It is, Sir, a pleasure to express to you on
behalf of the delegation of the Republic of Iraq
and on my own behalf warmest congratulations on
your election as President of the thirty-seventh
session of the General Assembly. I am sure that
you will conduct the proceedings of this session
with all the wisdom and knowledge you are known
for, and I wish you success in discharging the
duties of your high post. May I also express our
appreciation for the Great Spirit of co-operation
which the General Assem¬bly showed Mr. Kittani,
President of the thirty-sixth session. We are
satisfied that he enjoyed the confidence and
appreciation of this esteemed body, which made it
possible for him to perform his functions most
efficiently at the last session. I would also
take this opportunity to express whole-hearted
congratulations and best wishes for success to
Mr. Perez de Cuellar on his election as
Secretary-General. I am confident that he will be
able to fulfill the functions of his
distinguished post and to deal with momentous
international events requiring him to exercise
all the virtues of knowledge, patience and wisdom
for which he is known.
67.	The world is going through a delicate and
fright¬ening era unprecedented since the Second
World War. Undoubtedly the tense world situation,
with all the grave consequences that could flow
from such a state of affairs, is being steadily
exacerbated because of the intensifying rivalry
among the great Powers, which jeopardizes world
security and peace and disturbs the confidence of
peoples and their aspira¬tions to achieve detente
and peaceful coexistence. This hazardous
phenomenon engulfs the third world coun¬tries,
particularly the non-aligned ones. It presents
them with the dangers of confrontation and the
devastating effects of tensions, and it threatens
to expand the centers of polarization by luring
third world nations and bringing pressure to bear
upon them in a bid to exhaust material and human
resources that otherwise would be used to achieve
security, stability and development for those
nations.
68.	What the great Powers and colonial States
are reluctant to accept is the fact that the non-
aligned nations, which forced their way to
freedom and sovereignty through decades of
struggle and a deter¬mination to achieve full
independence and to exer¬cise their free will,
are determined not to form part of military blocs
that are engaged in global conflict and to steer
clear of the currents generated by the centers of
polarization. No wonder, then, that conflict
persists between the non-aligned movement on the
one side and colonialism, including Zionism, on
the other.
69.	Iraq, being a non-aligned State, backs
the policy of independence which any State might
pursue. It maintains that all States should
manage their affairs on the basis of the
fundamental principles of the United Nations and
in accordance with their legitimate national
interests that are compatible with those
principles, regardless of the requirements of
bloc policies and cold war. That would serve the
cause of maintaining world peace and encouraging
the trend towards progress and freedom, as well
as political and economic independence, and the
cause of extending the principles of justice and
equality to all nations, regardless of size,
affiliation and of any power con¬siderations.
70.	Iraq abides by the principles of
non-alignment and wishes to advance the
non-aligned movement, to maintain a sound
relationship among its members and to promote its
effective role in international relations. Iraq
is also determined to implement those principles
in order to ensure security, justice and economic
well-being. Thus, over 10 years ago, Iraq offered
to host the Seventh Conference of Heads of State
or Government of Non-Aligned Countries at
Baghdad. Indeed, it was those very principles
which prompted Iraq not to insist that the
Conference be held at the scheduled time and
place, despite the elaborate preparations made
for it, including the drafting of relevant
declarations and documents, and despite the fact
that all the administrativeand technical
requirements had been met. Iraq had earlier sent
out invitations to all heads of State or
Government of countries of the movement and, in
fact, had received answers accepting the
invitation from the great major¬ity of them.
Thus, Iraq honored all its obligations towards
the movement and the Seventh Conference.
71.	What should, however, be emphasized in
this regard is that Iraq did not, from the
outset, present its bid to host that non-aligned
conference in order to gain publicity or as a
national objective. Rather, Iraq's initiative
came to underscore its international good name,
not to create one by so doing. Iraq viewed the
matter with a sense of responsibility and concern
for the well-being of the movement, both at
present and in the future, for non aligned
principles constitutes a major component of our
foreign policy and we believe that the strength
and dignity of Iraq are identi¬cal to the
strength and dignity of the movement.
72.	Being proud of our commitment to the
movement and anxious about its future and the
development of its capability to face world
events and in order to avoid possible division in
the ranks of the movement's members, we declared
our intention not to insist on holding the
Seventh Conference in Iraq, as we recog¬nized
that some circles within the movement took
seriously, either in good faith or otherwise, the
black¬mail and attempts at obfuscation carried
out by Iran. There is no doubt that Iran's
behavior simply demonstrates the
short-sightedness of the rulers of Iran and their
ignorance concerning the importance of the
non-aligned movement and their lack of belief in
ft. One cannot rule out the possibility that
Iran's objective is to undermine and weaken the
movement and to diminish its role as an effective
Power in inter¬national relations by resorting to
blackmail and threats as well as by encouraging
the enemies of the movement to belittle it.
73.	The non-aligned movement considers the
ques¬tion of Palestine to be its problem and is
committed to supporting the struggle of the
Palestinian people to realize their inalienable
national rights. It empha¬sizes that that
struggle is one of the responsibilities of the
non-aligned countries. Obviously, the question o?
Palestine is at the core of the Middle East
problem and represents the essence of the
Arab-Zionist con¬flict. Unless a just,
comprehensive and lasting solu-tion is found that
is acceptable to the Palestinian people and
satisfies their national aspirations, peace
cannot be established in the area and a state of
con¬tinuous conflict will persist, with all its
continuing implications for world peace and
security. Meanwhile, lot it be known that might
no matter how over¬whelming, will not dampen the
zeal of patriotism and will not suppress the
revolutionary urge of the people. Therefore, to
achieve genuine peace in the area, the Zionist
entity must withdraw unconditionally from all
occupied Arab territories and the estab¬lished
inalienable national rights of the Palestinian
people, including the right to return to their
homeland, Palestine, should be restored as should
their properties, their right to exercise
self-determination and their right to establish
their own independent, fully sover¬eign State.
Moreover, Jerusalem must be recognized as part of
occupied Palestinian territory and the Zionist
entity must withdraw from it. There should also
be recognition of the PLO, the sole legitimate
representative of the Palestinian people, and it
should be enabled to exercise its right to
participate in all conferences and activities
relating to the question of Palestine on an equal
footing and standing with all parties concerned.
Further, existing Zionist settle¬ments on Arab
territories must be removed, and the policy of
establishing new ones there must be
discon¬tinued. In addition, confiscation of Arab
land must cease.
74.	The latest form of brutal aggression by
the military forces of the Zionist entity was the
war of mass annihilation against the PLO and the
helpless, homeless refugees in camps in various
parts of Leba¬non. That war was launched in the
first week of last June and continued through the
last week of August. There then took place a
massacre such as has never been witnessed in
modem times. Those racist mali¬cious forces
brought destruction to all the towns and villages
of southern Lebanon and slaughtered tens of
thousands of innocent Palestinians and Lebanese,
who were buried under debris in mass graves.
Those forces wrought devastation and havoc in
that part of Lebanon, which is an independent
neutral State, a founding member of both the
United Nations and of the non-aligned movement.
The forces of the Zionist enemy unleashed the
burning fire of its military machine from land,
air and sea at Palestinian refugee camps, killing
unarmed children, women and the elderly,
destroying plantations and reducing buildings and
houses to rubble. Those forces pursued their
crimes in west Beirut and its suburbs, exposing
their latent hatred to the extent of cutting off
water, medi¬cine, food and electricity from the
residents while bombarding the city with heavy
artillery and con¬tinuing air and sea attacks for
many hours daily for several weeks. Many shells
and rockets were fired indiscriminately at
residential communities and civilian
installations, causing the loss of thousands of
human lives; it will not be possible to assess
the amount of property destroyed for a long time.
75.	The barbaric invading forces did not stop
at genocide and brutal acts committed throughout
Lebanon. They also organized a massacre in Beirut
on 16 September 1982. Over 3,000 unarmed
Palestinians were annihilated for no reason
except that they were Palestinians. This racist
massacre outraged the entire world, including
even the traditional friends of the perpetrators.
The damage at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps
is a disgraceful stain on the history of mankind
that will never be forgotten. The inter¬national
community is called upon to take, through the
international organs of the United Nations, the
appropriate deterrent measures, to condemn
cate¬gorically the actions and policies of the
Zionist entity, to impose sanctions that are
proportionate to its horrifying acts, and to
consider seriously disqualifying it as a Member
of the Organization, for its presence here
constitutes a challenge to the Charter as well as
to all human norms and conduct.
76.	The Foreign Minister of the Zionist
entity declared on 6 September 1982 that the
condition which his Government set for withdrawal
of its forces from southern Lebanon and the
termination of its military occupation of the
area was agreement by Lebanon to sign a peace
treaty with the Zionist entity. He also said that
certain agreements needed to be introduced
regarding southern Lebanon, to ensure the
security of the State of Israel. At the same
time, the Zionist Minister of Defense declared
that the invading forces would remain deployed in
southern Lebanon for at least 15 years. In our
view, such a condition and determination
illustrates the intention of the Zionist entity
to proceed with its expansionist plan of annexing
parts of southern Lebanon, including control of
the Litani River and other water resources, as
one further step towards the realization of
Zionist ambitions for the establishment of
Greater Israel.
77.	Hence, in view of this grave situation,
we believe that the United Nations should live up
to its respon¬sibilities and stand firmly by the
side of Lebanon as a free, independent and fully
sovereign State and a founding Member of the
United Nations, and should ensure the immediate
and unconditional withdrawal of the Zionist
entity behind the Lebanese borders. Also, the
Security Council, in particular, should take
appropriate action to eliminate aggression
against Lebanon should the Zionist entity refuse
to withdraw immediately and unconditionally from
Lebanese territory. In our view, the appropriate
action which the Security Council should take is
the imposition of deterrent sanctions against the
Zionist entity. Fore¬most among such sanctions
should be the suspension of its membership in the
Organization and the imposition of a
comprehensive embargo against it. This would, of
course, require a show of will by the United
States to act seriously in the exercise of its
responsibilities as a great Power claiming to
have an interest in the question of security and
peace and alleging concern for the good name of
the United Nations. It is indeed high time for
the American Administration to recognize- that
its policy towards the Arab Zionist conflict are
not serve the interests of the American people
and is in contradiction with their renowned
traditions. Thus it is incumbent upon the United
States Government to uphold justice and equity
and to display courage and political will, free
from the pressure of the Zionist minority.
78.	The danger of the Zionist entity in the
Middle East is not limited to aggression
committed at such time and place as it might deem
proper in order to achieve its colonial
expansionist goals, thus jeopar¬dizing peace in
the area and impeding the development programmes
required for the resurgence of the Arab nation
and its economic and social progress. In fact it
goes beyond all that to threaten to continue its
intensive effort in developing the Zionist
nuclear program for military purposes and using
it against the Arab countries. It is no longer a
secret that the Zionist entity has now acquired a
number of nuclear bombs and weapons, with the
relevant systems to direct and deliver them
against any part of the Arab world. It is indeed
regrettable that no great Power has paid serious
attention to this imminent danger which threatens
more than the Middle East. The great Powers cared
neither about the non-accession by the Zionist
entity to the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons nor about its non¬compliance with
the Treaty safeguards. Furthermore, the Zionist
entity refused to allow IAEA to carry out
inspection measures in regard to the Zionist
nuclear reactors and programmes. Thus the
Zionists were encouraged by this to escalate and
intensify their aggression against the Arab
nation, as they had learned from repeated
experience that any aggres¬sion committed by them
would pass without serious attention being paid
to it by the great Powers, espe¬cially the United
States of America, and would not result in any
sanctions or other practical action, regardless
of the dimensions of the aggression and even if
it involved human loss.
79.	The clearest evidence proving the
deliberate cover-up of the repeated Zionist acts
of aggression by some great Powers and their
failure to shoulder their responsibilities was
the raid by Zionist planes of American
manufacture on 7 June 1981 on the Iraqi nuclear
installations, despite the fact that those
instal¬lations, as certified by IAEA, were meant
for strictly peaceful purposes and were subject
to regular inter¬national inspection.
80.	Iraq firmly adheres to the principles of
the Charter which call for the policy of the
charter which use of force, settlement of
international dispute by peaceful means and
non-interference in the domestic affairs of other
countries. Although Iraq strove to establish good
relations with Iran after the fall of the Shah's
regime, all cur endeavors were in vain in
persuading rulers of Iran to cease their acts of
provocation, aggression ant3 interference in our
internal affairs, as well as to fulfill their
international obligations towards Iraq.
81.	That remained our approach in dealing
with Iran even after it started its armed
aggression against Iraq on 4 September 1980.
Since that day, the Presi¬dent of the Republic of
Iraq. Mr. Saddam Hussein, has stressed the fact
that we look forward to enjoying relations of
good-neighborliness with the countries of the
region, including in particular Iran, and that
Iraq has neither any territorial ambitions in
Iran nor any intention of waging war against it,
nor does Iraq intend to expand the scope of the
conflict with Iran beyond the defense of its
rights and sovereignty. But the armed Iranian
aggression against us has continued at an intense
level to this very day, while the Iranian regimehas
declined to respond in a spirit of constructive
co-operation to any of the international
endeavors to settle the dispute and has turned
down all the peaceful initiatives put forward by
Iraq to reach a just and honorable solution. The
rulers of Iran favor the continuance of
aggression, and that can only be interpreted as
evidence of their desire for expansion at the
expense of our country; as at first stage, to be
followed by Iran's overrunning the Arab countries
of the Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, for
the purpose of colonial expansion and the
con¬solidation of a reactionary regime and in
order even¬tually to force our region back into
the Dark Ages, in which racism and religious
intolerance would reign supreme.
82.	Our peace initiatives with Iran were
submitted at a meeting of the Security Council on
12 July of this year, at which meeting the
Council adopted resolution 3 64 (1982). Iraq
welcomed that resolution, whereas Iran rejected
it. It is well known that between the eve of the
adoption of that resolution and 30 July the
Iranian regime launched a series of massive
military acts of aggression against Iraqi
territory to the east of Basra, an account of
which is contained in docu¬ment A/37/428. It
should be recalled here that the Arab countries
took a unified position in support of Iraq at the
Twelfth Arab Summit Conference held in Fez early
this September, after the expansionist intentions
of the Iranian regime had become crystal¬lized in
a tangible fashion. The Arab Summit Con¬ference
adopted a clear and firm decision expressing the
Arab countries' support for and solidarity with
Iraq and their willingness to implement the
Common Defense Pact of the members of the League
of Arab States. The entire region would be in a
new and dangerous situation were the Iranian
regime to proceed further with its plan. We
should like to draw the attention of the world
public to th s development, which is obviously
fraught with potential dangers. The full
responsibility for the consequences of a possible
confrontation between Iran and the Arab States as
a whole would therefore be Iran's alone.
83.	At a time when efforts to settle the
dispute and stop the fighting are being made by
the United Nations, which is a source of hope in
all peace-loving nations, the Iranian regime is
carrying out a further act of aggression against
the central sector of Iraq. By the morning of 1
October 1982 Iran had made four large- scale
attacks. The Security Council discussed this
matter on 4 October and unanimously adopted
resolution 322 (1982), in which the Council
recalled its two earlier resolutions and urged
Iran once again to act in accordance with the
principles of the United Nations by settling the
dispute by peaceful means and emulating Iraq's
co-operative attitude to the Council.
84.	My delegation will explain to the General
Assem¬bly in detail the peace initiatives Iraq
has taken in order to reach a just and honorable
settlement of the dispute with Iran when the
Assembly debates agenda item 134, entitled
Consequences of the prolongation of the armed
conflict between Iran and Iraq . At this
juncture, I should like to say that Iraq has
given adequate proof of its good intentions and
of its. Sincere desire to see peace and security
estab-lished m our region, which is of
significant importance to international peace and
security. The rejection by the rulers of Iran of
all peace initiatives indicates that they lack a
sense of responsibility for security and
stability in the area, and this could exacerbate
the disturbances and tension there, lead to an
escalation of the conflict and jeopardize
international peace and security. I would also
like to stress that should Iran continue its
intransigence and its rejection of the call for
peace and persist in its aggression, Iraq would
inevitably have to resist that aggression by all
the means available to it in the exercise of its
legitimate right to self-defense. In the mean
time, we believe that the Iraq-Iran dispute
warrants the General Assembly's maximum attention
and care, since it represents a test of its will
and of the strength of the Charter. By the same
token, any success in this endeavor will enhance
the chances of peace and will prevent further
deterioration of the situation in that sensitive
and dangerous part of the world.
85. Racial crimes, including the policies of
Zionism and political doctrines based on racial
discrimination are still being committed in many
parts of the world, in spite of the fact that
such crimes violate the Charter, the principles
of non-alignment and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Although the Decade to Combat
Racism and Racial Discrimination is now drawing
towards its end, and although it has produced
some positive results, certain regimes—especially
the Zionist entity and the racist minority regime
in South Africa—still refuse to accede to the
International Convention on the Suppression and
Punishment of the Crime of In this regard, a more
serious position against them should be adopted,
with stronger condemnation, in order that the
peoples of South Africa and Namibia, along with
all the liberation movements in Africa and Latin
America, may achieve their aspirations to
freedom, inde¬pendence and self-determination.
36. It is important to recall that the
reactionary racist regime in South Africa
violates all values, and that it was owing to its
antagonistic stand that the most recent meeting,
held at Geneva, on the imple¬mentation of the
United Nations plan for the inde¬pendence of
Namibia proved abortive. We must also mention the
conclusions of the International Conference on
Sanctions against South Africa, which was held in
Paris in 1981, and commend the declara¬tions it
adopted/ which, in keeping with the Charter,
reject racist concepts.
87.	Furthermore, we should like to draw
attention to the fact that a number of Western
countries, and the Zionist entity, boycotted that
humanitarian con¬ference. While the great
majority of the States Mem¬bers of the United
Nations supported General Assem¬bly resolution
36/172, which calls for comprehensive mandatory
sanctions under Chapter VII of the Charter
against the racist regime in Pretoria, the same
group of Western countries and the Zionist entity
continue to take negative positions. That
confirms their collusion with the racist regime
in South Africa and their deal¬ings with it in
the economic, trade, diplomatic and military
areas, as well as the development and
co-ordination of joint action with that regime in
the nuclear field, including the production of
enriched uranium. Obviously, such behaviour on
the part of Western countries and the Zionist
entity constitutes a flagrant violation of
Security Council resolution 418 (1977) and of the
relevant General Assembly resolu¬tions, and
encourages the racialist regime in Pretoria to
pursue its policy of aggression against the
peoples of Namibia and South Africa, and to
disregard any action, even if adopted by the
overwhelming majority of Members of the United
Nations.
88.	The practices of the racial minority
regime in Pretoria are not limited only to the
peoples of Namibia and South Africa, but also
include the artificial creation of crises and
other conditions, as well as the recruit¬ment of
mercenaries to commit military aggression against
many independent peaceful African States,
especially Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho,
Swaziland and Seychelles. Apart from violating
the security and sovereignty of the countries of
the region,
such acts of aggression always result in the
killing of large numbers of unarmed civilians and
poor peasants and in the destruction of their
homes and farms.
89.	We therefore appeal to the international
commu¬nity, and especially to the Western
countries which are permanent members of the
Security Councill, not to block the efforts made
to put an end to the aggres¬sion by the racial
minority in South Africa, through the imposition
of legitimate sanctions against that regime under
Chapter VII of the Charter.
90.	The world economy is passing through a
very serious stage, in which a heavy burden is
being placed on the developing countries in
particular. The dimen¬sions of the situation are
reflected in: receding eco¬nomic activity and
growth; increasing balance-of- payments deficits
in the developing countries and a decline in the
prices of their export commodities; rising
unemployment figures; monetary inflation; the
adverse effects of high rates of interest in the
world markets on foreign loans to the developing
coun¬tries; a weakening of the flow of
multilateral assist¬ance on favorable conditions;
dwindling supplies of foodstuffs; increasing
protectionism exercised by the industrial
countries against exports of the developing
countries; harsh and unfavorable conditions for
the transfer of technology to the developing
world; deliberate control of raw material prices
with adverse effects on the terms of trade of the
developing countries; and the recurrent
application of irrespon¬sible concepts, such as
gradualism, selectivity and discrimination, which
are being introduced by the industrial nations in
their trade transactions with the developing
world. AH those factors impede the efforts made
by the developing countries to secure their
economic growth, to continue interest payments on
their foreign debts and to meet their basic needs
for imported goods.
91.	The developing countries sought seriously
and sincerely to maintain a constructive dialogue
with the industrialized countries in a bid to
restructure the world economy on just and
balanced terms. But the industrial nations were
not responsive to such endeavors and initiatives.
On the contrary, some of them even opposed any
international action to improve the world
economic situation. Among the vital issues raised
by the developing countries was the initiation of
global economic talks within the frame¬work of
the United Nations. Ever since the eleventh
special session of the General Assembly, held in
1980, obstacles have remained in the way of
initiating those important and essential
negotiations. There¬fore, Iraq and all other
developing countries support the call for
starting those talks as early as possible, and we
urge all States that oppose them to reconsider
their positions in the interests of us all.
92.	The Group of 77 this year submitted
constructive and moderate proposals to resolve
the question of starting such negotiations, but
those proposals did not suit some industrial
nations.
93.	The problems of debts and cash liquidity
which face the developing countries have become
so dan¬gerous and pressing as to require an
overall solution. In our judgment, the industrial
countries bear great responsibility in this
connection. At their recent annual meeting the
World Bank and IMF recommended some measures to
alleviate the financial burden weigh¬ing on the
developing countries. Those measures, however, do
not go far in addressing the essence of the
problem, a problem which is due basically to the
failure of the existing world monetary system to
develop along with the changes that have been
taking place since the Second World War.
Moreover, those measures constituted a mere
reaction to the crisis, which is assuming
intolerable dimensions, and there fore cannot be
considered as remedial measures in the true sense
of the word.
94.	Iraq was among the first countries to
diagnose the nature of the economic problems that
are plaguing the world. That is why the President
of the Republic of Iraq has proposed the
establishment of a world fund for long-term
assistance to developing countries. The proposed
fund would help them to cope both with the
effects of inflation passed on to them by the
industrial countries, and with the increasing
bill for their oil imports. This vital plan,
which was wel¬comed at the Sixth Conference of
Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned
Countries, held at Havana in 1979, was the
subject of extensive discussion by experts of the
Group of 77 at a meeting they held at Baghdad in
March 1982. An outline of the fund was drawn up
and later approved by the co-ordination and
follow-up Committee of the Group of 77, which met
at Manila in August this year. That Committee
decided to recommend the inclusion of the Iraqi
proposal in the list of items to be discussed in
the global negotiations. We now trust that the
industrial¬ized countries will seriously consider
this plan, which we hope will eventually be
translated into action.
95.	Economic co-operation among the
developing countries has undoubtedly become more
important in recent years. Iraq, as a developing
country, views this matter as a major component
of its foreign policy, and it contributes to many
regional and international funds. We also try to
help to enhance and promote such co-operation
through bilateral agreements. I should like to
recall in this regard that the High- Level
Conference on Economic Co-operation among
Developing Countries held in Caracas in 1981
approved an overall program for such co-operation
and that the developing countries are in the
process of implementing it.
96.	We catll upon all the industrial nations
and the international institutions to take all
possible action to ensure a constant and
increasing flow of assistance to the developing
world to help to maintain that co-operation. At
this point we must emphasize, however, that the
expansion of economic co-operation among the
developing countries does not relieve the
industrial countries of their responsibilities
towards the devel¬oping nations.


The recent visit of the Prime Minister of Malta to Hungary is
sufficient indication of the close relations existing between our two
countries, therefore it gives me all the more pleasure to compliment
Mr. Hollai on his unanimous election to preside over this important
session. We also compliment Mr. Kittani of Iraq on his
record-breaking performance last year.
Our presence in the Assembly is a token of our collective commitment
to the processes of peace in inter-State relations which the United
Nations offers in opposition to the processes of violence and
aggression which have marred human history for unsold ages. Yet, in
spite of this commitment, we are all aware of the reality that once
again the methods of violence and conflict are on the increase in
intercourse among nations. In Asia we are disturbed by the events in
Kampuchea and Afghanistan, in Africa by the continuing aggression and
inhumanity of South Africa, in Latin America by the recently
concluded conflict in the Falklands. In the Middle East we have still
not recovered from the shock of the appalling events in Lebanon,
which form a tragic climax to the escalating policy of illegality and
outrage perpetrated by Israel in its relentless aggression against
the Palestinian people, its annexation of occupied territories, its
attack on Iraqi nuclear installations and its persistent flouting of
General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.
The post-war world order based on the Yalta repartition of spheres of
influence, with its ensuing system of armed alliances, is no longer
able to maintain even its initial precarious stability. The erosion
of the nuclear superiority by one super-Power, leading to nuclear
parity, ushered in a state of strategic uncertainty. Together with
the challenges by the emergent nations to rigid polarization around
super-Power spheres of influence, this led to an increasing resort to
the use of force by dominant Powers. Therefore we cannot but agree
with the frank analysis of the Secretary-General, in which he points
out the reforms which are still required to transform the United
Nations into a world body which effectively unites nations in the
pursuit of their security on the basis of peace, co-operation and
mutual respect.
In the absence of all-encompassing co-operation on security at the
global level, nations have increasingly resorted to concrete
initiatives at the regional level.
In the Mediterranean, regional States have traditionally approached
their security concerns in different ways. However, while most of the
States of the North appear to have chosen the road of complete
integration in the armed alliances and all the States of the South
are active members of the non- aligned movement, the apparent
division is not so rigid. There are evidently different levels of
integration in the alliances by the members in the North, while
States of the South have established their own links with members of
the alliances-links which are based on economic, technological,
cultural and historical realities.
What constitutes the most pervasive destabilizing element in the
Mediterranean at the present time is in fact the massive and
increasing super-Power presence in the region. Detente, far from
being a global phenomenon, was restricted to central Europe. In
Helsinki, at the start of the process begun with the Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe, Malta had striven for the
acceptance of the need to extend detente to the Mediterranean, on the
basis of the principle that security in the Mediterranean is an
integral element in European security. The super-Power, however, paid
only lip-service to the Mediterranean document of the Helsinki Final
Act. Eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation is the reality in the
Mediterranean today, a reality which is even more threatening to
regional and European peace and security because it creates a
confrontation more direct than it has ever been in central Europe,
where the military forces of the super-Power are buffered from each
other by the presence of their allies.
Because of the vacuum which exists at the global level through the
absence of an elective role by the United Nations, super-Power
influence in matters relating directly to security and co-operation
in the Mediterranean has today assumed excessive proportions. All
States in the region must be concerned by the extent of this
influence. Many have already come to the conclusion that the only
feasible alternative is for Mediterranean countries to forge together
their own arrangements for regional security, which would then enable
them to work out with the super-Power an agreed programme of
progressive armaments reductions, phased in such way as to ensure
that at no stage would either super-Power consider that its
legitimate strategic interests were being put in jeopardy.
Such an approach entails two fundamental objectives: first, that the
Mediterranean should not be used as a major arena of global
confrontation; secondly, that regional States should be more directly
in control of security and co-operation questions in their own
region. Although we cannot have any illusion as to the continuing
impact of bloc politics on our region, we also sense an underlying
appreciation of the potential validity of an indigenous regional
security system, leading to the ultimate withdrawal of super-Power
forces from the region.
Malta's experience in its own struggle for freedom, a struggle which
is rooted in a strategy for regional co-operation, corroborates this
assessment. The Socialist Government which came to power in 1971
after 13 years in opposition was firmly committed to a policy aimed
at the elimination of all foreign military bases on the island. The
phased and bloodless withdrawal of the forces of Britain and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization from the island commenced in 1972
and was completed by March 1979. My party was returned to power in
1976 it was pledged to entrench the process of the elimination of all
foreign military presence in Malta by the assumption for the island
of a status of neutrality, based strictly on the principles of
non-alignment. We started discussions with our Mediterranean
neighbours on the status we were to adopt after 1979. By 1979 those
discussions were already bearing fruit. We found early encouragement
and support both from our southern neighbours, in particular the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Algeria, and from our northern neighbours,
including Italy and France. In the unfolding of events, our choice of
a neutral status received broad recognition from Mediterranean and
non- Mediterranean States alike. In different forms and under
different circumstances, such broad recognition came from Qatar,
Yugoslavia, Italy, Bulgaria and the European Economic Community in
1980; from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the United States of America, the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France, Senegal, Iraq, the
non-aligned movement and the Commonwealth in 1981; and from Algeria,
Tunisia, Greece, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, China and
the Islamic Republic of Iran so far this year.
In May 1980 the Maltese Parliament formally enshrined our neutral
status in a proclamation. By virtue of that proclamation, Malta
undertakes not to allow any foreign military bases on its territory,
not to allow any military facilities to foreign forces, not to allow
any facilities to be used in Malta in such a manner or to such an
extent as will constitute a virtual presence of foreign forces, nor
that any foreign military personnel be allowed in Malta, and that the
shipyards of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes and
will be denied to the military vessels of the super-Power. Soon after
the formal adoption of our status, in September 1980 Italy entered
into a bilateral agreement with us in which it welcomed, recognized
and supported our neutrality and engaged itself both to avoid any
action that would jeopardize that status and to come to our
assistance in case of any attack on Malta. That formal commitment by
a country belonging to NATO to commit itself actively in safeguarding
Malta's neutrality was paralleled a few months later by an analogous
undertaking by the Soviet Union in which recognition and support of
our status was also accompanied by an undertaking not to do anything
that would put it in jeopardy. Both agreements have been duly
registered with the United Nations under Article 102 of the Charter.
Following its third consecutive return to power in 1981, the
socialist Government pledged to utilize Malta's new-found freedom and
neutral status to promote a genuine process for peace in the
Mediterranean. Several countries have not only formally recognized
our neutral status, but have also explicitly acknowledged its
significance for the process of peace in the Mediterranean-these
include France and Greece from within the NATO alliance and the
non-aligned Mediterranean States of Yugoslavia and Tunisia.
In addition to its choice of neutrality, Malta had already taken
other important initiatives for peace in the Mediterranean. The most
comprehensive of those initiatives has been our endeavours in the
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to obtain
recognition of the linkage between security in the Mediterranean and
security in Europe, and participation by Mediterranean States in all
matters relating to Mediterranean security and co-operation.
By 1975 all European States, and the two super-Powers, had accepted
non-participating Mediterranean States in the process of that
Conference. By 1979 the Conference had launched a concrete initiative
for functional co-operation in the Mediterranean. Meeting in Malta in
February of that year, participants in the Conference and
non-participating Mediterranean States drew up recommendations
concerning the exchange of statistical data, environmental
co-operation, tourism, energy resources, transport networks,
telecommunications research, migrant labour, scientific and technical
problems, eradication of Mediterranean diseases, gerontology,
seismology, preservation of cultural heritage and a number of other
subjects. In the ongoing review Session of the Conference, taking
place in Madrid, our objective is now to bring about a thorough
consideration of the security aspects of the Helsinki Mediterranean
chapter, in particular the recommendations regarding the reduction of
armed forces in the region.
We have also taken initiatives outside the established bodies. As
early as 1972, on the initiative of Malta's Prime Minister, Dom
Mintoff, who has identified himself most intimately with the
objective of enhancing Mediterranean co-operation, a process of
quadripartite collaboration at the ministerial and technical levels
was initiated between Italy, Libya, Malta and Tunisia. That
initiative has led to the recognition of a common interest in
communications, tourism, fisheries, agriculture and the preservation
and protection of the environment.
A more recent initiative has been the setting up of Radio
Mediterranean, which Malta pioneered in 1978 under the auspices of
UNESCO and which is now starting to assume its intended role as the
collective and authentic voice of Mediterranean peoples. The keen
interest which that initiative is awakening has recently been
demonstrated by Algeria's participation and by the various approaches
made by other Mediterranean States.
At the multilateral level in 1975 UNEP launched a Mediterranean
Action Plan, which, under the objective of environmental protection,
has given scope to the emergence of a number of concrete projects of
a technical and practical nature. Malta is participating in various
aspects of that Action Plan, in particular through the setting up of
a Regional Oil-Combating Centre on the island which is intended to
coordinate regional action against hazards of oil pollution.
Here at the United Nations since 1976 the resolutions on the
implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of
International Security have included a call, sponsored by Malta and
other Mediterranean States, for the transformation of the
Mediterranean into a zone of peace. The growing support for that
call, which now also includes members of the NATO alliance, is also
manifested in the encouraging number, and substantive content, of the
various replies sent to the questionnaire on the strengthening of
security in the Mediterranean called for under resolution 36/102. It
is clear from some of those replies, in particular the one from
Yugoslavia, that Mediterranean countries are giving very serious
consideration to the question of how they can themselves best take
charge of security matters in their own region. We also find great
significance in the fact that in its reply France has indicated that
it considers its formal recognition and support of Malta's status of
neutrality as a direct contribution to the process of strengthening
security and co-operation in the Mediterranean. Similar interest has
emerged in the various statements made during the current general
debate, in particular by Italy and Algeria. It is our intention this
year, in collaboration with our partners, to seek to add to the
growing consensus on the question and to identify pragmatic ways of
developing the initiative further. One important consideration
concerns the need to keep all Member States, and especially those in
the Security Council, fully informed of relevant developments in our
region.
Various initiatives are converging to lend further strength and
credibility to the formation of a Mediterranean built upon the
awareness of a commonality of interests which bind the regional
States together in a process of peace and co-operation. Malta's
uphill task in the mid-1970s to form a consensus for bringing
together northern and southern Mediterranean States in the framework
of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has in turn
opened up prospects for other initiatives. Thus, Malta and other
Mediterranean States, the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or
Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana in 1979, engaged
the explicit support of the non-aligned movement for the proposal
that non-aligned Mediterranean States meet in Malta in 1980 with
aligned Mediterranean States, participants in the European
Conference, to discuss specific projects of co-operation and to
co-ordinate positions for further action even in the European
Conference itself.
That convergence is most evident in the case of Malta's neutrality.
The widespread recognition and support for Malta's status of
neutrality is proving of seminal value for initiatives aimed at
installing a system of regional security in the Mediterranean in
which the concerns of super-Power confrontation are neither exclusive
nor dominant.
Through their unilateral rejection of foreign military bases on their
territories, a number of Mediterranean States have set in motion a
process of disarmament in the region. With the closing of foreign
military bases, Malta, too, has contributed to that formation of
embryo zones of peace. But this unilateral approach is not enough. In
seeking support for its status of neutrality, Malta has introduced a
reciprocity of commitments. At the regional level it has undertaken
the commitment that its territory would never be used for armed
offensives against neighbouring States, and in return obtained
assurances from them that they would not threaten or violate its
neutrality; at the broader level, the super-Power have accepted
Malta's assurances that its territory would not be available to
either of them for military purposes and in return they have assured
Malta of their undertaking to respect its neutrality. If the
Mediterranean is to enjoy the benefits of a system of regional
security, an extension of this type of reciprocal commitment is
indispensable. Only in this way would there start a process of easing
of tension, reduction of polarization and limitation of armaments
deployment.
We are, of course, very much aware that military deployment by the
super-Power in the Mediterranean is not simply a function of regional
concerns, but is integrated in global strategic planning. We are
equally aware that the options being taken today by some of the
States in our region are supportive of the global dimension of the
super-Power military presence in the Mediterranean. The current
deteriorating situation is not especially propitious. Yet, we have
sensed in the developments which took place in the 1970s that the
potential exists for an affirmation of the collective role of
Mediterranean States in the security of their own region. Our
persistence at the present time arises both from the concern that any
relaxation would jeopardize the progress which has already been made;
as well as from the conviction that in pursuing our objectives for
peace we are directly contributing to the overcoming of the current
negative trend.
Although conditions in the Mediterranean are ripe for progress in the
pursuit of regional security and co-operation, current negative
trends elsewhere are adversely affecting this region too. The
Mediterranean thus challenges the super-Power with a crucial test of
their willingness and capacity to respond by favouring the processes
of peace as opposed to the processes of confrontation. In the light
of the remarkable achievements for the Mediterranean over the past
decade, a reversal here would have ominous consequences for other
quarters of the globe, where stability, peace and security are
precarious and threatened. Progress here, on the other hand, would
give the cue for analogous initiatives to be undertaken in other
regions so that peace becomes indivisible and stable. In other words,
the crucial test for peace is whether Mediterranean countries and the
super-Power agree on reciprocal assurances as have already been
implemented in respect of a neutral Malta. The Mediterranean is ready.
For Malta, the struggle against such high odds to bring about a halt
to the process of confrontation in our region is in line with the
historic linkage which has existed between events in our country and
in the region at large. Poised in the heart of the Mediterranean,
less than 200 miles from the mainlands of Europe and of Africa, Malta
has for centuries been right on the dividing line between opposing
and contending forces.
Starting with the Roman-Carthaginian confrontation of the
pre-Christian era, and running through to the regional super-Power
confrontation of our day, Malta's position has always imposed
critical choices of alignment and commitment. In the past, these
choices were always made by the dominant Power in possession of the
island. They were inevitably choices for aggression and military
domination of Malta's neighbours. During this century alone, Malta
has served as a forward base for major military offensives in Italy,
Greece and North Africa; it served as a strategically vital position
in the two world conflicts and as an important focal point of
operations in the Suez crisis in the late 1950s.
Without any choice of its own, Malta has therefore consistently been
committed on one or another of the sides in the many conflicts and
confrontations taking place in the Mediterranean region. Whenever
armed aggression took place, Maltese territory fell directly under
attack. The nature and extent of our defences were as much at the
discretion of the foreigner as were the strategic decisions leading
to the opening of hostilities and the actions and considerations
leading to their resolution. The experience of the last World War,
when the Maltese people in their overwhelming majority joined
enthusiastically in the struggle against fascism and nazism and
rejoiced in their eventual overthrow, brought with it the dear
realization that in always fighting other people's wars, Malta had
never yet had the opportunity to struggle for its own freedom and for
peace.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the time came for Malta, in common with other
oppressed nations of the world, to achieve its independence. The
opportunity thereby created for the island to define its role for
peace in the region was, however, obstructed by British and NATO
collusion that Malta should and, indeed, would continue to pursue
economic, strategic, political and cultural choices strictly
integrated into the Western alliance, even if that involved actions
and policies divergent from the national or regional interests of a small
independent island State in the heart of a troubled region.
For a few years the local interests which had thrived on the colonial
structures and mentality managed to retain sufficient control over
the island to ensure the pursuit of a policy in strict conformity
with NATO strategies. The inappropriate economic infrastructure
closely supportive of a NATO role, which had been inherited from
colonial times, was cosmetically restructured only to the extent that
it would not interfere with that role. Control of key factors-ports,
airports, telecommunications, media, banking and currency, for
example-was retained, sometimes through indirect means, by the
British.
This continuing control served British interests in two ways. On the
one hand, by reinforcing the dominance of an elite which had a weak
base of local support, it ensured the continuing loyalty of that
elite to the British and NATO objectives. This in turn permitted
Britain to convince its NATO allies that in order to ensure that
Malta remained firmly entrenched in the Western bloc, it was in their
interests not to take any action to improve, at least to Western
European standards, the social and economic plight of the Maltese.
The Maltese people soon realized that the policies under which they
were being led constituted a negation of their freedom, were inimical
to their national interests and thwarted their natural vocation to
serve as a focal point of peace and co-operation in the
Mediterranean. Those who were claiming to maintain the island as a
bulwark of democracy by aligning it irrevocably with one bloc were at
the same time led into taking measures which, in their disrespect for
the basic rights of the individual, constituted a serious denial of
democracy.
The process of Malta's struggle for freedom came to a critical point
in the early 1970s when the people of the island, in anger and
frustration, took a dramatic decision to halt the centuries-old
military role of their own homeland. Over the last 12 years, Malta
has pursued a policy in which the struggle for personal liberty,
national freedom and regional peace and co-operation are intimately
intertwined. We have, restructured our economic infrastructure to
make it serve simultaneously the purposes of national development and
regional co-operation. We have opened our economic, cultural,
technological and political relations to all countries, rejecting any
ideological bias in our contacts.
This policy both defines and lends credibility to the status of
neutrality we have assumed, not out of any escapist desire to steer
an uncommitted course between the contending antagonisms in our
region and beyond, but out of the fundamental awareness that the
future of our nation is intimately linked with developments in our
region.
This policy has enabled us to demonstrate a forceful integrity in the
pursuit and defence of peace. Last week's endorsement of Malta's
candidacy for the Security Council in the ministerial declaration of
the non-aligned movement encourages us to persevere in our policy.
Whenever the occasion has required it, we have not shirked from
taking the necessary frank and forthright action. It was the forceful
integrity of our policies which enabled us to persevere when alone in
the European forums, in the Conference on Security and Co-operation
in Europe, and in the European capitals we put forward such views as
the call for a Mediterranean involvement in questions of European
security and the equally pressing call for a Middle East solution
based on recognition of the Palestinians' right to an independent
State of their own. Today, when these views are finding increased
support, we can look back on our earlier efforts with a dense of
pride, satisfaction and encouragement for the future.
This same spirit motivated us in the early 1970s to be equally firm
in our negotiations with Britain over the arrangements to phase out
their military presence on our territory. We then faced a massed
opposition based on prejudice, misconception and vested interests
both from within and beyond our shores. Gradually, however, we
persuaded our opponents of the integrity and peaceful nature of our
objectives.
Yet following the final departure of British troops from the island,
we again had to face the arrogant attitudes of our erstwhile colonial
ruler in connection with the question of the clearing from areas
around Malta of war remnants left over from the colonial period which
are seriously obstructing some of our major development projects.
One particular case, concerning the removal of war remnants, is
causing serious problems to our development programme. My
Government's development plan calls for the setting up in Malta of a
major coal and grain trans-shipment centre in the Mediterranean. A
prerequisite for the success of this project is a sufficient draught
to enable ships requiring an under-keel clearance of over 14 metres
to enter and navigate in the Grand Harbour of Valletta without any
problem. Nature has blessed Valletta Harbour with a sufficiently
large draught to handle such ships, but the presence of war wrecks in
various parts of the harbour and, in particular, at its entrance, has
reduced the clearance to 12.6 metres, so that the trans-shipment
project cannot materialize unless those wrecks are removed.
For the past several years my Government has been trying to reach an
amicable solution with Britain on this subject but, in spite of the
universally accepted principle that the removal of remnants of war is
the responsibility of the country that implanted them, Britain has
consistently refused to accept any legal or moral responsibility.
Indeed, Britain is making its repeated disclaimer of any legal or
moral responsibility whatsoever a pre-condition of any talks with my
Government. From this rostrum I repeat the offer which my Government
has already made to the British Government of talks without
pre-conditions. A satisfactory solution would also obviate the need
for us to raise this issue in all appropriate international
forums-something which we are otherwise determined to persist in.
Our experience teaches that the struggle by a people to achieve
dignity and freedom is itself part of the process in the endeavor for
regional and global peace and security. For the Palestinian people
the road to dignity and freedom is proving particularly tragic, as
the recent events in Lebanon have shown. These events have not broken
the spirit of the Palestinian people in continuing their struggle but
the opportunities for a peaceful solution, which under the leadership
of the PLO were genuinely being sought, have been dealt a severe
blow. The Israeli actions have deliberately placed a policy of
aggression right in the path of the road to peace; in the process
they have inflicted unbelievable suffering, and they have torn a
country apart.
The threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East and the
Mediterranean which arises out of the Palestinian and. Lebanese
tragedies constitutes a direct threat to peace and stability even
outside the region. European nations should play a major role to help
bring about a solution which both respects the inalienable rights of
the Palestinians and at the same time safeguards other legitimate
interests in the region. Malta is proud of the role it has played in
supporting the Palestinian cause and pledges to continue steadfastly
in this course.
The actions of South Africa, its internal policies of racism and
oppression and its external policies of aggression and domination
constitute yet another threat to international peace and stability.
The cry of anger, frustration and suffering emerging from southern
Africa is urgent and persuasive. It calls for urgent and effective
remedies.
The aspiration of the people of Korea to the peaceful unification of
their country continues to be frustrated. The presence of foreign
troops in South Korea and the size and strategic objectives of this
presence run directly counter to the already expressed desire of all
Korean people to seek a peaceful road to the reunification of their
country.
Similarly, in Cyprus the illegal presence of foreign troops stands in the
way of an already defined basis for a peaceful solution which would
ensure the sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity and independence
of that island.
The people of Afghanistan and Kampuchea also find the internal
evolution of their societies interfered with and distorted by the
interplay of outside interests. The departure of foreign troops from
these countries remains a necessary pre-condition of the recovery by
their peoples of their sovereignty and independence.
For over two years now the imperatives of peace have not prevailed
between the Iranian and Iraqi peoples. We continue to believe that
the possibilities exist for a peaceful solution to their problems and
that no means whatsoever should be spared to achieve this end.
In the Falkland Islands the resort to force was a tragic outcome of
the failure to use the processes of consultation and negotiation
recommended by the United Nations. We hope to see wiser counsels
prevail in the future.
In these and other instances, policies of aggression and force
clearly continue to play their dominant role in the relations among
nations. The yearning for peace, so urgent and pervasive in the
hearts and minds of peoples throughout the world, has not yet been
translated into the actions and policies of nations. And yet the
mechanisms for peace exist, here at the United Nations, through
regional concertation and through national initiatives. We need to
muster the courage and tenacity to make a thrust for peace before the
increasing resort to force overwhelms us completely and leads us to
an irreversible catastrophe. Malta remains deeply committed to this
endeavour.


Allow me at the outset to take this opportunity to express to Mr.
Imre Hollai my warm congratulations, personally and on behalf of the
Yemen Arab Republic, on his election as President of the thirty
seventh session of the General Assembly. We confirm to him that we
are overjoyed to see him in that important post and we wish him full
success in his tasks, which involve onerous responsibilities. We are
sure that the work of this session will be crowned with success
thanks to his expertise and acknowledged statesmanship. For our part,
we shall spare no effort in cooperating with him in carrying out his
great responsibilities in ensuring that the session does the work
required of it at this crucial phase through which our world is now
passing. We wish, through you, Sir, to put on record our well
deserved appreciation and admiration for Mr. Ismat Kittani, who
conducted the proceedings of the thirty sixty session in a brilliant
and exemplary manner, which was characterized by objectivity and
effectiveness. We wish him success in his future tasks. My delegation
wishes also to pay a tribute to the Secretary General for the
constructive efforts he has made and the commendable he has done in
the short period since his assumption of the post and for the way he
has fulfilled the responsibilities which the nature of his sensitive
task involves. I wish also to convey the greetings of the Yemeni
people to all the peace loving people of the world represented at
this annual and respected gathering.
We all know that the United Nations came into being as a result of
the strong desire and determination of the peoples of the world to
avert the tragedies of further world wars. This resolve reflects the
sincere and profound conviction that it is necessary that peace and
security prevail throughout the world and that we end, once and for
all, all violence, aggression, military threats, hegemony,
intervention and colonialism in any form. Therefore, in the minds of
all, the United Nations is linked with noble concepts and superior
values, because it is the crucible of all sincere efforts to achieve
peace and the supremacy of justice in all dimensions, and the
starting point for efforts that will lead to understanding and
solidarity among nations, instead of division and wars.
For this reason, my country has reaffirmed more than once its
commitment and adherence to the principles of the Charter and its
noble purposes in all fields, for this is the proper way to establish
normal and peaceful relations among all nations and solid guarantees
of the achievement of international peace and security. Therefore all
Member States should support the Organization in its constructive
role and should abide by its resolutions more loyally than ever
before. We should combine our efforts to ensure that the basic
principles of the sovereignty, equality and independence of all
nations, regardless of size, position, military strength, or social,
economic or political system, will prevail.
We in the Yemen Arab Republic, too, support the right to self
determination and full and effective independence of all peoples that
suffer under the yoke of imperialism and racial domination and that
struggle to achieve the noble goal to which we aspire. At the same
time we affirm our unshakable belief in the need to ensure the unity
and territorial integrity of all nations and non intervention in
their internal affairs. We also affirm the right of all nations to
self determination, and, above all, the right of the Palestinian
people to self determination, to return to its homeland and to
establish an independent State on its own soil.
We view with a sense of gratification the efforts exerted by the
United Nations to preserve international solidarity, support
liberation causes and to ensure well being and economic and social
development everywhere. However, we look forward to further
achievements, because the Organization can achieve more than it has
already. It can redouble its efforts towards international peace and
security, the assurance of justice for all the peoples that long for
it in Palestine, in Lebanon, and in Namibia, and the greatest good of
the whole world by providing norms and safeguards that guarantee
respect for and compliance with the resolutions of the Organization.
Proceeding from this premise, we support every detail of the report
of the Secretary General on the work of the Organization and on
increasing its efficiency and overcoming the difficulties that stand
in its way. These difficulties represent a real challenge that should
be faced by all Member States if we want the Organization to be a
real instrument for the consolidation of peace, which we all so
deeply desire, and of justice, to which we all aspire.
The Yemen Arab Republic reaffirms its belief in fundamental human
rights, the dignity of the individual and the promotion of
international peace and security, and calls for continuous dialogue
and permanent understanding among nations and peoples. It calls for
resistance to dominating influences, no matter by whom, and seeks to
widen the scope of cooperation among brother and friendly countries.
It deplores more deeply than ever before the fact that these
principles in which the international community came to believe after
painstaking and agonizing experiences are not being effectively
implemented in international relations, which causes us to look to
the future with deep pessimism and concern.
We do not have to look very far to confirm this prognosis. It is
sufficient to consider the development of the international situation
since the last regular session of the General Assembly. Many of the
international conflicts have worsened and become more complex and
serious. Many of the problems raised during the thirty sixth session
and even before that, at previous sessions, remain unresolved; they
have become more complicated and it will be more difficult to solve
them in the near future.
What shall we say to the deprived, the persecuted, those that yearn
for justice for freedom and for the support of the international
community? What shall we tell the displaced, the wounded, the maimed
and murdered Lebanese and Palestinians who have appealed to the
Organization and the conscience of the world, because their rights
have been usurped and they have been the victims of aggressors in
their own home and in the refugee camps? Shall we tell them that the
Security Council, the organ responsible for the maintenance of
international peace and security, has been convened more than once in
order to consider the abominable aggression by Israel against Lebanon
and that each time the representative of a super Power, the United
States of America, used its right of veto in order to obstruct the
cessation of the massacres in Lebanon whose victims were men, women
and children, and to obstruct the imposition of sanctions upon Israel
in accordance with the Charter?
What is the responsibility of the United States concerning the issues
of international peace and security in the world after all that? For
some time past Lebanon has been persistently complaining of the
violation by Israel of the cease fire agreement through repeated
Israeli aggression against southern Lebanon and through the violation
of the independence and national sovereignty of the country and the
support extended to the rebels against Lebanese authority.
Today we face a new situation after the barbaric invasion of Lebanon
by land, by sea and from the air. Towns and villages were destroyed,
including the capital, Beirut. Houses were pulled down over their
occupants and the most sophisticated internationally prohibited means
of destruction were used. Despite all that Israel is still there,
engaged in occupying, usurping, murdering and destroying with
impunity, ' assured of the military, political and economic support
of the United States without which it could not have continued its
aggression. It is really surprising and at the same time revolting
that the United States and some other Western countries did not use
their influence early and still have not done so to compel Israel to
withdraw from Lebanon and to stop the bloodshed and the daily
massacres that Israel has committed on Lebanese territory, it is
terrible that the United States should claim to preserve
international peace when it supports Israel, which currently
represents the greatest and the gravest threat to international peace
and security. This claim, which clearly involves a contradiction, has
practically disclosed the role of the United States in supporting the
Israeli aggression against Lebanon and in focusing American diplomacy
on the ousting of the Palestine Liberation Organization from Lebanon,
without linking it to the recognition of the inalienable rights of
the Palestinian people, including their right to self  determination
and to establish their own independent State on their soil.
We wonder how the United States can reconcile its international
responsibilities concerning international peace and security and its
strategic cooperation with the State of Israel which today represents
the most dangerous regional military Power seeking expansion and
hegemony over the Middle East region. We consider this cooperation
and this alliance to be the factor that encourages Israel to persist
in its aggression against Lebanon and that it has an adverse effect
on all efforts aimed at reaching a just solution to the conflict in
the Middle East.
The Yemen Arab Republic has heard more than enough words of
condemnation and denunciation they will not return rights to those
who have been deprived of them and will not restore life to an
innocent child killed by the American war machine and Zionist hands.
Words of denunciation have become unacceptable from those who could
have influenced events, especially those who knew in advance what was
to happen in Lebanon and could have prevented it. We firmly believe
that the new Zionist arrogance and Israeli terrorism, immune to
international resolutions, its arrogance with regard to all norms and
legal instruments, and the constant acts of aggression, have proved
more than ever before that Israel is not a peace loving State and
that it should not have a voice in the Organization, which is made up
of all the peace loving nations. All the Members of the Organization
should adopt practical measures against Israel and punish it for the
crimes it has perpetrated and for its breach of international peace
and security and should compel it to implement Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions concerning the inalienable rights of the
Palestinian people to self  determination and to the establishment of
their State on their soil and concerning an immediate withdrawal from
Lebanon and from every bit of occupied Arab territory. It should be
compelled to pay compensation for all the material losses it has
caused and the leaders of the new Fascist Zionist terrorism should be
prosecuted for their inhuman unprecedented massacres, devoid of all
human feelings. Israel has become the true and indisputable
representative of neo Nazism at its worst.
Israel thinks that if it destroys Lebanon it could put an end to the
Palestinian presence and to the Lebanese national movement and get
rid of the PLO, thus achieving the security and stability it seeks,
through force and through starting wars from time to time and
devising ways to increase its aggression, expansion and colonial
settlement. This sick concept led Israel to wage wars against the
Arab countries, beginning in 1948, then again in 1956, in 1967, in
1973 and finally in Lebanon in 1982. In each war Israel emerged with
a piece of land taken from a neighboring Arab country after having
usurped all Palestinian soil bit by bit. But it has not achieved
security and stability in accordance with its military concept in
spite of all that and will not achieve them; rather the contrary
holds true Israel has been a continuous source of tension and
jeopardy to international peace and security since its inception. It
is time now that Israel and its friends and allies, particularly in
the United States, should realize that security and peace in the area
can only be achieved through the recognition of the inalienable national
rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self
determination and to the establishment of their own independent State
on their soil, under the leadership of their sole, legitimate
representative, the PLO. Without that peace and security will not be
achieved, for Israeli concepts are based on an illusion founded on
expansion and aggression.
It is now imperative for the United States to consider its unjust
biased attitude in favor of Israel if it wants to make any positive
and constructive contributions to the solution of the Palestinian
question and the Middle East crisis. It should cooperate with the
international community to compel Israel to implement General
Assembly and Security Council resolutions in the interest of
international peace and security, which have become jeopardized and
are about to collapse as a result of the wanton acts and constant
defiance of the Organization, including the flouting of its
resolutions, whether those concerning the return of Arab territories
occupied after the 1967 aggression or those concerning the right of
the Palestinian people to return home and to establish their
independent State on their soil, Palestine.
Those who advocate right, justice and peace are those who support the
rights of the Palestinian people, which are inalienable and
historical rights. Those who support Israel are aligning themselves,
through such support, with the new Israeli fascism. It would be more
appropriate to speak of peace in the Middle East if the efforts of
all those who love peace were directed towards the adoption of
practical measures to ensure the halting of Israeli arrogance and its
continual flouting of international resolutions, and to compel Israel
finally to withdraw from all the Arab countries it occupied after the
aggression of 1967, as well as to halt the judaization measures being
taken in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to recognize the PLO as
the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, who
have been displaced, and to involve the PLO in all the efforts that
are being made to maintain peace in this sensitive area of the world
by peaceful means, since it is a main party to a conflict that has
lasted too long. That conflict has resulted in many tragedies and
many victims, so many that it is now no longer a military and
political conflict alone but a problem that is a daily torment to the
living conscience of mankind, which is agonizing over the massacres
perpetrated by Israel against the Arab people of Palestine and
Lebanon.
The international community is today called on to impose deterrent
sanctions against the war criminals and neo Nazis who now head the
Israeli State, and who have no hesitation, in using the most heinous
methods of destruction, and weapons which are prohibited
internationally, against the peoples of the area. We are facing a new
situation, which we must consider in order to draw the proper
conclusion from it. Terrorism now has a State that protects it and
exercises it, for the first time in contemporary history. Yet this
State is a Member of the United Nations, while at the same time it
rejects United Nations resolutions, and carries out acts of
aggression, murder and repression whenever and wherever it wishes.
It is easy to understand the effect this must have on the future of
peace and security in the area, and even in the world at large. Even
more incomprehensible than all this is the insistence of the United
States of America on giving military and political encouragement to
that terrorism, continuing to support it in international forums, and
standing by it politically in its aggressive stances by the abuse of
the veto in the Security Council every time that the international
community tries to impose practical sanctions against Israeli
arrogance and evil practices that defy the reason and the
imagination, particularly those hideous massacres of Palestinian
women, children and old people in Beirut.
Those who could have prevented the aggression and could have
compelled Israel to refrain from entering Beirut or the Palestinianrefugee
camps will stand before mankind as responsible for the inhuman and
criminal massacres in the camps of Sabra and Shatila. The United
States of America cannot escape its responsibility for those
genocidal crimes, committed in violation of the ethics and honor of
mankind, because it undertook responsibility for the process of
negotiation and for the supervision of the evacuation of the
Palestinian fighters from Beirut, providing all necessary political
guarantees to protect those who remained behind. But it appears that
the credibility of United States policy and ethics completely
collapses whenever Israel is concerned. That fact should be noted by
everyone.
We deeply deplore this situation, and we doubt the integrity of the
role played by the United States of America in the area, after the
last farce of American diplomacy in Beirut. We call on the
Organization to stand firmly against Israeli Nazism, which has today
become the major challenge to all peace loving nations. We also
believe that the international prosecution of all the criminals and
murderers responsible for the Beirut massacres is an essential
requirement for mankind, after the commission of such crimes amid the
shocked silence of the international community, to ensure that no
such hideous massacres are repeated by those in Israel who thirst for
more blood and would not hesitate to commit such murders again in the
near future. Those who were responsible yesterday for the massacres
of Deir Yassin and Qafr Qasim are responsible today for the massacres
and hideous murders in west Beirut. Unless the international
community hastens to shoulder its full responsibilities, inexorable
tragedy will be inflicted on the Palestinian and Lebanese people, and
on the peoples of the whole area.
My country has more than once expressed its profound concern over the
terrorism and piracy in the area, and the acts of oppression,
repression and torture that Israel is committing against the Arab
population in the occupied territories, a population living under and
unjust rule and inhuman laws while their territories are occupied and
settlements are being built on areas taken from the neighboring Arab
countries by coercion and aggression. My delegation calls on all
nations and peoples firmly to denounce and condemn such Israeli acts
based on aggression, oppression and expansionism, and it calls for
the imposition of all possible stringent political and economic
sanctions against Israel, to compel it to act in compliance with the
will of the international community, withdraw from the occupied
territories and restore to the Palestinian people their legitimate
rights.
We attach great importance to the work of the current session. We
call on it to meet its responsibilities of working for peace,
rekindling the hopes that have become dimmed and restoring confidence
to all those who have become so disillusioned through seeing the
repeated acts of aggression carried out by the racist Pretoria
regime, which is committing crimes of murder, torture and oppression
against the majority of the people of South Africa, as well as
committing with impunity repeated acts of aggression against the
people of Namibia and the peace loving front line States.
The present collaboration between the two racist entities in Tel Aviv
and Pretoria has resulted in acts of murder, oppression, torture and
Apartheid surpassing anything known previously. In recent years those
two entities have begun to exchange information on nuclear research
and the production of nuclear weapons with a view to the imposition
of terrorism and imperialism in the area.
My country firmly and unconditionally believes in and supports the
liberation movements in the world, foremost among which are the PLO
and the South West Africa People's Organization, and reaffirms that
the Namibian problem will never be solved and the occupation of
Namibia can never be ended unless the Organization continues its
efforts, upon which the people of Namibia pin all their hopes of
freedom and independence. We believe that the implementation of
United Nations resolutions, particularly Security Council resolution
435 (1978), represents the practical basis for solving that problem,
which has been complicated and burdened with further ramifications as
a result of the defiance of South Africa and at its rejection of the
United Nations resolutions designed to end its illegitimate
occupation of Namibia.
The United Nations indeed the whole world has condemned South Africa
for its shameful racist policy which is exercised by force against
the black majority and for its inhuman torture, persecution and exile
of the black people in South Africa. The Pretoria regime even boasts
of committing these crimes and is competing with its permanent ally,
the Zionist regime, in finding new means of repression and
humiliation and establishing settlements.
The Namibian issue must emerge from its situation of stagnation,
especially since the United Nations devoted a special session of the
General Assembly to discussing the Namibian question in all its
aspects. It must not remain a source of tension and trouble in Africa
and continue to threaten world peace and security. The world M living
today in a state of economic imbalance. The rich of this world are
becoming increasingly rich and the poor increasingly poor. As a
result of this grave division, which rests on inequality, the gap is
increasing day by day and a sense of responsibility and enthusiasm in
regard to setting of the new economic system based on justice and
equality and building new world economic and monetary structures is
today more urgent than ever before. But enthusiasm alone is not
sufficient: it is necessary to crystallize the strong political will
that can redress the frightening imbalance and redistribute wealth
instead of confining it to certain Powers. We must constantly bear in
mind the interest of all parties.
The emergence of negative phenomena in world economic life, such as
the increasing protectionist trend in the markets of the
industrialized countries, the fluctuations of the exchange rate and
the skyrocketing of interest rates on food commodities, consumer
goods and capital goods have led to the deterioration of world trade
conditions and the enormous deficits in the balance of payments of
developing countries.
The increasing indebtedness of these countries year after year, added
to the deterioration of the economic and social growth rate therein,
results in these developing countries alone paying the price and
sacrificing their development in the interest of the rich,
industrialized countries. Hence, the General Assembly is called on to
give this subject increased attention and study in order to correct
the imbalance in international economic relations and to take action
to achieve more progress in the negotiations concerning this
question, having regard to its importance to the international
community in general and to the interests of developing countries in
particular.
The peoples of the third world cannot remain forever a source and
exporter of raw materials and a market place for manufactured goods.
It is not in the interest of the international community these States
remain in a condition of economic impotence, unable to cope with
their financial obligations towards others. Consequently, it is
necessary to achieve constant development and progress in these
countries. But the modernization and development process is linked in
its tum to science and technology and the method of the transfer of
such science and technology to developing countries, with the help of
those who are more advanced in those areas, in order to promote their
scientific capability and their administrative and technological know
how. That must be done if we really want to avoid more crises and
deterioration in the world economy,
We can all achieve prosperity and happiness for mankind at large if
we work with a common approach and if the developed countries pledge
themselves to a courageous monetary reform, to revise their present
economic policies and increase their development investments in the
developing countries in order to alleviatethe suffering and
deprivation of the people of those countries and restore some balance
and harmony to the troubled world economy. There is no doubt but that
the promotion of the specialized world financial institutions in the
United Nations system in the field of economic and social development
constitutes a direct contribution to the achievement of the well
being of mankind. Mutual respect, non interference in the internal
affairs of States and the settlement of disputes by peaceful means,
the freedom of each State to decide on its own its economic and
social structures in accordance with its national and political
options constitute a sure guarantee of cooperation and peaceful and
constructive coexistence and represent the appropriate process for
promoting the policy of international detente. The Arab Republic of
Yemen, which has founded its policy on respect for nation sovereignty
and the exchange of interests and economic benefits with others in
accordance with the principle of equality, rejects totally the policy
of hegemony and military force in international relations, as it
rejects also, absolutely, the principle of setting up military pacts,
bases and facilities. It is greatly concerned over the emergence of
signs of tension and cold war between the Western and Eastern World
and the pursuit of aggressive practices by some States and the
negative impact that this has on international relations, in addition
to endangering the independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the States of the world to danger.
Signs of deterioration in international relations have become more
tangible today than ever before as a result of the use of military
force in solving international disputes and of interference in the
internal affairs of States and the persistence of the frightful arms
race, especially in the nuclear field. This constitutes a threat to
mankind that could have the gravest results. Consequently, all States
must take the necessary measures to improve international relations,
promote the policy of detente and peaceful coexistence, affirm
international legitimacy and define means of making the concept of
disarmament a tangible fact ensuring security to the human community
and happiness to mankind. The super Powers, the United States and the
Soviet Union, must renew their Talks for limiting nuclear weapons and
to eliminate all obstacles that are impeding the pursuit of these
negotiations. Complete disarmament and the cessation of the nuclear
arms race have become two vital prerequisites for all the peoples of
the world that are looking forward to the day when this feverish race
towards destructive arms will come to an end so that mankind may feel
secure about its existence and future so that the efforts and money
wasted on the manufacture, purchase, and stockpiling of weapons can
be diverted to solving the crushing economic crisis from which many
peoples of the world are suffering, and to meeting the material and
spiritual needs of men. The second special session devoted to
disarmament was a golden opportunity to hear all the opinions and
concepts on which future negotiations should be based.
For us, peace is an essential and noble objective. We must exert
maximum efforts to promote peace everywhere in the world, for there
is nothing more precious and more important to all the peoples than
peace. But we feel disappointed and suffer when we see that hatred
and war have replaced love and understanding among States and
peoples. Peace has been shattered today in some parts of the world,
such as the Arab Gulf, the Horn of Africa and the Falkland Islands.
Arbitration, mediation and peaceful and diplomatic solutions are much
better than recourse to force, which in most cases leads to a dead
end, perpetuates grudges between peoples and obstructs the process of
cooperation and peaceful coexistence among nations.
The war between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued
for more than two years despite the ties of a common creed and
proximity and despite the mediation efforts exerted by the non
aligned countries and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as
well as by the United Nations. Now Iraq has responded to those
mediation efforts and withdrawn its forces to its borders. It would
thus have put an end to hostilities but for the pretexts invoked by
Iran to continue the war and to postpone the settlement if the
conflict by negotiations and peaceful means between the two Moslem
neighbor countries. We call on Iran to seize this opportunity and
respond to the peace proposals; to cease its aggression against the
territory of Iraq and not to abandon hope of a reconciliation with
that neighboring Moslem country.
We appeal to the Organization to redouble its efforts to bring those
destructive hostilities to an end and we call on the two conciliation
committees, of the non aligned movement and the Islamic Conference,
to continue to use their good offices to bring about an end to the
war and the restoration of rights, in order that peace may once again
prevail in the lands of Iraq and Iran.
My country, which firmly believes in regional cooperation between
neighboring countries, is also interested in the maintenance of
security and stability in the region. Therefore it views with
profound concern the continuing state of tension in the Horn of
Africa and calls for the solution of the border problems and of the
historical and political problems between the nations of the area
through negotiations and peaceful means, for the sake of the peoples
of those countries and to prevent any foreign intervention in their
internal affairs under the pretext of providing aid and support to
one party or the other.
My country rejects any military presence or bases in the Indian Ocean
or the Arab Gulf. It reaffirms that the security of the Gulf and the
Arab peninsula is the responsibility of the countries of the region
and their peoples. It calls for support for the need to consider the
Indian Ocean, the Arab Sea and the Red Sea areas that should be free
from any fleets or military bases. We support the efforts made in the
Committee on the Indian Ocean and the necessity of convening the
Conference on the Indian Ocean during 1983, in accordance with
General Assembly resolution 36/90. We look forward to the day when
signs of tension will disappear one e and for all from, that
sensitive part of the world. It is extremely dangerous to let the
hotbeds of tension and conflict increase every day.
As regards Afghanistan, we reaffirm the right of the Afghan people to
self determination, free from foreign intervention of any form and
from any source. We believe that it is high time to find a peaceful
solution to that conflict, in accordance with the resolutions of the
United Nations.
On Korea, we affirm the necessity of putting an end to the dispute
between the two parts of the peninsula and of reaching a peaceful
solution of the problem, on a democratic basis, acceptable to both
parties. An encouraging environment should be provided for Korean
unity through the withdrawal of foreign forces from the area and the
seas around it.
As regards the Cypriot conflict, it is the firm position of my
country that there should be an agreed solution between the Greek
Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots aimed at the reunification of the
island on a democratic basis which will ensure freedom of religion
and expression and civil rights for all Cypriots. The Organization
would be fulfilling its responsibility for the preservation of peace
and ending the anomalous situation in which the island finds itself
now by applying all the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly
and the Security Council and considering them a basis for settling
the Cypriot conflict.
One of the positive achievements of which we are proud in the Yemen
Arab Republic is our success in keeping our country free from
international polarization and the rivalry between the super Powers.
My country adheres firmly to the policy of non alignment and positive
neutrality. We are proud of belonging to the Organization of the
Islamic Conference and to the League of Arab States and we believe
that the continuing cooperation between the United Nations and those
organizations will undoubtedly be a crucial factor in the
implementation of many social and economic plans and will contribute
to the solution of many international political problems.
We also feel that all our endeavors should be aimed at developing our
country and raising the standard of living of our people so that we
may keep pace with other countries of the world. This is the concern
of our political leadership, under President Ali Abdulla Saleh, who
considers the issue of reunifying the two parts of Yemen to be of
extreme importance in its endeavors to achieve progress and dignity.
There have been many achievements socially, economically and
politically as regards reunifying the two parts of Yemen on a
democratic basis. We have reached the stage of periodic meetings
between the Presidents of the two parts of Yemen to consider
programmes of integration and reunification at all levels.
My country has devoted all its efforts since the revolution to
serious and pressing efforts to promote the welfare of Yemeni
citizens and provide a proper climate for the establishment of
democracy, justice and political freedom, and on this basis to
initiate a process of setting constructive goals at a high level. My
country is anxious to ensure the success of all plans beneficial to
it. It has so far been able to fulfil the essential needs of all
citizens and to set up the major infrastructures, which we consider
to be the cornerstone of production, despite the fact that the
revolution took place only a short time ago. We have the patience and
faith to continue our march and to work for reconstruction,
development and fruitful cooperation with all countries of the world
on a basis of equality, good neighborliness, mutual respect and non
intervention in the internal affairs of others, settling ail our
conflicts peacefully, so that everyone can enjoy peace and security
and we can help each other in an atmosphere of sincerity conducive to
the happiness of mankind as a whole.
Finally, I wish to thank the President and express my appreciation
and commendation of all his sincere efforts in the interest of
achieving international peace, justice and freedom.