I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Community and its Member States. First allow me to extend to you, Sir, my cordial congratulations on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly. With your wisdom and experience, I am sure this Assembly will be in good hands.
We salute the admission to the United Nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, former Members of the League of Nations. I should also like to extend a warm welcome to South Korea and North Korea. May their admission signal a further improvement in their mutual relations for the benefit of the Korean people. Having listened to the impressive statement by the President of the Republic of Korea, we really feel that augurs well for the future of inter-Korean relations. We also cordially welcome the Marshall Islands and Micronesia to the United Nations family.
We live in spectacular times in which the United Nations has a crucial role to play. The European Community and its Member States have taken joint positions and actions on many of the problems facing us today. These positions can be found fully detailed in a memorandum which forms an integral part of my statement and is now being circulated in this room. This allows me to concentrate on a smaller number of issues.
The failure of the coup d'etat last month in the Soviet Union confirms that a new era in international political life has begun. The democratic revolution which had swept through central and eastern Europe in the last two years has now also taken hold in the heartland of communism. The ground had been prepared by the perestroika and glasnost policies of President Gorbachev. But when reactionary forces tried to restore a dying and unjust order they met with brave and insurmountable resistance by numerous Soviet citizens and their principled elected leaders. In the end, democracy von, both in form and in spirit. This victory now has to be consolidated and made safe by truly democratising State structures and greater devolution of power in Soviet society.
In the wake of these developments international relations increasingly become characterised by common values and common responsibilities. Representative government breeds responsible domestic government and responsible international behaviour. Democratic government implies government that is accountable, not just to a country's own citizens, but also to its fallow nations. Here we touch upon the heart of the United Nations Charter.
Iraq is a case which proves my point, albeit by contrast. Its acts of aggression abroad reflect the lack of legitimacy of its government at home. The way in which the Iraqi regime has been carelessly sacrificing the lives of its citizens in external military adventures finds a mirror image in its brutal clamp-down on the thirst for freedom among its own people. Repressive government breeds irresponsible government. The United Nations rightly maintains its strong pressure on the Government of Iraq to revise its reckless policies. At the same time the international community has demonstrated, with Security Council resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991), its willingness to take the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people into account. Non-compliance would only directly hurt the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi Government would be held fully responsible for this.
Democracy and respect for fundamental freedoms being on the rise, not only in Eastern Europe but also elsewhere on the globe, the world is experiencing new possibilities for international cooperation, regional integration and a more just and lawful world order. In order to meet these challenges, strengthening and reforming the United Nations are among the tasks which press themselves upon us. However, in these hopeful and promising times not all is well. Several regions and countries, including notably the newly emerging democracies, are grappling with serious instabilities and even conflicts. We sincerely hope that the emancipation of the republics and the awakening of national feelings in the Soviet Union will strengthen rather than weaken that country's peaceful process of democratic change.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, although some conflicts appear to be on the way towards satisfactory resolution, others are still festering or are even only just beginning to surface. Painful as they may be for those directly involved, and dangerous as they may be for regional security, these conflicts also tend to place a heavy burden upon the world as a whole. The number of people seeking refuge in other countries, for instance, is rapidly increasing. This problem can only become more serious if, in conjunction with these conflicts, economic conditions continue to deteriorate. Willingly or unwillingly, the world is increasingly affected. In an ever more interdependent, and yet at the same time fragmenting, world, we need to shoulder our common responsibilities.
Let aw turn first to Europe. In this old continent we hope to have learned some lessons from our long history of bloody conflicts and nationalistic strife.
In the European Community we intend to take decisive steps this year towards further economic and political unification. Apart from direct economic benefits which the Community member States should be able to reap the deeper motive is clearly political. We have taken to heart what Jean Monnet, one of the founding fathers of the European Community, taught us: that
we should not fight over national borders, but, rather, make them irrelevant through ever-increasing economic and political cooperation so as to be able to remove them altogether in the end. This political inspiration is a strong guarantee that the European Community will not turn inward. Instead, both in the economic and the political field we are determined to remain open-minded, ready to play a responsible role, both in Europe and in the world as a whole. Our recent initiatives on Yugoslavia are a reflection of this attitude. Since 7 September a Conference on Yugoslavia, with, in its context, an Arbitration Commission, has been under way in The Hague under the aegis of the European Community. A cease-fire agreement is being monitored by European Community countries together with four other States participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).
	The European Community and its member States will persevere in their mediation efforts. Their aim in doing so is not to preserve artificially a unity that no longer exists nor to impose a destiny upon the peoples of Yugoslavia, which only they have the right to decide upon. Bather, the Twelve hope to help avoid an uncontrolled and violent fragmentation resulting from bitterness and hatred and from extreme nationalism and ethnocentrism, which in the past has brought so much shame, bloodshed and suffering to our continent and to the world as a whole.
Where in Yugoslavia new political structures are called for, let them be negotiated and decided upon through peaceful dialogue. Let these talks be conducted with full respect both for the right to self-determination but also for legitimate concerns for the full protection of minority rights, which is a prime duty of any responsible government. The Twelve will not recognise any change of borders established by force and call upon the world community to adopt a similar position. The Twelve will continue to insist on full compliance with the principles of the Helsinki final Act and the Charter of Paris for a new Europe.
Our endeavours to find appropriate answers to this crisis could be significantly reinforced by endorsement from the Security Council and the international community as a whole, the more so since we feel that a continuation of this crisis poses a threat to international peace and security.
The Community and its member States have instituted an arms embargo against Yugoslavia until self-defence and protection of minorities no longer serve as an excuse for expansionism and oppression. Given the continuous breaches of the cease-fire agreements, the Twelve are of the opinion that a mandatory arms embargo by the Security Council under Chapter VII is needed to bring the violence to an end in this region. More generally speaking, we feel that the authoritative voice of the Security Council, expressing full support for the regional endeavours being undertaken, would certainly contribute to their positive outcome.
We are convinced that the peaceful settlement of the Yugoslav question will have a positive bearing on potential conflicts of a similar nature elsewhere. We therefore call upon all leaders, parties and all people in Yugoslavia to stop the violence and to cooperate with us in order to make the Yugoslavia Conference, under European Community auspices and under the chairmanship of Lord Carrington, a success for the sake of all in Yugoslavia and for peace and stability on our continent.
In the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) the 38 European and North American member States have developed norms of State behaviour which, while based on the principles of the United Nations Charter, clearly go beyond them in scope and commitment. The Charter of Paris, concluded at the CSCE summit meeting of November 1990, spells out the new democratic consensus in Europe, taking human rights as the key to the organization of both political and socio-economic life. Recent events in the Soviet Union show that these are not just solemn words on a piece of paper but a living reality for a growing number of people. Also, the European Community and its member States acted upon the Paris Charter when they condemned the Soviet putsch as illegitimate and came down on the side of the democratic opposition. Strengthening CSCE, in not only its normative aspects but also its mechanism for crisis management, is high on the agenda of the Twelve. In this way we hope to serve regional security and well-being, complementary to our obligations under the United Nations Charter.
Common responsibility in today's world requires more than improving upon old structures, institutions and habits. Necessary as that may be, it would be insufficient if we did not also try to develop new ways of thinking. Allow me to share a few thoughts with you in this respect.
We need more responsible behaviour between States. Its first rule is the ban on the threat or use of force, as contained in Article 2 of the United Nations Charter. This is certainly no superfluous rule. Breaches of it can leave no State indifferent, as was fortunately exemplified by the international community's response to the Gulf crisis. Yet, both national and international security require more than just refraining from aggression. Security is enhanced by the breaking down of barriers of distrust, by the promotion of trade, contacts and communication, by the free flow of people, values and ideas - in brief, by opening up our societies. Security is further enhanced by taking the concerns of others to heart.
In the military field we have to show responsibility by engaging in processes of arms control, arms reduction and confidence-building. Regional arrangements must be supplemented by world-wide agreements, as is shown by the pressing need for a convention on banning chemical weapons, for which the year 1992 really is the deadline. Squally importantly, existing treaties such as the 1972 Convention on biological and toxic weapons must be store effectively implemented. The Review Conference convening at present should lay a solid foundation for this.
Events in the Gulf region have once again made it unmistakably clear that more responsibility is needed in arms transfers. The European Council has identified common criteria on which national policies on arms exports are based. In the perspective of political union, we hope for a further harmonization of our national policies. As action on a more global scale is needed, we shall - together with others, including Japan - submit a draft resolution in this Assembly seeking the international registration of arms transfers, with a view to promoting restraint by increasing transparency.
As for the important question of nuclear disarmament, we welcome the recent conclusion of the START agreement on long-range strategic nuclear arms between the United States and the Soviet Union. It sets the stage for even further reductions in the field of nuclear weapons. The universality of the norm of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the effectiveness of its regime have been reconfirmed by the announced accessions to it of such key countries as France and China. We also welcome South Africa as a new party. We note with satisfaction that the Soviet Union has given assurances that it will institute safeguards against nuclear proliferation while restructuring the relations between its central Government and the Union republics. In order to solve an increasing number of global problems or even threats to mankind we have to assume greater responsibility, notably in the fields of development and environment.
Lack of economic development, leading to staggering poverty, is not just a curse for the hundreds of millions of people who suffer from it. It is a moral shame, it constitutes a burden on the whole world's development and it is a potential threat to global stability. The situation of many African countries is particularly worrying. The new United Nations agenda for Africa rightly focuses on debt relief, resource flows and better market access. At the same time, it makes it clear that African Governments should fulfil their side of the development contract by improving their own performance, liberalising their economies, allowing for popular participation and political pluralism and giving due attention to all other aspects of good governance.
Developing countries, including the poorest, need trade as well as aid. This is not the least important reason why the Uruguay Round of negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) must not fail. We must open the world for expanding exchanges of goods and services and resist the protectionist temptation. This is without any doubt not always easy, but with reasonable compromises from all sides we shall be able to succeed. The European Community will certainly do its bit. Its discussion about the reform of its common agricultural policy gives a clear indication of this.
Economic growth which fails to take into account the ecological balance becomes self-defeating. Development must be sustainable. Environmental concerns should be fully integrated into the economic process. Next year's United Nations Conference on Environment and Development presents a unique opportunity to make concrete progress in this field, both in tackling environmental problems which impede development and in addressing global environmental issues such as climate change and biological diversity. Much work remains to be done in the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development if a meaningful bargain is to be struck in Rio de Janeiro. With only one session remaining, there are many seemingly insurmountable obstacles, especially relating to additional funding and technology transfer. In order to maintain momentum and commitment, we need to give this process further impetus at the political level. In our joint statement to the Second Committee we will go more deeply into this matter.
Calamities in various parts of the world, both natural and man-made, continue to confront us with loss of lives, devastation and uprooting. While the international community makes some effort to help, it can certainly do better. In order to ensure proper coordination between United Nations institutions, donor and recipient countries and non-governmental organizations we need to strengthen the emergency response capacity of the United Nations. To this end the Community and its member States wish to cooperate with others in launching an initiative during this session of the Assembly calling among other things for the appointment of a high-level United Nations coordinator, the creation of an inter-agency coordination mechanism and the establishment of an emergency fund. In this context we look forward to the report of the Secretary-General on this matter.
Another area which requires greatly enhanced responsibility concerns relations within States, particularly respect for human rights. Despite progress, flagrant violations persist in many countries, thereby not just endangering precious human dignity in itself, but also undermining chances for development and for internal and external peace. The days when countries could credibly claim that their human rights record was a strictly internal affair are definitely over. The history of the United Nations has confirmed the legitimacy of the contrary view.
The United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, to be held in Berlin in 1993, could greatly enhance international respect for human rights by notably concentrating on improving the implementation of existing norms and standards and on extending the scope of mechanisms for reviewing compliance. We believe, for instance, that the Special Rapporteur constitutes a supervisory mechanism which deserves application on a much wider scale. Meanwhile, the United Nations would also become a more credible human rights propagator itself if it allocated more of its existing financial resources to that goal. The Twelve stress the need for changing budgetary priorities in order to alleviate the financial and staffing difficulties in which the United Nations Centre for Human Rights finds itself.
Given the close relationship between human rights and democracy the Community and its member States are also very much in favour of the United Nations exploring ways to promote democratic processes around the world. This could range from the monitoring of free elections to assistance in building democratic institutions. Another field in which the United Nations could play an important role concerns the protection of minority rights. At a time when existing States are coming under pressure from demands for autonomy and self-determination from segments of their populations, which thereby challenge the principle of territorial integrity from within, creative and innovative thinking is clearly in demand. In order to prevent unilateralism and even the use of force from prevailing, the world needs to develop principles and mechanisms for the promotion of negotiated and peaceful solutions to these issues which are satisfactory to all concerned. We think the United Nations should intensify this discussion.
Naturally, human rights are primarily the responsibility of national governments. But the world cannot sit idly by when one of the Member States of the United Nations terrorises its own people. History shows that such acts, apart from being criminal, can endanger international peace and security if nothing is done about them. Recently we have witnessed intervention by our world Organisation for the sake of protecting human rights. In the aftermath of the liberation of Kuwait a number of countries belonging to the international coalition provided a safe haven to Iraqi Kurds fleeing from repression and attempts at genocide by their own Government. This action, which implemented the relevant Security Council resolutions, has meanwhile been followed up by the stationing of a corps of United Nations civil guards, this time with the consent of the Government concerned. In a regional context we have also seen the peace-keeping operation by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) during the bloody civil war in Liberia.
These interventions may not have been perfect - they could not prevent all loss of innocent life - but they were certainly salutary considering the human suffering they were able to stop. It is to be hoped that in the future these developments will have a discouraging effect on Governments in comparable situations; and if we want the world to become a safer place, we will need more than a ban on aggression. International law and order should be founded equally on democracy and on respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. Above all, this is clearly a major challenge for the United Nations.
A common responsibility from which none of us can hide concerns the functioning of the United Nations. In recent years the world political climate has clearly improved for the United Nations, particularly in relation to its core function! the maintenance of international peace and security. Increasingly, the United Nations has risen to the occasion and played a crucial role in helping to resolve burning issues. We should capitalise on this fortunate development and try to strengthen the political functions of the United Nations.
One of the opportunities resulting from the increased political efficacy of the Security Council and its ability to act in concert lies in the area of preventive diplomacy. We should not just wait until conflicts get out of hand and become actual threats to international peace and security. Why could the Security Council not formulate political statements aimed at defusing tensions in a particular situation at an early stage, rather as the Twelve have increasingly done in the context of our European political cooperation? Why should it not also dispatch fact-finding missions to troubled areas? In fact, the whole concept of peace-keeping - which has evolved rapidly in recent years - could be given another boost by exploring the possibilities in this direction, too. In this way United Nations Involvement could help prevent conflicts frost actually breaking out or contain them at an early stage.
Similarly, the increased political relevance of the Security Council also points to new opportunities for the Secretary-General to make fuller use of his competence under Article 99 of the Charter. The Secretary-General could benefit from the changes in the international climate by initiating at an early stage discussions within the Security Council on matters which, in his opinion, threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. In this way the Security Council could further improve its decision-making ability.
Strengthening the political functions of the United Nations should, however, go hand in hand with a continued and resolute restructuring of the United Nations system in all its aspects. This is rightly pointed out by the Secretary-General in its latest report on the Organisation. The Economic and Social Council should be revitalised: the resumed forty-fifth session produced encouraging signs of progress in this direction. Also, the General Assembly needs to seriously rethink its own procedures and methods, in order to make itself more able to provide guidance to the international community.
Last but certainly not least, reform of the Secretariat seems essential if the United Nations is to acquire the capacity and flexibility to cope with present and future tasks. The incoming Secretary-General should be in a position to act upon broad outlines for increased operational efficiency that are widely supported in this Assembly.
For the United Nations to be effective, restructuring will, however, not be enough. A sound financial base is of the utmost importance. Unfortunately, not all Member States fulfil their financial obligations. We therefore urge all Members to live up to their responsibility and pay their assessed contributions on time.
In a number of regional conflicts we can discern certain rays of hope. Bringing about peace in the Middle East is now an urgent task. In particular this is true of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian question. The Twelve have from the outset supported the initiative of the United States to set in motion a process of parallel negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbours and between Israel and the Palestinians. We welcome the untiring efforts of Secretary of State Baker and we urge all parties not to miss this historic opportunity to have a peace conference convened for next month. The European Community and its Member States will actively contribute to the success of this conference.
As to their substance, these negotiations will have to be based on Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and their implied principle of "land for peace". Israel must be able to enjoy its right to live within secure and recognised borders. Equally, the Palestinians' right to self-determination must be given proper expression. The international community should do its utmost to encourage all parties concerned to negotiate in good faith and make compromises in order to bring a just, lasting and comprehensive peace to this tormented region. The negotiations would be greatly facilitated by regional security arrangements and confidence-building measures by the countries in the region. In this context, the Twelve would welcome the repeal of the resolution equating Zionism with racism, which was referred to yesterday by President Bush in his statement to the Assembly.
South Africa is an area of conflict which gives reason for some optimism. The reform process led by President De Klerk has undeniably moved the country into a qualitatively new phase. The legal foundations of apartheid have been removed, notably by the repeal of the Group Areas Act, the Population Registration Act and the Land Acts. That is, however, not enough to create A united, non-racial and democratic South Africa. It is indispensable that negotiations begin soon on a new constitutional order with the broadest possible participation from all segments of South African society. All parties, and not least the South African Government, have to help to create a climate conducive to the success of such negotiations. The international community, which is committed to the complete dismantling of apartheid, should monitor these developments in an appropriate manner. In order to encourage constructive change it should be willing to gradually revoke restrictive measures vis-à-vis South Africa to the degree that reforms have been put into effect.
As to Cambodia, the past year has brought substantial progress towards the achievement of a comprehensive political settlement. We welcome the delegation of the Cambodian Supreme National Council, under the leadership of Prince Sihanouk. We rejoice in the newly established cooperation between the Cambodian parties and call upon them to conclude without delay the peace process at the next resumed session of the Cambodian Conference on the basis of the plan of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. The Twelve stress the importance of free elections as the centrepiece of that plan, which was unanimously approved by the Security Council and the General Assembly at its forty-fifth session. I also reaffirm our willingness to contribute to the reconstruction and development of Cambodia upon the achievement of a political settlement.
Let me conclude by expressing our heartfelt appreciation to the Secretary-General for his untiring efforts to further the cause of international peace and justice. With the end of his period of tenure in this high office in sight, it must be gratifying for him to see some formerly intractable conflicts edging towards resolution. Many could be mentioned Cyprus, El Salvador, the Western Sahara and others. On behalf of the Twelve of the European Community, I pay tribute to Javier Peres de Cueliar, whose high moral stature, diplomatic skills and political leadership have guided the Organisation through 10 difficult years. We also owe it to him that the United Nations has come to play a crucial role on the world scene, as the founding fathers foresaw when the Organisation was conceived 6 years ago. We wish him well and we salute him as an eminent partisan of peace.


First of all, allow me to congratulate Ambassador Shihabi of Saudi Arabia on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly. I wish him every success in meeting his responsibilities.
Allow me to express my appreciation, as well, to Mr. De Marco, his predecessor, who represents a small country, yet had the courage to point to some of the Organisation's major problems. He did so with a decisiveness that has few precedents.
It is also my most pleasant obligation to thank the Secretary-General. In guiding the Organisation, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar demonstrated a noble vision. The broad outlook of this politician proved to be in concert with our times. His integrity and assurance deserve our admiration.
Let me welcome our new Members: the Republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea. We look forward to the active contribution of these new Members, and are prepared to cooperate closely with them on the various items on our agenda.
Last year's session was the first I attended as Foreign Minister of a country freed from totalitarianism. Since then, I have reflected seriously upon the role of the United Nations in this world of ours, which has changed so much. Why, I have wondered, was the Organization's contribution to putting an end to the cold war only a modest one, even though it was founded to maintain peace?
I represent one of the countries that over the past two years has experienced a dramatic transformation on the road to democracy. This transformation is helping to change the political map of the world, and so perhaps we have a certain right, even an obligation, to judge how capable the United Nations is of adapting to new impulses and reacting to them for the general welfare. I hope therefore that I may be excused for abandoning tradition and relegating comments on individual items on this year's agenda to discussions in the Main Committees.
Allow me to paraphrase the words that President Havel used two years ago to address the situation in my own country. Our organisation too is not exactly flourishing! Its history is very controversial. Successes combine with failures.
Very soon after the Second World War, the United Nations, with so many hopes invested in it, turned into a cold war battlefield. It was dramatically influenced by the false concept of the so-called international class struggle. It failed to cope with flagrant violations of its own Charter and of international law. The most painful failure, from my perspective, occurred, of course, in 1968 when Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Warsaw Treaty countries.
Later, during the era of so-called super-Power detente, we all witnessed the United Nations turn into a forum for rhetorical somersaults that concealed its inability to solve real problems effectively. We witnessed the gradual withering of the idea of multilateralism and of the last remnants of the Organization's prestige. Even disapproval on the part of the vast majority of Member States did not prevent this very forum from being desecrated by people who defended aggression and violence.
And yet, the Organization played a substantial role in decolonization. It contributed to the evolution and codification of international law. It served us all as an umbrella sheltering an entire roster of useful agencies that deal with everything from industrial development and atomic energy to health care and telecommunications. And. what is probably the most important point, every September, this very Hall turned into a meeting place of all those who otherwise might not have had anywhere else to meet.
Today, it may appear as though the dark periods of the Organisation's activity are over, as though its renovation is only a matter of capturing the spirit of the times and introducing several organisational improvements.
And, true enough! the situation today is better than any of us would have dared to anticipate only a short time ago. We have seen an end to the ideological confrontation that blocked a realistic view of matters. The East-West conflict, which for 40 years threatened general destruction, in effect resolved itself, once the ideology that supported it crumbled, fully demonstrating its impotence. The interests of humanity have once again become a well-recognized priority. The collapse of bipolarity revives our renewed appreciation of multilaterality. Two years ago, the Secretary-General correctly observed that
"the United Nations has been intensely involved in activities to bring peace to troubled regions of the world. ... Indeed, the assistance of the world Organization is being sought as never before in its history." (A/44/1, p.3)
No longer does one third of mankind suffer the grip of a totalitarian system. Nevertheless, the Organization often seems unable to transcend the shadow of its own past. This is why it is not in the forefront of world developments, why it merely reflects, belatedly and imperfectly, these developments. This situation is all the more disturbing in view of the extent and immediacy of the Organisation's tasks.
One critical mission of the United Nations is to bridge the chasm between the North and the South, which is expanding menacingly. Civilisation as we know it will, at the end of this century, simply not have a chance if it is divided by enormous differences in well-being and social welfare. The collapse of an ideology is not sufficient for resolving this problem.
Equally pressing is the solution of acute global problems that the founders of the United Nations could only dimly foresee. They are now omnipresent. They confront us in a number of areas, including the environment, energy, population and migration. We are witnessing an alarming escalation in international crime, terrorism, drug addiction and the spread of new diseases. These phenomena jeopardize not merely individuals, but also sometimes even entire nations. If the United Nations fails to react to these supra-national problems far more energetically than it has to date, it will be disqualified from dealing with critical global issues. At stake is the welfare of future generations. The Preamble to our Charter calls upon us to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", but this is not enough at a time when civilization can self-destruct in a number of other, wholly unexpected ways.
I propose, for example, that wherever it is possible, we consider together a strong effort to convert weapons manufacture into production benefiting the environment. The forthcoming Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil will address this problem. I believe that our Organisation should set the defence of human rights, the natural and inalienable birthright of every human being, as one of its prime objectives. It is no longer enough to have them codified or even to debate how well they are safeguarded. Those of us who experienced the gradual degeneration of so-called "really existing socialism" know full well that without enforcing these rights comprehensively and across the board, all else in society inevitably becomes a hollow shell, as well.
We also realise that the poor and the suffering will not enjoy their human rights so long as their living conditions do not radically improve. Progress in these two areas is thus interconnected. Ignoring abuses of human rights anywhere in the world is morally and politically unacceptable, as we have experienced in the distant and more recent past. We are convinced that it is not possible to argue principles of sovereignty and non-interference when the matter at issue is that of preventing ruthless, intentional and mass violations of human rights and freedoms. In fact, it is necessary to go even further in this direction. The United Nations, equipped with the appropriate authority, should stand vigilant watch over human rights everywhere in the world, and people anywhere in the world should be able to rely on its capacity to redress violations of these rights.
All this begs the question: Can the United Nations be better than the sum of its Members? Are we not told year after year that the Organisation cannot accomplish store than what its Member States allow? And if this were true, would we even have the right to criticise it and seek improvements? I think we will discover that more than one thread leads to better solutions within the Charter itself. Its real potential has hardly been tapped- The Charter binds all Member States to act in a manner that will allow the Organisation to accomplish its objectives successfully.
Our world Organization must be more than the sum of its Members. Particular national interests have often been advanced, sometimes even ruthlessly, in conflict with our common interest. It should be possible to hold such conflicts within reasonable and mutually acceptable limits. Subjecting one's own interests to higher international needs is also in one's own interest. In this there should be no difference between nations big and small, developed and less developed. It is precisely the degree of mutual responsibility and tolerance that draws the line between a weak and a strong United Nations, between a paralysed Organisation and an effective one.
A year ago the General Assembly met under the omen of the Persian Gulf War. This year we are meeting under the omen of its difficult conclusion. The end to traditional East-West rivalry has certainly contributed to the restoration of peace. In this the United Nations played an important role: it helped fight aggression and restored the rule of law. This was a serious test of whether our Organization is capable of facing a threat to international peace and security, whether it can react to naked aggression. The United Nations did not fail this test, and this is very encouraging. True, the Organization did not manage to prevent Iraqi aggression, did not find a diplomatic solution to the crisis and did not even employ the security mechanism outlined in its Charter. Nevertheless, the United Nations proceeded in the spirit of its Charter and contributed to effective cooperation between the Security Council and the peace alliance. Thus the United Nations definitely played a role in forcing the aggressor to retreat when faced by the international community.
Last year's fears that the use of force in obtaining justice would weaken the United Nations have proved unwarranted. Moreover, once again it transpires that totalitarian and tyrannical regimes are likely to resort to war and to escalate conflicts, whereas democracies are beacons of law and peace. A clear moral follows from this: nobody who might wish to follow the Iraqi example can count on doing so with impunity. This applies also to obvious preparations for acts of aggression. Objections on the basis of sovereignty and non-interference have to be cast aside. Too much is at stake. Every Munich leads to catastrophes that are always greater than the one it seeks to prevent.
The moral of the Gulf war is all the more important because the Gulf is not the only area of conflict; national and ethnic conflicts are flaring up even in Europe, which earlier at least appeared to be stable.
Last year's developments once more confirmed that justice and security are inseparable. Our common security depends upon moving towards a unity founded on generally valid principles of humanity, and this indicates the direction the United Nations should take.
The implementation of these principles would make it possible for the United Nations to play a more important role as an intermediary in conflicts that are of concern to us all - in Yugoslavia as well as in the Middle East. I think that the convening of a Middle East conference as well as the repealing of the resolution equating Zionism with racism would be steps in the right direction.
The very existence of a strong international organ can in many cases influence nations' behaviour, making it unnecessary to turn to force, which truly is the last resort. Reviewing the General Assembly agenda is sometimes a sad exercise. Year after year it stubbornly features a variety of prestigious items whose only point is to debate obsolete resolutions. Is there, for example, any point in dealing with dozens of disarmament resolutions adopted year after year in virtually unchanged form? The situation in which these issues are being resolved has fundamentally changed. Without questioning good intentions or underestimating persistent negotiating efforts, I suggest that actual results are incommensurate with the efforts and resources expended on these issues.
These efforts amount to little more than filling dusty archival shelves with stacks of unread printed matter. The problems I have just mentioned also touch upon United Nations activity in economic and social development. The most important phenomenon in the relationship of East and West is unquestionably the elimination of bipolarity. However, what should be truly instructive for the United Nations in the economic sphere is the absolute collapse of a system based on the idea of administrative redistribution of the property of the rich to benefit the poor.
And yet to a large extent the United Nations has so far based its activity on this very idea. This idea still pervades the existing concept of a new international economic order and a host of other documents. This is a blind alley. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe know from their own experience that such a system leads at best to stagnation, but more likely it leads to general and unstoppable decay. Czechoslovakia sadly corroborates this; it ranks today among the less developed countries and, like so many others, it feels an increased and urgent need for foreign assistance. Our attitude, however, is based on the premise that no assistance can be a lasting source of riches. It can only contribute to fundamental reforms which will allow us to create our wealth ourselves.
That does not mean that we are insensitive to the just requirements and needs of developing countries. Despite our own difficulties, we also want to contribute to helping them as efficiently as possible. Contrary to some of my predecessors, though, I am not here to recite false data on the extent of our foreign assistance. This assistance will, for the time being, be modest. However, it will be directed far more clearly at effective development programmes within the United Nations framework and it will increase as soon as our economic circumstances permit.
However, we are very concerned over shortcomings in the area of United Nations programmes. A substantial percentage of resources designated for development assistance is gobbled up by the bureaucracies of our own Organisation and of recipient countries, and too little remains for development proper. We all know about endless evaluation missions which will do anything to avoid the one important issue - an evaluation of their own uselessness. We cannot accept the existing insufficient coordination between various components of the United Nations system. We are quite baffled by the degree of their duplication - if this is indeed the right expression for not two but three or more United Nations agencies supporting separate offices in the same country, where each deals with the same problems but where, owing to the dispersion of efforts and funds nothing is actually solved.
We all feel the need for our Organization to adapt to the new requirements and increasing demands put on its activity. This is why changes are called for everywhere: in the composition of United Nations bodies, their mutual relationships and the way they operate, the extent of the Secretary-General's authority, the status of the Secretariat, and the financing of the United Nations.
However, changes are useful only if they result in something demonstrably better. I am encouraged that some such changes are already taking place. We are determined to help them along in every possible way.
In particular, I have in mind the transition from propaganda duels to realistic negotiations, from mechanical vote-counting to efforts to reach a consensus. These efforts should improve conditions for using preventive diplomacy and perhaps even for accepting the idea of an arbitration court, which could become an important mechanism for solving controversies. The opinions of Member States also reflect positive changes. Me are delighted that members of the Group of 7 stressed in their July meeting in London their determination to strengthen the United Nations and to turn it into a more powerful and effective instrument of peace, international security and protection of human rights.
Of course, we realise that it will not be easy to agree on which obstacles prevent the United Nations from working more effectively, and thus what needs to be changed. The role of the permanent members of the Security Council, for example, is one subject of discussion. We consider the principle of unanimity among Security Council permanent members a lasting one. No longer do we need to fear that ideological antagonisms will lead to a veto vote. Indeed, only now is the power of veto becoming an instrument of agreement because it forces the holders of that power to seek consensus solutions.
However, a number of other changes should be undertaken immediately. The sight of Foreign Ministers day after day presenting their countries' positions on every item of the agenda to an almost empty hall is somewhat comic. It should be possible to distribute written positions beforehand and devote meetings to the problems which actually burden us. With such a procedure, everyone would gladly attend. It should be possible, for example, to merge the Special Political and the decolonization Committees of the General Assembly. We must seriously evaluate the continuing utility of other bodies which carry on stereotyped discussions and act as though the entire raison d'etre of the United Nations were concentrated in their own existence. The question of the effectiveness of the General Assembly agenda is also an absolutely pressing one, executing such changes would in itself revitalise the United Nations Charter, making it unnecessary to revise it.
Our Organisation is approaching its fiftieth birthday. National and well-thought-out changes could create a significant revival on this anniversary.
In Prague last June our President, Vaclav Havel, offered some thoughts on the spirit needed to meet and shape our rapidly changing times. I believe that we could make the kinds of alterations I have been proposing in this spirit, and so, in concluding, I should like to quote Mr. Havel's remark. He said:
"In fact we are all somewhat taken by surprise by the magnitude and urgency of the task which issues from the magnitude of the hope opening up before us.
"What follows from all this? I would say two things: first, the obligation of not fearing daring, unconventional and radical decisions which lead towards the distant future and preparing for it; second, the obligation of understanding the difficult and broken terrain, at times quite risky in its opacity, on which we stand and on which we must make decisions."


Allow me at the outset, Sir, to convey to you, on behalf of the delegation of Egypt and on my own behalf, our sincere congratulations upon your assumption of the presidency of the General Assembly at the current session. Through you, I also congratulate your Sisterly country, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, with which Egypt has strong ties and firm bunds.
I have full confidence that with your renowned ability and experience you will guide the deliberations of this session in a manner that will allow it to address the problems of the world in harmony with the prevailing new spirit and in a manner conducive to serious dialogue and the achievement of the desired consensus towards laying the foundations of a new world.
I avail myself of this opportunity also to pay tribute to your predecessor, Mr. Guido de Marco, Foreign Minister of Malta, President of the forty-fifth session of the General assembly, for his excellent conduct of that session's business. During that session, the United Nations witnessed one of the most productive periods in its work in terms both of performance and achievement.
With the accession of new Members to the membership of the United Nations, our Organization has taken another important step on the road to universality, a goal we have all striven for since the Organization's establishment. It is with hope and optimism that we look forward to the contributions and positive participation of the new Members, which will undoubtedly enrich our collective work. From this rostrum, the delegation of Egypt would like to express its warmest congratulations to all these States.
This year's session is being held at a time when the international Organization has reached the middle of its fifth decade. During that time, it has witnessed moments of victory and moments of defeat. It has seen moments when the great hopes of the vision of a new secure world have been realized. It has also lived through moments of frustration and repeated failure to attain the noble objectives of the United Nations Charter, which were consecrated as a basis for a new life for peoples and nations. In the lives of peoples and nations there are moments and events which constitute decisive turning-points. He may fall to grasp the essence of such events because of their overwhelming magnitude. What has happened, and continues to happen, in our international life from not long ago until now represents, by any objective criterion, the emergence of a new pattern of relations which will undoubtedly reflect upon the work, structure and performance of the United Nations.
The world we see today is moving closer to that great vision of the founding Members, to that vision of the peoples of the United Nations when they declared their determination to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, and in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small.
The report the Secretary-General presented to this session reinforces our faith in the potential and ability of the United Nations system to move the world to new levels of peace, stability and security for all, to take the world to a stage where it would reaffirm, through the United Nations, the provisions of the Charter - probably for the first time in its history - by using the machinery of collective security to deter aggression and to restore international peace and security, thus allowing the United Nations to be a model and provide terms of reference for us all in our adherence to international legitimacy in all situations and in all conflicts, whatever their locations and their backgrounds may be.
The peoples and nations have paid a heavy price over 50 years of trial and effort to ensure that the vision expressed by the founding Members in San Francisco was not an unrealistic dream but rather an achievable, legitimate human wish. The only things that prevented that vision from coming into being were the chains and shackles which reined in the freedoms of the individual and the peoples. Those bonds chained human creative abilities. In a few months, the thought, the practice and the very systems of totalitarianism collapsed. The waves of intellectual, political and economic freedom are on the rise, and racist regimes and discriminatory practices shall retreat so that development may prevail among peoples in every corner of our planet.
Egypt, that ancient country as old as history itself, which saw the dawn of human civilization and on whose land the creative energy of mankind was first released, early sensed the winds of change. It was among the first States to foresee the new changes and, in fact, to predict and contribute to them. As a founding member of the world order in which we live today, Egypt will contribute, with an open mind and an enlightened sense of history, to the establishment of the new world. Egypt will do so just as it contributed, during the decades of its leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement, to the search for a world free of the cold war and of polarization and division, a world in which the freedoms of individuals and peoples would reign supreme.
The world we envisage through the eyes of our age-old civilization and our modern-day hopes is a world in which democracy and human rights would prevail, a world based on the equality of rights and responsibilities and on equal participation in decision-making. The new order for which we are working is not the sole responsibility of any one State or group of States. Rather, it is the responsibility of one and all. North and South, East and West, and must be to the benefit of all and protect the rights of all.
This, in our opinion, necessitates that the peoples and the States of the world take their stand on the right side of history: a stand on the side of justice, legitimacy and the rule of law, which are indispensable for laying
the foundations of peace security and stability. The reawakening which we are witnessing in the world around us strongly expresses the aspirations of peoples to assert their identities and to exercise their national rights, and the search for new standards in political life that would achieve what is right and just for all peoples without distinction or discrimination. Human rights and the rights of peoples transcend colour, race, and religious belief. They are not the monopoly of a certain nation nor are they the exclusive property of any one people. This is precisely what should be the meaning of the new world order whose features are evolving.
The practical expression of this reawakening lies in a concerted international effort to lay the foundations of peace in places where it has not yet been achieved; in the Middle East, South Africa, Afghanistan, Cyprus, Western Sahara, Cambodia and other areas of tension. Fortunately, persistent efforts are being exerted towards achieving settlements.
The Middle East has witnessed during the last few months and continues to witness persistent and serious efforts to advance the peace process from the stage of consultation to that of negotiation. There is no doubt that this is a sensitive stage: it needs patience, vision, and the ability to overcome obstacles, eliminate hurdles and dispel doubts. Moreover, it requires that all demonstrate sincere political will and good faith, which will chart a course and allow freedom of action. It is important to me, in this regard, to commend the initiative of the United States, launched by President Bush, to convene a Middle East peace conference, in the framework of which direct negotiations would be held on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), and the principle of land for peace.
With the recent major International developments, the Arab-Israeli conflict, with the Palestinian question at its core, has entered a new phase. The world is moving towards the settlement of disputes through dialogue and negotiation based on respect for international legitimacy, the principles of international law and the provisions of the Charter. The world is also showing greater respect for the will of peoples which yearn for freedom, independence.
In this regard, Egypt considers the recent decisions of the Palestinian National Council an important step on the road to peace. They constitute a positive contribution by the representative of the Palestinian people to the current peace process. The importance of such a contribution is very clear in view of the Palestinians' being a principal party in that process.
We aspire to create a favourable climate free from threats to the future of the settlement of the conflict. In all honesty and with a sense of responsibility, we affirm that the continuation of or the persistence in undertaking measures that destroy confidence and sow despair will only lead to a continuation of the vicious circle for years to come, hence exacerbating the causes of instability. During such a period the causes of instability will be further exacerbated. The whole Middle East will thus continue to be a hotbed of perpetual tension and confrontation.
Hence, persistence in the policy and practice of the constructing settlements in the occupied Arab and Palestinian territories, including Al-Quds and the Golan Heights, has a negative effect on the prospects for peace, as it attempts to entrench an illegal fait accompli that constitutes a violation of law and legitimacy.
Israel's persistence in pursuing its settlement policies will result in a shattering of the principle of "land for peace", as well as violating the letter and spirit of Security Council resolution 242 (1967), thus undermining international legitimacy. President Hosni Mubarak's initiative called for a halt in the building of settlements in exchange for a halt of the Arab economic boycott measures. This initiative still stands, and today I reaffirm it.
Sincere progress towards peace would necessitate, first and foremost, the immediate cessation of these policies and practices and the undertaking of measures that would restore the shaken confidence of all parties, so that the peace process can start in a favourable atmosphere. We have reached a decisive moment that now requires firm political will and courage. He call upon all to back the convening of the peace conference and the negotiations that will take place in its framework. We urge all to support the principle of "land for peace", and the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people and the security of all parties.
The will of the world, which backed, defended and imposed international legitimacy during the Gulf crisis, is called upon to fully understand all the dimensions of the situation in the Middle East in order to place it in its proper perspective within the context of the movement of today's world towards justice and legitimacy.
We have drawn many lessons from the Gulf crisis, not the least of which is that economic interdependence is closely linked to security interdependence and that security should be taken seriously in the context of global and regional legitimacy. On this premise, eight Arab countries have agreed, in the framework of the Damascus Declaration, on a specific mutual-security
arrangement among the Gulf States, Egypt and Syria. This arrangement is based on the instruments of joint Arab action and aims to lay the foundations of security on a cherished part of Arab land, on new bases of consensus and understanding, and on the firm determination to prevent the recurrence of what happened when Iraq invaded Kuwait. This grave error, which was a blow to the Arab system, also had serious repercussions on the international system. In this context, we reaffirm that the security of the Gulf region is part of Arab security, and that Arab security is part of international security.
It is imperative to affirm and uphold the integration and interdependence of regional and international legitimacies. Today's world is different from that of yesterday. It is actively on the march towards new wider and developing horizons. It is impossible, while this is the case, for a particular region to remain cocooned and to continue marching at a different pace, or to be isolated from world reality, burying its head in the sand, believing that it can remain secure from accountability and questioning.

On the other hand, the issue of security is closely linked with that of arms control and disarmament. This is a global endeavour with regional dimensions. As to the Middle East, the elimination of weapons of mass destruction is of prime importance. In this context, I reaffirm Egypt's initiative, declared by President Hosni Mubarak, for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, and especially nuclear weapons, from the region.
The elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the ideal formula for the security of the whole region, cannot be achieved but through an integrated, comprehensive framework applicable to all without exception or distinction. Such a framework must correct imbalances and eliminate quantitative and qualitative differences.
We are aware that historic successes in the field of disarmament were not achieved until the political environment was changed. Confrontation has been turned into dialogue, conflict into cooperation and suspicion into trust. Our region has its specific characteristics and its own political reality, which we cannot overlook but ought to change with responsible action by all parties without exception. The first such responsible action, which will constitute a sound step towards confidence-building, is the accession by Israel to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the full placing of all her nuclear installations under a safeguard regime.
The historic step, declared by President Bush a few days ago, of the United States' decision to relinquish her short-range nuclear weapons deserves our appreciation and welcome, both for its significance and for its far-reaching effects on efforts for arms control and disarmament, as well as for the strong impetus it gives to the new world order. Egypt feels satisfied that this initiative is receiving positive responses on the international level, and hopes that it may generate positive reaction on the regional level as well, with respect to non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in such areas of conflict as the Middle East.
The success and effectiveness of our Organization in laying the foundations of political settlements in Africa, Asia, Central America and even Europe were based on historic reconciliation between the parties, founded upon respect for the principles of international law, human rights, democracy, dialogue, negotiation, accommodation, and the utilization of the means of peaceful settlement of disputes- We cannot overlook the fact that the settlement of these disputes evolved, in no small measure, from the emergence of healthy democratic practices and the elimination of the odious differences resulting from racial discrimination. In this respect, we call upon South Africa to abolish, totally and unequivocally, apartheid and all its pillars, so that healthy and proper relations be established with South Africa and the international community may consider lifting the sanctions imposed upon the country.
If we truly wish to lay equitable foundations for tomorrow's world, the international community is called upon today to carry out a comprehensive review - conducted in a spirit of realism, dialogue, and shared responsibility - of international economic conditions. There is a need for a coordinated collective effort to arrive at a general framework for macroeconomic policies to restore balanced growth to the world economy and to revitalize development in the developing countries. The aim must be to ensure the full and active participation of the third world as a full partner, with equal rights and responsibilities, in the establishment of the new world order.
In order to achieve this, we must not lose sight of certain fundamental considerations. First, Africa, which constitutes a quarter of the world's land mass and whose population will represent one fifth of the world population by the end of this century, is facing an extremely serious situation, the consequences of which will go beyond the continent itself. History will not absolve us if we enter the twenty-first century with a continent of such great potential as Africa continuing to languish under the burdens of backwardness and poverty, with millions of its children dying of hunger and malnutrition. However prosperous some parts of our world may be, it will remain a poor world as long as Africa and other parts remain poor.
It is our hope that a full sense of this responsibility will be reflected in our review and appraisal of the United Rations Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development during this session. The Secretary-General's report provides a good basis for action in this regard. With the help of the data, information and suggestions it contains, we hope it will be possible to arrive at viable solutions that will enable Africa to embark on the road leading out of the abyss of underdevelopment and poverty.
Secondly, the international economic system is going to witness major changes emerging from the formation of large economic groupings in the North and the modest attempts at building regional economic groupings in the South, in addition to the dramatic changes taking place in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. At the same time, the largest part of the third world languishes under the burden of debt. It lacks technical and financial resources. It suffers from the imbalance of economic structures and from social disturbances, the deterioration of the rates of development, and the unjust terms of international trade. All this makes the world market as a whole more fragile. A biased view of the world economy threatens the onset of imbalances, the dangerous potential consequences of which make it incumbent upon the international community as a whole to show political will and adopt responsible economic policies to cure its ailing sections and save the healthy parts from infection.
Thirdly, human rights have become a basic issue on the international agenda. There is no disagreement today between developing and developed countries on the need for respect for human rights both domestically and internationally or on the obligation of States to ensure the basic freedoms of the individual, regardless of country of origin, race, religious faith or political affiliation. Yet human rights cannot be addressed in isolation from people's daily living conditions. This brings to the fore the direct link between human rights and socio-economic development. A balance must be struck between these two sides of the equation in a context encompassing international relations as a whole.
Fourthly, the problems of the environment, which are of global dimensions, should be solved through international cooperation within a balanced framework that takes into account the requirements of development in the developing countries and ensures that any measures to protect the global environment support the socio-economic development process of the developing countries. We hope that the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, to be held in Brazil in 1992, will mark the beginning of a comprehensive international effort and a joint programme of action for the protection of the environment and the achievement of development.
The achievement of development in all its dimensions would be incomplete without adequate attention to human development, primarily in the field of child care and the implementation of the Universal Declaration of the World Summit for Children.
If the new world order is to achieve political and economic stability, it must be founded upon close interaction between the developing world on the one hand, with its capabilities, potentials, resources, and rich historical heritage, and the developed world on the other, with all its achievements, contributions, experience and major scientific endeavours. This interaction must be a balanced and equal process in which the development of both sides goes hand in hand, their steps are harmonized, and their interests equally guaranteed.
From this perspective, based on the interdependence and integration of international relations, Egypt submits its approach towards a framework relating to the developed and developing world in terms of their objectives, issues and interests. First, Egypt calls for the establishment of a common forum that would group under its aegis the Non-Aligned Movement and all the developing countries, known as the Group of 77, for their commonality of interest and the closeness of their objectives and priorities. This forum would represent a new unified movement for all the nations of the world in the emerging order of this last decade of the twentieth Century.
Secondly, Egypt calls for genuine concrete support for the United Nations in the new international relations through the enhancement of its operational effectiveness and the development of its mechanisms as instruments for the maintenance of international peace and security, and for the implementation of its resolutions, which all represent international legitimacy.
Thirdly, Egypt reaffirms the close inter linkage and interdependence of regional and global security in all cases of stability or tension. Geography is no longer a principal factor of security. It no longer distances regions or ensures the inviolability of States. Sheer power in the hands of a few does not guarantee peace for all.
The new order dawning upon our modern era will not be one whose parts are estranged or alienated, but rather a world whose regions - be they large or small, developed or developing - will come closer together in a framework of deeper relations, integrated security systems, comprehensive peace, equal justice, balanced and sustained development. If our determination is strong and sincere, the new world order will mark the beginning of a new history for mankind. And a new beginning it must be.


Mr. President, on behalf of the Government and the people of New Zealand let me first congratulate you on your election. It has certainly been a momentous year both for you and for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
I should like also to pay tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Peres de Cuellar, who has worked tirelessly over the past 10 years towards the reduction of tension throughout the world. As he comes to the end of a decade of service I offer to the Secretary-General my congratulations, and those of the Government and the people of New Zealand on his personal contribution to the cause of peace.
I am delighted to join you, Sir, in welcoming new Members to this forty-sixth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. In particular I want to welcome the Federated States of Micronesia - a new member of this body, but a familiar friend to my country as host of the most recent meeting of South Pacific Forum nations. I am delighted that they and their close neighbours, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, are joining us at this time.
It is a source of immense satisfaction that we see here today for the first time the legitimate representatives of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. I pay tribute to the courage and determination of these three European nations that have struggled against totalitarian rule for so long. Their international recognition as independent sovereign States brings to an end a chapter in their history when they were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1940.
Their independence and membership of this Organisation coupled with the membership of the Republic of Korea, which I warmly welcome, and the membership of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea signal the end of an era, or more importantly the beginning of a new era, in international relations.
New opportunities in politics and trade command our attention. New problems constantly challenge our capabilities. In Yugoslavia, we see a situation that cries out for peaceful resolution. Mediation has been tried. It must be tried again. It will never be successful unless and until the parties to the conflict are prepared to commit themselves fully to the process. So my Government appeals to all other members of the international community that might have some influence - direct or indirect - to use that Influence to persuade the parties to the conflict to commit themselves to mediation if they cannot resolve their differences peacefully on their own.
Today the problems may look intractable but difficult issues can be solved. Already the change in global politics has been rewarded by significant progress in the field of disarmament. The super-Powers have committed themselves to substantial reductions in their arsenals of nuclear weapons. While the world warmly welcomes each new step in the reduction of nuclear weapons agreed to by the super-Powers, this progress is undermined by the actual or potential proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations. Therefore on arms control nothing is more important than moves to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
New Zealand, as one of the first nations to sign and ratify the United Nations Non-Proliferation Treaty, firmly believes that attempts to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons must be an agenda item of the highest priority for the Organisation. The dangers from nuclear weapons are such that a failure to halt their proliferation would seriously diminish the recent success in strategic arms reductions.
We welcome the decisions of France and the people's Republic of China to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Now that the Treaty will cover all the current nuclear Powers of the world. New Zealand urges all parties to agree to its indefinite extension in 1995.
In singling out nuclear weapons for particular attention, I do not in any way diminish the work needed to control other weapons of mass destruction, such as those using chemical or biological agents.
The importance of the task of stopping the proliferation of all weapons of mass destruction should be firmly embedded in the minds of thinking people everywhere following the fearful possibility that Saddam Hussein would use such weapons during his illegal take-over of the State of Kuwait. That act of aggression tested the strength and commitment of this world body.

We can all take pride in the fact that the leadership shown by the United Nations in the exercise of its undoubted moral authority was successful in facilitating the coming together of a great coalition of nations who were determined that the might of Saddam Hussein would not succeed and that Kuwait would be restored to its independent sovereign status. During the dangerous weeks of the Gulf crisis the United Nations, with strong leadership from the Security Council, showed firmness of judgment and a commitment to the ideals of the United Nations that has reinforced the status and authority of this Organisation. The Security Council was able to reflect accurately the mood of the General Assembly because of its broad representation aerobe regional lines and its inclusion of the small and vulnerable as well as the large and powerful.
I want to pay a warm tribute to Kuwait's Arab neighbours, who were resolute in their support of the rights of a small independent nation and refused to back down to intimidation or threats. Their steadfastness in the early stages of the crisis was a major reason why Kuwait was eventually liberated.
The role of the United States in bringing together the coalition of nations who worked in concert to liberate Kuwait was an impressive display of international diplomacy. United States forces, with their British, French and Arab counterparts, gave an equally impressive display on the ground and in the air. But overriding the achievements of the individual nations was the commitment given by nations, large and small, to the military task force that gathered to halt aggression and to guarantee the independent sovereign rights of the small nation, Kuwait. I am proud that my country played a small part in that coalition and has been able to contribute to the post-war United Nations commissions, such as that on the disposal of weapons of mass destruction.
As a small country in the south-west Pacific, we do not threaten anyone, nor do we peek to impose our will on other countries. But in joining the coalition we honoured a New Zealand tradition to oppose tyranny and support freedom. Luckier than a number, all our military personnel came home safely on this occasion, but many of their forebears in pursuit of the same goals rest alongside the battlefields of the modern world. We have never shirked our responsibilities.
As we opposed a dictator in the Gulf, freedom-loving people around the world have rejoiced as we have witnessed, too, the collapse of totalitarian communism in Europe. That system was defeated not by force of arms but by ordinary people, in their hundreds of thousands, reaching in the streets to reclaim their God-given right to freedom of thought, expression and assembly and their right to democratic government. It has been a glorious victory for the indomitable spirit of the human person.
But let me sound a note of warning: this impressive victory could turn to bitterness, and hope to despair, unless all nations show equal courage in addressing an equally unprecedented economic challenge. The helping hand that both the emerging democracies of Europe and the developing countries of the world need most is the hand of trade. So, today, the barricades we must pull down are not those erected to prevent tanks but those erected to hinder trade.
To sustain and secure the dramatic political changes that have occurred, to deny dictators the excuse for coveting others' territory, to ease the
crushing debt burdens that too many countries face, to provide an economic alternative to the destruction of our environment - to do all these things, and more, we have to realise that a change in the international trading system is essential. Without change, how can the new democracies in Europe do what they want to do for their people if their exports face restrictions in foreign markets? How can debt-ridden developing nations ever pay their way if they face not only similar restrictions but subsidised competition too?
This is not a debate that can be drawn wholly across North-South lines, because trade restrictions occur on both sides, as does subsidisation. This is a debate about giving meaning to the many fine words, about helping those who are struggling to escape poverty, and about securing the democratic freedoms so recently won. This is a debate about complementing aid with trade.
The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations began nearly five years ago. It was, and remains, the moat ambitious of all the trade negotiating rounds. Yet it is in real danger of faltering if the political commitments that were given in 1986, and have been repeated since then - moat recently at the G-7 meeting this year - are not translated into the substantive decisions that are already overdue.
A country like mine, dependent on trade for its very livelihood, finds it incredible that political and economic leaders who are responsible in so many things, who are participating in, and encouraging, the dawn of a new political era, have not yet broken the log-jam in the negotiations. Certainly the G-7 group of industrialised countries, under the chairmanship of the British Prime Minister, gave us cause for new hope. Certainly the United States has been, and remains, a strong proponent of a liberalised international trading system. Thoughtful leaders In the European Community, and many leaders in the developing world, have all called for greater progress.
But it seems to be a case of words, words and more words, but little action. If we are to succeed, action must now take the place of words. Time is running out. The alternative to a successful and substantive conclusion to the Uruguay Round is often said to be a series of trade blocs - groups of countries turning in on themselves, failing to realise their full competitive advantage) surviving, perhaps, but at a lower and more unstable level than would be possible in a liberal world trading system.
All this is quite possible, but I suggest that it is not the worst-case scenario. The worst-case scenario is those countries that have found new freedoms having those freedoms taken away by regimes who use the excuse of the need for economic control of disintegrating economies as a cover for political oppression; it is having stable countries being made less stable because they cannot earn the foreign exchange necessary to provide for the legitimate aspirations of their people; it is turning the clock back rather than forward.
With a view to avoiding that - and avoid it we must - I make a plea from this rostrum that the barricades that prevent fair trade be taken down. And if the powerful will not do it to help the weak, then they should do it for the selfish reason that it is the only way the world will secure a lasting peace. Trade between nations is what breaks down fear, and the sharing of resources by trade is what prevents ware of acquisition. If the selfish win, if the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade fails, then today's leaders will have planted the seed of future conflicts. That is a strong message, but it is no more so than the seriousness of the situation warrants.
Let us achieve a milestone in the progress of international trade this year, so that we can move forward with confidence to the United Nations Conference on Environment, and Development next year. A free and fair trade system is central to our efforts to conserve and enhance the environment. We have already made progress on issues such as driftnet fishing and with the Montreal Osona Protocol) but we need to maximise these gains by ensuring that States fully observe the measures that have been adopted in such fields. Next year's United Nations Conference in Brazil will be the real test of our ability to cooperate in the endeavour to find the proper balance between development and environmental protection. My country is the first anywhere to enshrine the concept of sustainable development in legislation on natural resources.
Just before I departed from New Zealand seven students from seven continents of the world lit a candle for peace in front of Maori tukutuku panels symbolising the seeking of knowledge. They were greeting the dawning of this new session of the United Nations General Assembly. The students participated in this ceremony in New Zealand because ours is one of the first countries to see the sun rise, and a ceremony at dawn is the traditional Maori way to acknowledge a new beginning.
We in this Assembly can all rejoice in that we are seeing new beginnings in many parts of the world: in Europe, in Cambodia, in South Africa. We must not let this moment in history pass; we must now replace an understanding of how to destroy each other with a new understanding of how to live and trade with each other. It is my most fervent hope and prayer that this great assembly of nations has the moral courage to do not only what is necessary but what is right.