africa, the colonialists and imperialists have resorted to all the methods of old and new colonialism, including settler colonialism and the imposition of a terrible form of racial discrimination in support of foreign minority regimes which have been exploiting and plundering extensive areas of the African continent.
96.	The Syrian Arab Republic declares its full and complete solidarity with the African peoples struggling to end colonial domination. We also support the decisions taken at the ninth session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity [OAU]5 aimed at putting an end to colonialism in Africa in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.
97.	The Syrian Arab people strongly condemn the policy of apartheid practiced by the Government of South Africa. We also condemn the insistence of that Government on occupying and administering Namibia. We express full support for the struggle of the people of Zimbabwe against the despotic and oppressive rule of an exploiting racist minority. We strongly support all liberation movements in Africa, and particularly those of Angola, Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau).
98.	The Arab people, which has been plagued by Zionist aggression based on settler colonialism and racial discrimination and by expansionist attacks in the Arabian Gulf, regards the peoples of Africa, who are victims of imperialism and colonialism, as comrade struggler against a common enemy that follows the same methods and uses the same weapons to uproot the native inhabitants, replace them by racist immigrants, impose on them political and economic domination, and usurp and exploit the natural resources of their lands. The Arab people of Syria is determined to continue the common struggle alongside the peoples of Africa until final victory is achieved and the last bastion of imperialism in Africa is completely destroyed.
99.	The Syrian Arab Republic an early member of the non-aligned movement believes that the principles first formulated at the Asian-African Conference held at Bandung 17 years ago  have affirmed, despite imperialist plots, the will of the peoples of the third world to achieve liberation and build up a future for humanity in which peace and security prevail.
100.	We regard the Conference of the Foreign Ministers of Non-Aligned Countries, which was held at Georgetown, Guyana, from 8 to 11 August 1972, as a step forward in the struggle of the non-aligned States to ensure a victory for liberation movements throughout the world over all forms of imperialism, colonialism and racial discrimination. The resolutions of the Conference supporting the struggle of the Arab people against Israeli aggression and occupation, condemning the crimes of kidnapping and international piracy committed by the Israelis against Syria and Lebanon, expressing support for the struggle of the Arab people of Palestine to regain their national right to their lands and homeland and their right to self-determination, and supporting the struggle of the peoples of IndoChina and the liberation movements in Africa and all parts of the world, have confirmed the force and independence of the non- aligned movement and its ability to withstand all forms of imperialist pressure. We are determined to continue the struggle to ensure the triumph of the principles of non-alignment, regardless of the sacrifices involved.
101.	In this connexion, I wish to second and support the very sound suggestion put forward by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Mexico [2050th meeting], rightly claiming a permanent presence of countries of the third world in the Security Council.
102.	We have always advocated universality of representation in the United Nations and all its agencies. During the past year all of us have noticed the positive changes in the work of the world Organization resulting from China's regaining its seat in the United Nations. China has supported the peoples of the third world and is in the first rank of the States committed to the liquidation of colonialism and imperialism. It has worked sincerely and hard to uphold the principles of the United Nations Charter.
103.	We support the admission of all peace-loving States which respect the Charter to membership in the world Organization and believe that the admission of the German
Democratic Republic to membership in the United Nations would strengthen the Organization and help to promote world peace.
104.	The political independence of any country remains shaky unless it is accompanied by freedom from economic dependence. To achieve this freedom the developing countries should follow an economic policy conducive to raising the national income and consequently the standard of living of their citizens. The gap between developed and developing countries is widening, as demonstrated by the third session of UNCTAD, held this year at Santiago, Chile.
105.	We agree that developing countries should follow the path of self-reliance, initiate development projects and make efforts to increase the volume of trade exchange among themselves. On the other hand, developed countries should respond not only to the dictates of solidarity and historic responsibilities but to their real interests as well, and the interests of world peace and humanity in general, by taking the steps needed to create the political will to adjust international economic relations in a manner which will ensure justice and equality, put an end to cases of flagrant injustice and gradually reduce the tremendous gap separating the standards of living of the developed and the developing countries.
106.	Realizing the great importance to the future of humanity of the topics of discussion at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, held at Stockholm last June, the Syrian Arab Republic participated in the Conference and in the efforts that contributed to its positive results. It is to be hoped that the present session of the General Assembly will give the subject of the human environment the attention it fully deserves.
107.	The Zionist-imperialist aggression against the Arab people of Palestine and three Arab countries which are Members of the United Nations is becoming more fierce and more flagrant, as well as more fraught with grave danger to the peace and security of the Middle East region and of the world.
108.	The five years that have passed since the Israeli aggression of 5 June 1967 have revealed to United Nations Members and to all the peoples of the world the real nature of the aggression with which we are confronted.
109.	The Middle East question, which is in fact an extension of the Palestine question, represents the gravest challenge to the United Nations and a most serious threat to world peace and security. The fate of the world Organization as a means of deterring the aggressor and eliminating aggression depends on its ability to ensure due respect for its resolutions and the principles of the United Nations Charter.
110.	Although recent years have witnessed a greater realization by United Nations Members of the danger to the international community as a whole resulting from Israel's expansionist policy and repeated acts of aggression, the gulf separating the wishes of the United Nations as manifested in United Nations resolutions on the one hand, and the ensuring of the requisite respect for and actual implementation of those resolutions on the other, has become wider than ever, with the result that small nations no longer consider the world Organization capable of furnishing an adequate guarantee of their independence and security and the integrity of their national territory.
111.	This challenge to the authority of the United Nations and the contemptuous flouting of United Nations resolutions relating to matters of peace and security not only constitute a threat to the authority of the world Organization but also provide encouragement to covetous expansion and aggression in all parts of the world, as long as the aggressor may be permitted to enjoy the fruits of aggression without fear of either punishment or deterrence.
112.	Far from abiding by United Nations resolutions that condemn the use of force and the acquisition of territory through the use of force, Israel boasts arrogantly of retaining the fruits of its aggression of 1967, as it retained the fruits of its aggression of 1948.
113.	Last June, five years after the perpetration of the 1967 aggression, Israel announced the number, type and names of the Israeli settlements established in the occupied Arab territories and produced maps showing the location of those settlements. Seventeen settlements have been established in the Syrian Golan heights, as Israel itself has admitted, 17 on the west bank of the Jordan and 16 in the Gaza sector and the Sinai and Araba district. Israel, of course, did not announce the names and number of the Arab villages which have been bulldozed to make way for the establishment of those settlements; and no information has been given concerning the lands from which the Arab inhabitants have been evicted so that those lands can be given to immigrants coming from the four corners of the earth, after having been misled and deceived by the Zionist propaganda machine.
114.	Israel is interested not in implementing United Nations resolutions but rather in implementing resolutions of the World Zionist Congress, of which every clause involves a violation of the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and resolutions adopted by the various United Nations organs relating to the Palestine question.
115.	The resolutions of the twenty-eighth World Zionist Congress, which was held in occupied Jerusalem early this year, were more covetous and aggressive than those of former Congresses. They approved Israeli aggression and expansion, sanctioned denial of the human and national existence of the Arabs, mobilized Zionist resources for the colonization of Arab lands, and, with a spirit of racial and religious fanaticism, called on all Jews, wherever they happen to be and regardless of their political affiliations and of the regimes under which they happen to live, to emigrate to Palestine and the occupied Arab territories, and thereby participate in the crime of expelling the native inhabitants and obliterating the Arab heritage and civilization all this in order to help fulfill the mad dream of a "Greater Israel" extending from the Nile to the Euphrates.
116.	At a time when Israel refuses to repatriate the Arab refugees and displaced persons to the lands from which they were expelled and which lie so close to their place of exile, the World Zionist Congress expressed deep gratification at the accelerated rate of immigrants pouring into Israel from all parts of the world, called for a continued effort to stimulate the emigration of Jews from all countries and regimes, and declared that the right of the Jewish people to Eretz Israel is beyond dispute.
117.	This attitude, which derives from arrogance, selfishness and defiance, shows the true nature of Zionism and its offshoot, Israel. Between 1949 and 1971 the United Nations General Assembly adopted 24 resolutions confirming the Palestinian refugees' right to repatriation. Also, since 1967 United Nations resolutions have been adopted confirming Security Council resolution 237 (1967), which was adopted unanimously on 14 June 1967, and calling on Israel to repatriate the refugees displaced since 5 June 1967. Notwithstanding all these United Nations resolutions clearly upholding Arab rights over Arab lands, the Zionist newcomers persist in claiming that their right to these lands is indisputable.
118.	Such is the logic of brute force which has again exposed to this Assembly and to the whole world the nature of the Zionist-Israeli aggressors, against whom our people, who aspire to liberation and peace, are obliged to struggle.
119.	Israel's record abounds in war crimes and crimes against humanity-crimes which were defined by the Nuremberg principle,  that definition being later adopted by the United Nations [resolution 95(1)]. It is, indeed, ironical that Israel has violated every principle and article of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949-a Convention originally drafted to prevent a repetition of the crime committed by Nazi brutality against the peoples of Europe, and particularly against Jews.
120.	The destruction of Arab towns and villages, the changing of the Arab character of the occupied territories, the expulsion of their inhabitants, the imposition of collective punishments, the confiscation of Arab property, and the collective transfer of the Arab inhabitants to distant areas or to areas outside the occupied territories in order to have them replaced by new Jewish immigrants-who are avowedly settler colonialists all this constitutes a flagrant violation of the principles of international law and of the most elementary human rights and principles. The entire matter has been summed up by Moshe Day an, an acknowledged expert in violence and terrorism, in his comment that "no Jewish settlement has been built on land other than that on which an Arab village had stood". That was reported in Ha'Aretz on 19 March 1969. Confronted with these Israeli crimes, the Commission on Human Rights declared at its last session that Israeli acts in the occupied territories constitute war crimes and a challenge to humanity.
121.	Israel has raised much clamor in the world concerning the alleged inhuman treatment of Syrian Jews by Syria. Israel seems to believe that the world is deaf, dumb and blind, and therefore cannot see or hear of the racial discrimination to which the Arabs in Palestine and other occupied territories are subjected and which is also being practiced against colored and Oriental Jews. But Syria, with a good conscience, has always welcomed representatives of the world press, who have reported on the perfect equality which all Syrians enjoy, without any form of discrimination.
122.	As a result of United States support reaching the point of abdication by the United States of its own personality the Israelis have assumed a degree of arrogance that makes them maintain an attitude of complete indifference to the world-wide condemnation of Nazi-like methods and mentality, to which the Jews fell victim in the past and which are now applied by Israel, not only against the Arabs, but also against certain categories of Jews who are treated as second-class citizens.
123.	The entire world has heard of the desecration by Israel of churches and mosques in occupied Palestine. The attempt to burn down the Al Aqsa Mosque in 1969 was not the work of a mentally deranged person, as claimed by Israel. The attempt was repeated this year, but a strict black-out has been imposed by the Israeli authorities on reports relating to it. The whole world has heard, also, of the attempts to desecrate religious places and to plunder antiquities in the occupied Arab territories. Most recently, the conscience of humanity was shocked at the action of the Israeli authorities when the inhabitants of the Arab villages of Iqrit and Kefar Bar'am were prevented by force of arms from returning to their lands and villages, 24 years after they had been expelled from them by the Israelis.
124.	The whole world, moreover, has heard of the destruction, demolishing and bulldozing of Arab villages in the Jerusalem and Hebron districts under one pretext or another. Israel's policy of terrorizing the peaceful Arab inhabitants, which began with the massacres of Deir Yasin and Qibya 1948 and 1953 has been continued because the Israelis find it effective and are, furthermore, indifferent to its repercussions on world public opinion, as they believe they can deal with such repercussions through their deceitful propaganda machine and through resort to the blackmailing trick of accusing any State which fails to be deceived or misled by this machine of the heinous crime of anti-Semitism. Thus the anti-Semitic slander has been turned by Israel and Zionism into a blackmailing device with which to stifle all criticism of their policies and objectives and to victimize any individual, State or institution that does not acquiesce in their plans and maneuvers.
125.	To justify their 1967 war of aggression, Israel's leaders used to pretend that the war was launched by them because the Arabs were threatening the very existence of Israel. A few weeks ago, however, Israeli generals declared that neither in 1967 nor at any earlier time was the existence of Israel in danger and that the pretense of the existence of such a danger had been resorted to in order to provide a pretext for a prearranged and carefully planned war of aggression against the Arab countries. To such limits have Israel's addiction to force and violence and its contempt for world public opinion reached.
126.	The Syrian Arab Republic wishes to draw the attention of the General Assembly to Israel's refusal to respond to provisions of Security Council resolutions 316 (1972) and 317 (1972), calling on Israel to release the Syrian and Lebanese military personnel kidnapped inside Lebanese territory. This kidnapping crime by Israel not only is an act of piracy, but also constitutes a violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which bar the holding of hostages. Israel is clearly holding the kidnapped Syrian officers as hostages, as is evident from the Israeli proposal that they be exchanged for Israeli prisoners of war captured while taking part in military operations against the Arab countries.
127.	Israel's failure to abide by provisions of those Security Council resolutions violates the United Nations Charter. The General Assembly should therefore take measures leading to the unconditional release of the Syrian and Lebanese officers and military personnel.
128.	The worsening situation in the Middle East and the threat to world peace and security involved therein are entirely Israel's responsibility. For Israel persists in carrying out expansionist plans and in depriving the Arab people of Palestine of their national rights. The United States, which has used its material, military, political, scientific and technical potential to protect the Israeli aggressor against the Arab countries, shares in the responsibility.
129.	The veto resorted to by the United States Government, for the second time in its history at the United Nations, against a Security Council draft resolution aimed at stopping Israeli aggression against Syria and Lebanon furnishes proof of United States backing for aggression. It also indicates that this great Power has abandoned its commitments under the United Nations Charter. The United States veto, which rendered the Security Council helpless against aggression, encouraged the aggressors to continue their challenge to the will of the world community and to launch a more extensive invasion of Lebanese territory on 16 and 17 September last. Following this, Israel further escalated that aggression by another against the Syrian Arab Republic.
130.	In fact, the Middle East conflict is basically one between world Zionism, which invaded Palestine with imperialist and colonialist help, on the one hand, and the Arab people of Palestine, who were the victims of this invasion and who, having been driven out of their homeland, have been forced for over 25 years to lead a life of dispersion and deprivation, on the other hand. The United Nations General Assembly recognized this fact in resolutions adopted after the June 1967 Israeli aggression. In particular, these resolutions recognized that "the problem of the Palestine Arab refugees has arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" [resolution 2535 B (XXIV)]. They also affirmed that "the people of Palestine are entitled to equal rights and self-determination" [resolution 2672 C (XXV)], and they expressed "grave concern that the people of Palestine have not been permitted to enjoy their inalienable rights and to exercise their right to self-determination", and declared that "full respect for the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine is an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" [resolution 2792 D (XXVI)].
131.	The Middle East conflict acquired new dimensions following the Israeli aggression against three Arab countries in 1967 an aggression that represented a new phase in the Zionist-Israeli expansionist plans and constituted a grave threat to world peace and security.
132.	I affirm here that the attitude of the Syrian Arab Republic to the Palestine question and to the Zionist-imperialist aggression against our lands is firm and based on principles as well as on the provisions of the United Nations Charter, rules of international law, and the dictates of justice and equity. I also affirm that there are two prerequisites for the establishment of peace in the Middle East: first, recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to their land and homeland and to the free exercise of the right of self-determination and, secondly, the complete, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Israeli forces from all the occupied Arab territories.
133.	Peace in which the aggressor is rewarded is not real peace. It is submission to the will of the aggressor and a yielding to conditions dictated through force. Contemporary European history has shown that peace which is not based on law and justice is a "respite between two wars". Rewarding the aggressor in order to secure peace is an invitation to war. We therefore strongly reject what are termed "partial solutions". These are deceptive efforts that confirm and perpetuate the consequences of aggression through a false hope of achieving a formal peace.
134.	Israel and the imperialists who give Israeli aggression full support and backing are deluded if they believe that a policy of imposing faits accomplis by dint of force can result in stability and permanent peace, which will result not from force and aggression, but from freedom and justice.
135.	Certain well-known maneuvers and pressures have, in a particular set of circumstances, succeeded in getting included in the agenda of this session an item concerning measures to prevent terrorism [item 92]. It has been obvious from the start that the sources of these maneuvers and pressures wanted to provoke a debate in order to achieve certain political ends. The result was that opinion inclined to the necessity of investigating the causes behind the acts of violence. We welcome this outcome, and express the hope that the discussion will elicit conclusions consonant with the principles embodied in the United Nations Charter-first and foremost among them the right of peoples to liberty, self-determination and the preservation of human dignity.
136.	The Syrian Arab Republic has always taken a stand against terrorism, whether by individuals or groups or States. Syria has not failed to record the principles it stands for in this connexion in documents of the United Nations and has never ceased to strive for these principles and for the establishment of an international society ordered by law and governed by justice, under a standard of peace.
137.	The question confronting us is: What is terrorism and
who are the terrorists? To answer this question, we must go back to the Articles of the world Organization's Charter and there obtain guidance, for the most extreme forms of terror against which the world is protesting have been occasioned by the repudiation of this Charter and the principles of international law by certain international forces.
138.	The United Nations Charter condemns colonialism and aggression, the use of force and the threat of force. Along with this we find that the imperialist forces and the States to which they pertain practice colonialism and aggression and intimidation and that their language is the language of bombing, slaughter, and genocide.
139.	The world Organization's Charter confirms to all peoples the right of self-determination. Yet this principle is scorned by the forces of aggression, which pursue a course of domination and oppression to the point of divesting entire peoples of their lands and homeland.
140.	The United Nations Charter postulates equality of all peoples, regardless of color, race or religion. Yet forces hostile to humanity and to the principles of justice and equality practice racial discrimination, elevating it to the rank of a policy and a philosophy.
141.	What, then, is real terrorism? Who are the real terrorists? Is the struggle of a people for freedom and sovereignty real terrorism? Or doc 3 terrorism really lie in acts of aggression and occupation? Are the actual terrorists those who are struggling to regain a freedom denied them and a homeland from which they have been driven? Or are they those who denied those peoples their freedom and expelled them from their homeland?
142.	Until recently many of the heads of delegations and the representatives now gathered in this Assembly were being described by imperialists as "terrorists". The voices which define and exploit the term "terrorism" today are the same voices which but lately labeled the freedom leaders in Africa, Asia and Latin America "terrorists".
143.	As we move back in history, we ask ourselves: Were not Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin and George Washington in their time the leaders and commanders of terrorism in the view of the ruling colonial Power? Were not the heroes resisting Nazi and Fascist occupation in Europe "terrorists" in the eyes of the Nazi and Fascist leaders?
144.	It is a highly strange and dubious occasion on which we see the representative of Israel stand before this General Assembly to discuss terrorism and measures to prevent it. How very incongruous that the representative of those institutions of murder and terrorism, the Hagana, the Stern gang, and Irgun Z'vai Leumi another name for Israel- should speak of terrorism. Who was it who murdered Count Bernadotte? Who perpetrated the massacres at Deir Yasin, at Qibya, Qalqiliya, and Tulkarm? Who were the ones who blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, burying innocent old people, women and children? Who was it who organized and executed the campaign of parcels containing explosives sent by post to Egypt, causing the death of scores of people? Who were the' heroes of the Lavon scandal? And who was Lavon, the main protagonist of this episode?
145.	Was not Lavon the Israeli Minister of Defense at that time, the Israeli Government's deputy in the crime, arranged by that Government, of slaughtering innocent people? The Lavon affair took place in 1954 in Egypt. It occasioned the death of many innocent, good people, the burning of the American library and the bombing of the American and British embassies in order to sabotage Egypt's relations with the United Kingdom and the United States. The Israeli newspapers at the time described this crime as savage and barbarous, before Lavon's agents, Dayan and Peretz, were unmasked.
146.	What do the Israeli leaders want, then, from this feverish campaign which has led them to say that the goal of peace now occupies second place in their concern? Do they not desire to prejudice public opinion against the Palestinian Arab entity and to gain the approval, even the participation, of a number of States in their conspiracy to put down the Palestinian resistance, preliminary to initiating effective operations against that entity? What they want, furthermore, is to divert the attention of world opinion from Israeli activity in occupied Palestine and other occupied Arab lands each day, every hour, minute by minute, actions of savagery and brutality, affronts to humanity, the extreme of terrorism.
147.	We would alert and warn against this maneuver all those who abide by truth and the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is not aimed at the Palestinian liberation movement alone; it also threatens every national liberation movement in the world.
148.	We are opposed to acts of violence which do not fall within the context of a legitimate struggle for liberating conquered territory, restoring the dignity and liberty of peoples, or protecting basic human rights. We do not believe patriotism is served by violence which destroys innocent souls. Yet we shall not be a party to exploiting an emotional act of desperation in order to block patriotic activity for liberation and suffocate in its cradle the legitimate struggle of peoples. We are firmly opposed to the massive terrorism for which States Members of this United Nations are responsible, as they practice oppression against peoples who are struggling for their freedom, sovereignty, national dignity, and the recovery of their lands.
149.	The experience of the peoples of the world in the struggle for liberty and human dignity has taught them that injustice imposed on an oppressed people constitutes a serious threat to the dignity and security of all peoples.
150.	Aggression and occupation maintained through killing, destruction, and religious and racial discrimination cannot suppress the aspirations of our peoples to freedom and liberation. Rather, they would strengthen their faith in man and in the dignity of man and their belief that a people's struggle even when confronted with destruction, occupation, and the concepts of racial and religious discrimination which the imperialists uphold will ultimately prevail. Those who are proud and intoxicated with their power to kill and destroy and with their success in aggression and occupation should remember that nazism, whose slogans and methods they imitate, has been crushed and destroyed, and that the Nazi leaders, at one time the gods of war and annihilation, ended up as criminals of war and the enemies of man.
151.	Those who persist in aggression, in flouting international laws and conventions and in violating human rights would do well to remember that history proves that right will ultimately be vindicated and that the will of peoples is invincible.


Comrade President, allow me first of all to congratulate you on your election to the high post of President of the most important international political forum, the General Assembly of the United Nations. The unanimity displayed in your election is a reflection of the respect which States Members of the United Nations have for the peace-loving policies of the Polish People's Republic and for you personally.
39.	We should also like to congratulate the Secretary- General of the United Nations, Mr. Waldheim. Although he has occupied the post of chief administrative officer of the United Nations for less than a year, he has already shown his desire to co-operate in ensuring that the role of the United Nations in the maintenance and strengthening of peace is enhanced and its activities in the solution of this main task under the United Nations Charter expanded.
40.	It is logical and natural for sessions of the United Nations General Assembly to begin with a general political debate. Representatives of States Members of the United Nations assess the main international events, review the results of past United Nations activities in the light of the purposes and principles proclaimed in the Charter, and set definite tasks for the future. The political impetus which the United Nations receives during the general debate is helpful in the subsequent consideration of the items on the agenda.
41.	Even at last year's session of the General Assembly new trends were observed in relations among States which went some way towards meeting the desire of the peoples to secure lasting peace on the earth. Today there is reason to believe that these trends are growing stronger, although
the forces opposed to a relaxation of tension in the world have not ceased their activities.
42.	In these circumstances the United Nations should make new efforts to promote the solution of acute international problems. As a Member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council, the Soviet Union will continue to make its contribution to the cause of the struggle for peace and the transformation of the United Nations into an even more effective instrument of peace.
43.	The Soviet State will soon celebrate its fiftieth anniversary as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Leninist formula of the state unity of the peoples of the Soviet Union contains a powerful potential for peace- building. A profound interest in peace is organically inherent in the voluntary and equal union of socialist republic which have joined efforts in a constructive endeavor for the good of their peoples, and predatory wars and the oppression of other peoples are organically alien to such a union.
44.	For the Soviet Union the policy of peace is an adequate reflection, in the sphere of .external relations, of its internal social nature. In the decisions of the Twenty- fourth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, our country put forward a program of peace and international co-operation which, as is universally recognized, reflects not the narrow interests of any State or group of States but the aspirations of all peoples, of all mankind. Every step taken to implement it has a constructive influence on international development as a whole.
45.	"Our policy of principle", as Mr. L. I. Brezhnev, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, said, "is the active defense of peace, freedom and the security of peoples. We are pursuing it together with our friends and allies, co-ordinating our steps in the international arena."
46.	If aggression is committed, the Soviet Union always sides with the victim of the aggression. If trouble threatens our allies and friends, we always come to their aid. And when we sign treaties, we implement them and fulfill our obligations.
47.	The objectives for which the Soviet Union and all the countries of the socialist community have been tirelessly fighting for many years have taken concrete form in the positive changes which have come about in the international situation. Together with our allies and friends we shall continue to fight for peace, freedom and the progress of the peoples.
48.	While consistently pursuing a policy of peace, the Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist community certainly do not claim to have a monopoly in this area. In the interests of peace, we are prepared to co-operate and we do co-operate with all States which are also prepared to do likewise. Whatever their social system and in whatever part of the world they may be situated, the door is closed to no one.
49.	The broader the circle of countries pursuing a constructive foreign policy line and the larger the contribution each of them makes towards reducing tension, the more significant are the changes for the better in international affairs. Recent developments confirm this.
50.	In the past, post-war periods have always turned out to be mere respites between wars. In the present circumstances real possibilities exist for a fundamentally different development, namely, a transition to a system of stable peace, in order to ensure which the United Nations was established.
.
51.	This transition requires the solution of problems engendered by the Second World War and the special features of development during the subsequent quarter of a century. If we tried to express in the most general form the essence of the changes that have taken place, we should say that it consists in the fact that there is now a possibility of solving some of these problems, while constructive work has begun with a view to settling others.
52.	The territorial realities that have arisen in Europe, the continent where both World Wars originated, are gaining universal recognition and being formalized under international law. The entry into force of the well-known treaties concluded by the Federal Republic of Germany with the USSR, signed at Moscow on 12 August 1970, and with the Polish People's Republic, signed at Warsaw on 7 December 1970, confirms the inviolability of European boundaries, including the boundary between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany and the western boundary of Poland.
53.	The conclusion of the agreement on West Berlin eliminates a chronic source of friction between States in the very center of Europe.
54.	The clearing of the legacy of war from European soil must be completed through the normalization of relations between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance with the requirements of observing the sovereignty and independence of both those States and settling relations between Czechoslovakia and the Federal Republic of Germany on the basis of recognizing the Munich Agreement as invalid from the very beginning. As you know, negotiations are being held on this matter and I should like to express the hope that they will have a positive outcome.
55.	Negotiations will soon take place on the conclusion of- a peace treaty between the USSR and Japan which should play its part in closing the book on the Second World War in Asia and in providing a lasting basis for peace and co-operation on that continent as well. For our part, we shall make efforts to ensure the success of these negotiations, but the same desire must of course exist on the other side too.
56.	On the whole the "cold war" is being replaced by recognition of the truth that in the nuclear age there is no other basis for relations between States having different Social systems but peaceful coexistence. More and more often this is taking the form of binding international legal documents.
57.	The prerequisites for many-sided and equal cooperation among States, in the political and other fields, are multiplying.
58.	The high level of such co-operation attained in relations between the USSR and France is an especially conspicuous reflection of these new trends. Soviet-French relations are growing increasingly stronger and we note this with great satisfaction. The trends I have referred to are increasingly manifest in the Soviet Union's relations with a number of other States as well.
59.	As a result of the Soviet-United States summit talks in Moscow in May of this year, a start has been made in the process of rebuilding relations between the Soviet Union and the United States of America.
60.	-	Our country attaches great importance to its relations with the United States, a great Power wife a different social system. For our part we shall do everything in our power to develop these relations and we believe that this is in the interests of the Soviet and American peoples and in the interests of maintaining and strengthening international peace. The broadening of co-operation between the two countries has already begun to become a reality, although there remain and will remain political and ideological disagreements of principle between the Soviet Union and the United States as States having different social systems.
61.	Naturally, we proceed from the assumption that no improvement in Soviet-United States relations should be achieved at the expense of other States. This is an important principle of our policy in relations with any State. It is our conviction that all States should be guided by this principle in their mutual relations and it is this criterion which we apply in assessing the significance of various developments in relations between different countries.
62.	Since the first years after the Second World War, international relations have been complicated by the division of the world into military and political groupings which set some States against others and constantly carry the risk of a military conflict. The architects of the policy of establishing military blocs, pursuing the arms race and whipping up international tensions, who for a long time determined the foreign policy of the major Western capitalist Powers, worked hard to bring the world to the dangerous brink of a military conflict. Even today we are constantly encountering the consequences of that policy in various parts of the world.
63.	We can therefore scarcely over-estimate the importance of even the first steps which are now being taken to lay the foundations of security on the basis of the collective efforts of all interested States.
64.	We are now oh the eve of an all-European conference on questions of security and co-operation. Preparations for such a conference are to enter the practical phase very shortly. The great importance of this planned meeting of States lies in making Europe genuinely peaceful and in transforming relations among States on the European continent on the basis of mutual understanding and trust; we are in favor of such a policy and such a course of action in European affairs.
65.	In the well-known Prague Declaration,  the European socialist countries have already put forward their suggestions as to how, in their view, a system of security in Europe should be built up. Many other States have also expressed their views on this score. This is a great and extremely important task and the all-European conference is expected to make an important contribution to its solution.
66.	We are convinced that, if all interested States and Governments show a proper responsibility and a readiness to seek solutions which would be in the common interest, the conference will go down in the history of our time as a great success for the cause of peace.
67.	In Asia, too, the idea of ensuring security, which is equally in the interests of all Asian States, is also beginning to gain ground. The Soviet Union considers the question of security in Asia to be an important task also. TTiose who, for some reason, are not now in sympathy with it should understand that the countries of Asia are no less interested than the Soviet Union in strengthening peace in that area.
68.	Although there has been noticeable progress towards a relaxation of international tension, it is hardly likely that anyone would dispute the fact that so far only a beginning has been made and that much more remains to be done. What is more, unless further progress is made and unless the efforts to achieve greater detente are intensified, all that has been gained could be lost. There have been such cases in history.
69.	Some of the problems awaiting solution within an international framework affect the interests of practically all States. If we consider the substance of any of the problems leading to international complications and if we focus our attention on what directly generates the danger of war and the unleashing of military conflicts, we can only come to the conclusion that it is the use of force by some States against others for the purpose of territorial annexation and for the purpose of subjugating peoples and establishing domination over them, in other words, for predatory purposes.
70 This has been true up to now and remains true today.
71.	In the past tens and hundreds of millions of people in Asia, Africa and America were reduced to slavery by colonial force. Today, when almost all of them have freed themselves, the slightest opportunity is used to restore direct or indirect colonial domination over them.
72.	Those who ventured in the past, and venture now, to use force for purposes which have nothing in common with the interests of the peoples are not greatly troubled by the fact that no dispute between States has ever been, or could ever be, settled on a lasting and just basis by means of force. The use of force for the purpose of aggression, territorial annexation and oppression of other peoples has as a rule laid the foundations for further hostility and further conflicts. For this the peoples have to pay, human beings perish and the great material treasures created by their toil are destroyed.
73.	That is why progressive political leaders for almost as long as States themselves have existed have recognized the need to eliminate the use of force from relations between States. But mere understanding of this is, of course, not sufficient. Practical efforts by States are required. This is all the more necessary now that the presence and stockpiling bf nuclear weapons in the arsenals of States have radically changed the concept of the consequences which military conflicts can have for the peoples of the world.
74.	Although varying views can be held as to the likelihood that this or that crisis or conflict will develop into a nuclear confrontation, as long as nuclear weapons exist, this possibility and this danger also exist. No State, no Government can ignore this. Our country believes that it is possible to eliminate or, at least, to reduce drastically the danger of a conflict between States provoking a nuclear catastrophe. That can be done if renunciation of the use of force in international relations is elevated to the level of international law and if at the same time-I repeat, at the same time the use of nuclear weapons js prohibited.
75.	The Soviet Government is convinced that serious consideration of these questions cannot be put off any longer. The conditions for this are already more favorable now than before and the possibilities for adopting positive decisions are broader.
76.	For those reasons, and because it is aware of its responsibility as a permanent member of the Security Council, the Soviet Union has submitted for consideration at the twenty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly the item entitled "Non-use of force in international relations and permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons" [A/8793].
77.	The essence of our proposal is that it provides for the renunciation by States of any use of force to resolve international disputes; including the use both of nuclear weapons and of such types of weapons as are commonly called conventional. It is proposed that this renunciation be of such a nature that no one could avoid observing it strictly; this is possible if the United Nations shows the necessary understanding of its responsibility for the fate of the world.
78.	Such an approach is fully in accordance with the fundamental principle proclaimed in the United Nations Charter under which the Members of the United Nations "shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations" [Article 2].
79. The real state of affairs in the world makes it necessary to solve the question of the non-use of force in general and the question of the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons in conjunction with each other.
80. Ever since they first appeared, nuclear weapons have always been considered the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction. This is even truer now since the strength of these weapons is not a constant but is growing.
81.	It would be wrong to lose sight of another aspect of the question: with the development of conventional types of weapons, the danger that they might be used in military conflicts has also increased several times even by comparison with the period of the Second World War. In the last quarter of a century nuclear weapons have not been used in military conflicts, yet who can be unaware of how many tragedies have been brought about by the use of conventional weapons and how numerous have been the victims of their use?
82.	All this argues in favor of the prohibition of the use of force in violation of the United Nations Charter in conjunction with the prohibition of the use, first of all, of nuclear weapons, which are especially important.
83.	The wisdom and expediency of such a decision have also been demonstrated by the experience which the United Nations has already gained in the consideration of problems of security and disarmament. The repeated attempts of the United Nations to find a solution to both these problems are fresh in everyone's memory. Attempts have been made now from one side, now from the other, now in terms of considering the question of the non-use of force, now in terms of considering the question of the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. And what has transpired?
84.	To take only recent years, the States Members of the United Nations have unanimously adopted a resolution on strict observance of the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations [resolution 2160 (XXI)], a Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [resolution 2625 (XXV)], and a Declaration on the Strengthening of International Security [resolution 2734 (XXV)].
85.	At the real core of all these documents is the principle of the non-use of force in international relations and of the settlement of all disputes between States solely by peaceful means. All the necessary formulations have been carefully worked out and weighed on the political scales and all aspects of the problem seem to have been taken into account, but it is no secret that the goals set have still not been fully achieved; force is being used and human blood is being shed.
86.	More than 10 years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a Declaration in which it proclaimed the use of nuclear weapons to be a crime against mankind and civilization [resolution 1653 (XVI)]. Since then the United Nations has repeatedly advocated the signing of an appropriate international convention by all States. However, the Declaration on the prohibition of the: use of nuclear weapons was not supported by all the nuclear Powers and it has still not been possible to initiate productive negotiations on the conclusion of an international convention on the question.
87.	Many reasons can be found for the ineffectiveness of the decisions adopted by the United Nations on these questions, but one of the most substantial is unarguably that they were considered and decided upon by the United Nations in isolation from one another.
88.	When the question of prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons was raised, several States had doubts as to the possibility of taking such a step if the use of force was not precluded in relations between States. We shall not now enter into a discussion of the question of the extent to which those doubts were justified but, whatever the case, they became an obstacle to agreement.
89.	At the same time, when the question of prohibiting the use of force was considered, the significance of any decisions adopted proved to be limited in the absence of agreement concerning nuclear weapons, that is to say, the most powerful weapons of mass destruction. The separation of one question from the other introduced a certain lack of understanding and suspicion and weakened the effectiveness of the best decisions of the United Nations. Furthermore, their effectiveness was further restricted because they were all in the form of recommendations, or, at best, declarations of intent. They were not given the force of law.
90.	The proposal of the Soviet Union [A/8793] envisages the adoption of the most realistic and effective decision possible in modern conditions. It is precisely such a decision which is in the interests of all States, regardless of their social systems, the size of their territory and population, or whether or not they possess nuclear weapons.
91.	As a result of such a decision, those States which are militarily stronger, and above all the nuclear Powers, will obtain greater mutual assurance that they are under no threat from one another. The security of each of them will be safeguarded more reliably and at the same time on an equal basis, that is to say, no one will gain a unilateral advantage at the expense of another in comparison with the situation which prevails at present, and no one would lose anything.
92.	Those States which are militarily less powerful, including all those which do not possess nuclear weapons, would also gain. Now, they are justifiably concerned at the danger that nuclear weapons might be directed against them if aggression is committed. The prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons in conjunction with the renunciation of the use of force would remove this threat and greatly strengthen the security of all States.
93.	It goes without saying that the obligation of States to renounce the use of force, including nuclear weapons, can in no way impair their right to individual and collective self-defense as laid down in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. On the contrary, that obligation would reinforce the right to self-defense against aggression and the right to struggle to eliminate the consequences of aggression in cases where it has already been committed and the aggressor seeks to benefit from it.
94.	No one can challenge the inalienable right of States and peoples subjected to aggression to repulse it by employing all possible means so long as the aggressor continues to use force, encroaches upon their freedom and sovereignty and tries to retain territories seized by force. It will suffice to refer to the examples before everyone's eyes: Indochina and the Middle East. Who would dare to contest the incontestable fact that brute force has been and still is being used against the peoples of Indochina and against the Arab States and that they are entitled to use all the necessary means to rebuff the aggressor?
95.	Renunciation of the use of force in relations between States in no way limits the right of the peoples of colonial countries to fight for their freedom and independence using any means which may be necessary in that struggle. This right is recognized by the United Nations as being a legitimate one. It is based on the fact that violence was used against those peoples, who have been the victims of colonialism and aggression, and, in resorting to force to liberate themselves, they are only restoring justice and their flouted rights.
96.	The adoption of a decision on non-use of force and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons would thus be beneficial to all. But this also makes it necessary for all States, particularly all those Powers which possess nuclear weapons, to participate in its elaboration and adoption. Otherwise no decision, not even the very best one, could attain the desired objective.
97.	The Soviet Government has given thorough consideration to the question of the most appropriate form for a decision by the United Nations on the renunciation of the use of force in international relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. We propose that consideration of this item should result in the adoption of a clear-cut decision, which, in the interests of maximum effectiveness, should bind together appropriate actions by the two main organs of the United Nations the General Assembly and the Security Council. On behalf of the Soviet Union, the Soviet delegation is submitting the following draft resolution for consideration by the General Assembly:
[The speaker then read out the text of a draft resolution which was subsequently circulated as document A/L.676. For the text, see Official Records of the General Assembly, Twenty-seventh session, Annexes, agenda item 25.]
98.	The proposed draft speaks for itself. It envisages a major step on the part of the General Assembly a decision on behalf of States Members of the United Nations on their renunciation of the use or threat of force in international relations and the permanent prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. It contains an appeal to the Security Council to take action to make this declaration binding on all States. For this purpose, and in accordance with well-known provisions of the United Nations Charter, a meeting of the Security Council should be convened at the level of members of Governments or other specially designated representatives.
99.	The Soviet delegation is authorized to state that the Soviet Union will stand ready to participate in the convening of such a meeting of the Security Council and in its work. We shall be ready to join in this political action with all other States which are permanent members of the Council. We are convinced that there can be no higher duty for those States on which the Charter of the United Nations places a special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
100.	We appeal to all States represented in the General Assembly to study carefully the draft we have submitted and, on the basis "of it, to adopt-unanimously a resolution which will reflect the firm will of this world Organization to put an end to any use of force in relations between States in violation of the United Nations Charter and to eliminate the threat of nuclear war.
101.	In so doing, the United Nations will be giving strong support to the cause of a further relaxation of international tension, the strengthening of peace and increased mutual understanding in relations between States. This step will be in the interests of all those to whom peace, security and peaceful coexistence are not merely words but a guide for action.
102.	The task of building a lasting peace requires the adoption of effective measures to prevent and avert military conflicts in the future. But it is no less important to put an end to the conflicts which are poisoning the international atmosphere now and to put out the military fires in areas where the right of peoples to be masters of their own destinies is being encroached upon. Lack of progress in settling these problems cannot but cause deep anxiety for the future course of world affairs.
103.	The position of the Soviet Union concerning the war against the Vietnamese people is known to all. The continuation and expansion of the United States intervention in Viet-Nam and other countries of Indochina provoke indignation and condemnation. Probably never before have so many declarations been made containing promises to leave Viet-Nam and to stop the war as have been made recently. And never before has there been such a striking contrast between words and deeds. No matter how much the United States manipulates reports on reductions in the strength of the United States infantry in Viet-Nam in order to appease the public, behind those reports there is in reality an unprecedented expansion of military activities and of their cruelty and inhumanity. No matter how many assurances it gives us that it does not wish to settle the internal affairs of the Viet-Nam people for them, it is in fact pursuing a policy that is aimed at eliminating the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam and the people's armed forces of liberation and at preserving the Saigon puppet administration as the sole legitimate authority in South Viet-Nam.
104.	One can only wonder why the only correct conclusion has not yet been drawn: namely, that the Vietnamese people cannot be defeated. Their resistance will not be broken either by heavier bombing, the blockading of ports or damage to hydro-technical installations. The Vietnamese people are fighting heroically against aggression and fighting for just aims, in order to be master in their own country. They cannot allow anyone from outside to prescribe a political and social system for them or to impose puppets who uphold interests that are foreign to the Vietnamese people.
105.	A way out can be found, but only through serious negotiations, for which a constructive basis has been provided by the well-known proposals contained in the statements by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam of 11 September 1972 and by the Government of the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam of 14 September 1972.
106.	The essence of these proposals is clear and simple. The United States of America must respect the right of the Vietnamese people to genuine independence and the right of the people of South Viet-Nam to self-determination. It must stop the war of aggression in Viet-Nam. put an end to the bombing and mining, the blockade and all military activities in Viet-Nam, renounce the policy of the "Vietnamization" of the war, immediately withdraw all United States troops from South Viet-Nam and discontinue its military participation and support of the Saigon puppet regime. In the solution of the internal problem of South Viet-Nam, it is essential to work on the basis of the real situation: two authorities, two armies and other political forces exist there. The basis for the solution of the problem lies in the equality of the parties and a rejection of annexation. To that end it is necessary to set up in South Viet-Nam a provisional Government which has been agreed on nationally on a tripartite basis and which will handle all matters during the transitional period and organize general elections on truly free and democratic lines.
107.	All those who respect the rights of the peoples and all those who have not lost the ability to assess the state of affairs objectively cannot but recognize that these proposals are very well founded, reasonable and logical and that they express the goodwill of the Vietnamese people. They cannot but reject categorically allegations that the Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam is trying to impose a "Communist regime" on South Viet-Nam.
108.	If the United States of America wants the negotiations in Paris to lead to the restoration of peace, it should reply positively to the statement by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam of 11 September 1972. If, however, it is pursuing some other goal, then the talks in Paris can only lead to a deadlock, the war will continue and the full responsibility for it will rest with the United States of America.
109.	As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it fully supports the proposals by the Provisional Revolutionary Government of the Republic of South Viet-Nam. All those who cherish the ideals of freedom and independence cannot fail to have a sense of solidarity with the Vietnamese people in their struggle.
110.	A solution to the problems of the Middle East must be found. Recent events linked with the new criminal acts of aggression by Israel against Arab countries, including Lebanon, show how serious is the danger and how far the Israeli leaders are going in their reckless policy.
111.	The responsibility which rests with the aggressors is shared by all those who protect them and whose support enables Israel to defy the United Nations and its decisions regarding the elimination of the consequences of the aggression and the restoration of peace in the Middle East. The Israeli leaders must know that an adventurist policy can lead only to apparent success and that in the final analysis it will inevitably entail retribution.
112.	The attempts to appropriate Arab lands and repeated military acts of aggression cannot be tolerated. The United
Nations has the necessary right and the possibilities to put the aggressor in his place.
113.	Only a long-term and just settlement in the Middle East in accordance with the well-known decisions of the United Nations can ensure the peace and security of all-we repeat, all-States in this region. The Israeli troops must be withdrawn from all the Arab territories occupied in 1967.
114.	For the Soviet Union, support for the legitimate demands of the Arab countries, for the United Nations decisions regarding a political settlement of the Middle East conflict, and for the mission of Ambassador Jarring is a policy of principle. We are pursuing it and we shall continue to pursue it unswervingly.
115.	We also support the just struggle of the Arab people of Palestine for the restoration of their inalienable rights, which have been recognized by the United Nations. At the same time, we cannot, of course, condone the acts of terrorism committed by certain elements among the members of the Palestinian movement which have led, among other things, to the recent tragic events in Munich. Their criminal acts also strike a blow at the national interests and aspirations of the Palestinians and are used by the Israeli criminals to cover up their own piratical policy against the Arab peoples.
116.	On the basis of positions of principle, the Soviet Union opposes acts of terrorism which disrupt the diplomatic activities of States and their representatives, transport communications between them and the normal course of international contacts and meetings, and it opposes acts of violence which serve no positive end and cause loss of human life.
117.	Peace will not be truly lasting until an end is put to the arms race, which is one of the main sources of distrust among States and of an increased danger of war. The struggle for disarmament has been going on for a long time The Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist community see in the struggle for disarmament one of the main orientations for their foreign policy activities. And this policy will be continued. Some of the things that seemed almost unattainable even 10 or 15 years ago are now reflected in treaties and agreements that have entered into force. These include some which to a certain extent curb the nuclear arms race and reduce the threat of nuclear war: the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [resolution 2373(XXII), annex], the Treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in the three environments, and others. In addition, the first agreement in history on the elimination of a type of armaments which falls within the category of means of mass destruction, namely, bacteriological and toxin weapons, has now been concluded.
118.	To the sum total of obligations in the field of the limitation of the arms race and disarmament already assumed by the majority of States, one more has recently been added: it concerns those types of armaments which have the greatest destructive force. I am referring to the Soviet-United States strategic arms limitation agreements, signed at Moscow on 26 May 1972. Limiting to the minimum the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems, the agreements eliminate one of the main motives for unleashing a competition between offensive and defensive missile weapons, the full consequences of which are difficult to predict. By establishing quantitative limits for strategic offensive arms for the first time, the agreements curb the most dangerous trend in the arms race.
119.	The conclusion of the Soviet-United States strategic arms limitation agreements is an important step which will help to reduce the threat of nuclear war and to curb the arms race and which will open up new prospects for progress towards general disarmament. Both sides have agreed to continue the talks with a view to arriving at further agreements in that direction.
120.	Each successful step in the struggle to limit the arms race is important in its own right and is, at the same time, important as a starting point for further efforts. The possibilities for further progress towards the solution of new disarmament problems will increase with each new step on which agreement is reached. Our country has always desired this and we shall spare no effort in continuing to work, together with all other States, to relieve the peoples of the burden of weapons.
121.	The Soviet Union favors the earliest possible solution of the question of the halting of the production of chemical weapons and their destruction, concerning which negotiations are being held in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. It also favors the halting everywhere and by everyone of nuclear weapon tests, including underground tests, the elimination of foreign military bases on alien territory and the establishment of nuclear-free zones in various parts of the world.
122.	States have acquired a great deal of experience in negotiations on disarmament. Various methods have been used and are being used; some of them have fully justified themselves and should be used further. At the same time it can hardly be considered proper that, since the advent of the nuclear age, there has not yet been a single occasion on which States have all gathered together to consider the question of disarmament, which affects all States, socialist and capitalist, large and small, developed and developing, nuclear, and non-nuclear. We can therefore only welcome the fact that the idea of convening a world disarmament conference has become one of the most popular ideas among the States of the world and among world public opinion.
123.	The General Assembly will be considering in a specific manner the question of convening a world disarmament conference [item 26]. Our views on this are well known. We consider that this conference should be a forum at which all countries without exception could present and compare, on an equal basis, their views on the whole range of disarmament questions and come to agreement on practical steps designed to curb the arms race and achieve disarmament. This applies both to weapons of mass destruction and to conventional weapons.
124.	The Soviet Government believes that full advantage should be taken of the opportunities that are now taking shape for the convening of a world disarmament conference. We, for our part, shall continue to do everything in our power to ensure that it is held and is successful.
125.	The question of the strengthening of international security is once again on the agenda of the General Assembly [item 35], This problem is an urgent one and will remain so as long as there are forces at work which are interested not in implementing the principles of the United Nations Charter but in aggravating international tension and suppressing the liberation struggle of the peoples.
126.	Great victories have been won by the peoples in their struggle to eliminate colonial oppression. But this problem has not yet been completely solved and millions of people are still living under the colonial and racist yoke.
127.	The Soviet Union, which was the first country in the history of the world to eradicate national oppression and to ensure genuine prosperity for dozens of nations and nationalities, is irreconcilably opposed to all manifestations of racism, apartheid, colonialism and neocolonialism. Our country opposes all attempts to exert pressure direct or indirect-on States which, after a hard struggle, have won the right to independent development and are now building their national economies, carrying out progressive social and economic reforms and defending their rights to own the natural resources that belong to them. It is the duty of the United Nations to assist those States in every way possible to strengthen their sovereignty and independence.
128.	In international politics it is necessary constantly to take account of the various questions posed by scientific and technological progress and the requirements which such progress is making on an ever-increasing scale in the field of international co-operation. This applies to economic, scientific and technological links, which are becoming ever richer in content. It applies directly to new areas in which States are active, particularly outer space.
129.	It was on the basis of those considerations that the Soviet Union submitted proposals on principles governing the activities of States in outer space, on the conclusion of a treaty concerning the moon and on a number of other matters. At the current session of the General Assembly we are proposing that consideration should be given to the item entitled "Preparation of an international convention on principles governing the use by States of artificial earth satellites for direct television broadcasting" [item 37]. Our purpose in raising this question is to link inseparably, from the very beginning, the use of this new type of space technology to the noble purposes of strengthening peace and friendship among peoples.
130.	The United Nations must promptly acquire a genuinely universal character. Universality could lend the United Nations new strength and enable it to consider world problems with greater results. We therefore see no justification for attempts to create artificial obstacle to the admission of new States to the United Nations.
131.	We consider it necessary to ensure the earliest possible admission to the United Nations of the German Democratic Republic, which is fully entitled to be admitted, as is, of course, the Federal Republic of Germany too. This will be in the interests of the further development of co-operation among States and will be in line with the political situation taking shape in Europe.
132.	No one should cast doubt on the legitimate right to membership in the United Nations of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, which has recently gained its national independence. That State has a legitimate right to become a Member of the United Nations.
133.	In general, the United Nations should rid itself as quickly as possible of the burden of the past, which is still making itself felt in its activities in various spheres. One such sphere is that of questions relating to Korea. This year there are new possibilities before the General Assembly for a constructive approach to the discussion and solution of these questions. Such possibilities had been afforded by the proposal put forward by the non-aligned and socialist States concerning the "Creation of favorable conditions to accelerate the independent and peaceful reunification of Korea" [A/8752 and Add. 1-10]. But those who in the past created a hotbed of tension in the Korean region and are now trying to maintain it have prevented the General Assembly from considering this proposal at the current session. Everyone understands that an artificial delay in this case can only be harmful and that those States which resort to such methods are showing themselves to be opposed to a just settlement in the interests of the normalization of the situation in Korea and the strengthening of peace in that area.
134.	As to the Soviet Union, our position on the question of Korea has been set out many times. We are in favor of the withdrawal of foreign troops from South Korea and support the measures and efforts of the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to achieve the independent and peaceful unification of the country.
135.	During the period in which the United Nations has existed, attempts have been made on more than one occasion to destroy its Charter. Whatever the subjective intentions of those who are now raising the question of the review of the United Nations Charter, the objective reality is such that this will entail great dangers for all the activities of the United Nations.
136.	The Soviet Union considers that the interests of all States without exception require that attention should be focused not on a revision of the United Nations Charter but on its strict observance and on fuller utilization of the possibilities it affords.
137.	What is necessary for the United Nations to succeed is the readiness and determination of Member States to act together in the interests of solving the problems facing the Organization. This should make the United Nations a real center for concerted action by nations to achieve common goals, which is an obligation under the United Nations Charter.
138.	Those who seek to divide the United Nations either according to the principle of the size of the territory or
population of States or by classifying them as "rich" and "poor" are doing a disservice not only to the United Nations but also to the cause of preserving and strengthening peace as a whole.
139, That is not what inspired the founders of the United Nations. They wanted the United Nations to be strong and firm in rebuffing aggressors and to be capable of promoting co-operation among all countries irrespective of their size and level of economic development.
| 140. As to the Soviet Union, it has invariably done and will continue to do everything it can to ensure that the United Nations acts precisely in that manner. The policy of the struggle for peace and security is the general policy of the Soviet Union in the international arena. That policy was adopted half a century ago by. the socialist republics which joined together to form the Soviet Union and it is still the policy today.
141.	The twenty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly is a regular session. But it could become a prominent landmark in the formation of a new system of peaceful relations among States. For this purpose it should focus its attention on the main and most acute political problems brought to the fore by life itself and the whole course of international development.