I have the honour to convey to Mr. Dante Caputo of Argentina our congratulations on his election to the high office of President of the forty-third session of the General Assembly. We has our best wishes for success and the assurance of our full co-operation, as he presides over what promises to be one of the most historic and far-reaching sessions of the General Assembly. We also has our appreciation for the very efficient manner in which he has thus far presided over our deliberations and otherwise piloted the business of the Assembly. In this respect, he has given us a great deal to be pleased with.
It is appropriate, we believe, to gay a tribute also to Dame Ruth Nita Barrow, Permanent representative of Barbados, who was also a candidate for the presidency of the forty-third session of the General Assembly. This outstanding daughter of the Caribbean has given her country, her region, and her friends much to be proud of. It is rare for one region to present two such eminently qualified persons for the same office at the same time. In so doing this region has once again, as it did five years earlier, enhanced and encouraged the development of democratic processes within the United Nations itself. For this we commend them both and we thank the Assembly.
Mr. Caputo is known as a man who cherishes democracy. His Government is one which is committed to democratic principles and ideals and which has worked hard to nurture and consolidate the restoration of his country's democracy. Thus, under his presidency, there can never be too many reminders of the importance of fostering and encouraging democracy, particularly in international relations and within international organizations.
To us in Vanuatu, a small island developing State, the enhancement of international democratic processes is far more than a nice-sounding slogan, an interesting theory, or a remote abstraction. We view this as an essential element of our development as an independent State. Our very survival as a nation depends on universal respect for the most basic and fundamental principles of international law, particularly respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country regardless of its size, its location, or the health of its economy.
Unfortunately, in international relations there have always been a few who occasionally forget to live by these important principles. Like small countries in every region of the world we have in recent year α become very distressed by the rapidly accelerating tendency of some larger States to forsake calm and rational dialogue as a solution to international problems. They seem to favour instead an escalating arms race, threats, and the actual use of military force.
In some instances, economic coercion and intimidation have been substituted for military force, but the results have been the same - international chaos. The chaos that has resulted may, on the surface, have appeared to be less violent than that which occurred during the two world wars earlier this century. However, to those who have been the victims of the chaos, the consequences have been as severe and as tragic as those of the two world wars. After all, how large is the world of a frightened refugee fleeing his or her home in a desperate attempt to save his or her life in southern Africa, in South-East Asia, in Central America, or in the Middle East? Therefore smaller countries# such as our own# often view with a sense of urgency the need for the international community to strengthen democratic processes and truly recognize the inherent equality of all human beings and by extension the sovereign equality of all nations - large and small, rich and poor. While we cannot comprehend are those who proclaim that all people are equal, or that all nations are equal# but who then act as if might - be it military or economic - makes some "more equal" than others.
Thus# today, as hopes are being revived for genuine political dialogue to be a vehicle for resolving so many of the world's problems and as so many dreams of democratic freedoms are being born in so many places, we view this assemblage of nations as more relevant and potentially more dynamic than any other time in its brief history.
Like so many others, we are encouraged by the possibility that hostilities and tensions may be diminishing in so many parts of the world and that peace may finally become a reality for so many beleaguered and besieged peoples. Military conflict between the world's two great super-Powers now appears less likely for this the entire world can breathe a collective sigh of relief. The war between Iran and Iraq may finally be coming to an end. The Soviet Union is demonstrating how great a Power it is by withdrawing its forces from Afghanistan as it promised it would.
There are also faint glimmers of hope that the long and costly conflicts in Kampuchean Western Sahara, Chad, Namibia and Central America may possibly be resolved and the people of those countries left to choose their own future, free from outside interference. Furthermore, tentative steps have been taken to lay aside old antagonisms and differences in focus, the Korean peninsula, the Balkans, the Maghreb and the Horn of Africa. Every day former rivals are discovering that there is more that unites them than that divides them.
However, we must be realistic and understand that the road to peace is still paved with a great many obstacles. In every one of the areas where there is new hope, we must understand that there is little that is certain. The process of finding workable solutions and then implementing those solutions remains fragile and extremely delicate in every one of the previously mentioned situations.
Despite what some might like us to believe, dialogue itself is never the sole answer for resolving any conflict. For dialogue to succeed there must also be a willingness to work together and to change the past antagonistic relationships and actions which led to existing contradictions and hostilities. In certain instances, circumstances dictate that there will be no rational dialogue until there has been a political struggle.
In this respect we are reminded once again of the words of Frederick Douglass, a leader of the anti-slavery movement during the nineteenth century and a great orator. As he most aptly put it,
"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will." Had he been alive today he might very well have been examining life in South Africa under the heel of the apartheid regime, or the motivation of the Palestinian resistance, when he said: If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom, yet deprecate agitation, ate men who want ... rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."
We might do well to recall those words during our deliberations, particularly our deliberations on those items of our agenda which relate to pleas for justice from those who have for fat too long been denied justice.
We believe that rational dialogue is the preferred way of conducting international relations and resolving disputes between nations. However, we also understand that dialogue is only possible when there is sin appreciation of its basis, and when there is common ground on which to meet.
There is not likely to be a meaningful dialogue in South Africa until the illegitimate apartheid regime recognizes the humanity of the African majority, frees from prison all those it should be negotiating with and allows others to return from exile. There is not likely to be a successful dialogue on the question of Palestine until all the interested parties are brought together at an international conference. In our own region, the question of East Timor will not be resolved until the people of that Territory are part of the process of dialogue and are allowed to choose freely for themselves who they are and what they wish to be.
Dialogue is not diatribe. The word carries within its meaning a willingness to listen and at least to understand the perspective of the partner in the dialogue. Perhaps the roost difficult notion for some to grasp is the notion that sincere dialogue does not necessarily entail claims that one party, but not the other, has seen the error of its ways and is now committed to change and to adopting the values and beliefs of its former adversary.  The largest and seemingly most intractable political problems between modern States can probably best be resolved by a convergence of views and a convergence of values. Mutual respect is the key, not domination or empty claims of triumph. As we all knew, in this nuclear age, this age of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, there are few instances in which any particular State can claim outright victory and impose its will on another.
New Caledonia is a case in point with respect to the effects of reasonableness and dialogue. During the last two General Assembly sessions, few items were as heatedly debated as the colonial status of our South Pacific neighbour. Our own relations with France, and those of our other Pacific neighbours, could not help but be affected by what we viewed as insensitivity to the legitimate aspirations of the colonized indigenous Kanak population of New Caledonia. We are pleased that today things are calmer in New Caledonia. This is due in part to the wisdom, the sensitivity and the courage of the current Government of France. It is also due to the courage and vision of New Caledonia's people and to their desire not to see their land torn further apart by civil inter-communal strife. There are still many difficult issues to be resolved in New Caledonia, but France deserves credit for changing the emotion-charged atmosphere in the Territory and taking measures to bring New Caledonia's people together in peace for a dialogue on the future.
No one can predict with certainty what lies ahead. We recall what happened more than 14 years ago when another European country, which was then a colonial Fewer in Africa, underwent a change of Government. It then put forward various proposals and options which prompted the leadership of what was then a liberation movement and is now an African Government to issue a reminder that "there is no such thing as democratic colonialism". Those words ring as true today as they did in 1974.

The South Pacific Forum, the Non-Aligned Movement and the united Nations have all contributed to the current hopeful state of affairs in New Caledonia, through their consistent support for well-established principles of self-determination and decolonization. However, the candid approach of the French Government and the patience and statesmanship of New Caledonia's people have been like a breath of fresh air.
We believe that no possibility for further dialogue and peaceful evolution with regard to New Caledonia should be left unexplored. Therefore, we were encouraged by the consensus reached by the Special Committee on decolonization when it considered the question of New Caledonia in August. We hope that the General Assembly will encourage the parties to continue to work together by reaching the same consensus on the recommendations of the Committee of 24.
My Government understands and supports the principled position of the African States on the issue of dumping nuclear and industrial waste in Africa. It was not too long ago that we raised the same issue with respect to our own region. We hope that that problem will be considered in its true global perspective rather than merely on a regional basis, which could lead to other regions' becoming dumping grounds for dangerous waste materials from the industrialized countries. We also hope that the views of the countries of the South Pacific on nuclear testing in our environment will similarly be understood and supported. What is at stake in Africa is also at stake in the South Pacific.
The name of the country doing the testing or shipping the waste to be dumped is irrelevant to us. The stated purpose of the testing is also irrelevant, as is the money paid for the dumping. What matters to us is the harm being done to our waters, to our lands, to our atmosphere, to our sources of food and sustenance and to our unborn children. Please try to understand our concerns.
It is ironic that many of the world's industrial countries became developed countries at the expense of what is now called the developing world. We, the now less-developed countries, were once forced to export cheap raw materials - and in some cases even our people, against their will - to help fuel the development of other countries. In return we were forced to accept certain manufactured goods, and agencies, in some cases even реор1ег in a reverse migration that was, again, against our will, against our own political and economic interests and ultimately against our own sovereignty.
Now, we are still exporting raw materials. Today, they are called commodities, and we have little more to say about their prices than we did yesterday. Developing countries still export people as well. Some, of course, are refugees who have been made homeless and socially marginal. Others are not refugees but instead tend to be the most capable and best trained, with skills that are in great demand in developed countries and that ace in short supply in developing countries. However, owing to adverse economic conditions, those skilled individuals usually cannot be as highly compensated or recognized in our developing countries. Often, therefore, developing countries wind up with smaller long-term returns on expenditures for higher education and advanced training. Paradoxically, we sometimes find ourselves in a sense subsidizing developed countries, which, on a proportional basis, might actually spend less on education but which are able to offer far greater financial rewards to those trained by other societies.
Developing countries also export something else, namely, capital, in the form of debt-servicing. That phenomenon has now appreciably widened the gap between have and have-not nations and created extremely dangerous social conditions in many debtor nations. It is almost incomprehensible that there is not a greater appreciation of the potential danger among the foremost decision-makers in the creditor States and financial institutions. It is also ironic that, while some were encouraged to borrow excessively, others found it almost impossible to borrow at all.
The manner in which some countries were encouraged to burden themselves with excessive debt is somewhat similar to the manner in which individuals were encouraged to acquire other well-known addictions. The habit is proving to be just as difficult to break, and the social consequences just as severe.
We offer those observations without bitterness, rancour or recrimination. We do not know of any easy solutions. However, we believe that we cannot adequately face the future without an understanding of the past. We cannot work together in finding answers until we know what questions we want answered.
The recent natural disasters that have brought death, destruction and new hardships to the peoples of Jamaica, Mexico, Bangladesh and India have shocked the world. Humanitarian assistance has been mobilized to help speed recovery.
However, we ask once again: why does the world always wait for disaster to strike before going to the aid of those who ate roost vulnerable?
The specialized agencies of the United Nations system, particularly the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (PAO) do an excellent job with the resources they have at their command. Many private social and philanthropic organizations are also deeply committed and Involved in the development process. However, adverse environmental and climatic conditions, as well as the follies of mankind, are strong and persistent adversaries. They will not easily cease their assaults on the efforts to bring a better life to every corner of the globe.
Thus, my Government joins with those who appeal greater international co-operation in United Nations development activities and disaster-relief efforts. We join with those who appeal for an end to the arms race and arms trafficking. We join with those who work relentlessly to end drug trafficking and the social devastation it brings in its wake. We applaud initiatives to study and address the serious threat posed to life on this planet by the destruction of the Earth's protective ozone layer. It appears that in the years to come no issue will be more vital to mankind's survival. The gravity of this issue is reflected in the fact that even as we meet here today more chlorine and other chemicals are being released into our atmosphere. These will cause even more depletion of the ozone shield well into the next century.
Mankind has been blessed, we believe, with a high form of intelligence and a wide range of emotions. Occasionally we utilize this blessing as if it were a curse on our fellow human beings.
We have created horrible weapons of mass destruction, ranging from large stockpiles of conventional arms to chemical and bacteriological agents and nuclear devices. Unfortunately, those who have such weapons are seldom satisfied with their mere creation and possession.
The use of these instruments of death has always been among the saddest chapters of the human experience, lb day more than ever before the international community should speak with one loud and clear voice against the manufacture, stockpiling and use of all these instruments of unholy terror. Our failure to do so can only result in greater human tragedy and irreparably rupture the thread that binds us all together.
During last year's general debate we expressed our sadness that inter-communal strife was plaguing every corner of the globe. Unfortunately, the plague seems to have worsened during the past year. Once again, it is not necessary to recite names, dates or places·, we are all painfully familiar with them. Nor do we wish to single out any particular country or region. The problem is universal. Once again we note that much of this inter-communal of ethnic strife has its roots in colonial history, during which colonialist practices often appeared to favour one ethnic group over another. However, some of today's inter-communal or ethnic conflicts either pre-date or are not at all related to colonialism. These are, rather, the result of ancient antagonisms and rivalries that all Governments should find unacceptable in the contemporary world.
While we are concerned at the growth and proliferation of these conflicts, we firmly adhere to the well-founded principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign States and respect for the territorial integrity of every internationally recognized State.
We are aware that from time to time Internal and external opponents of particular Governments have incited or helped fan the flames of inter-communal or ethnic strife. However, that does not mean that we should close our eyes or our ears and pretend that the problem does not exist. This is a major problem which Is likely to become worse unless the nations of the world exercise strong moral leadership.
Many people in the world look to the United Nations for such leadership. Generally speaking, we do not fail to exercise this leadership in a responsible fashion. The general subject of inter-communal or ethnic relations is one on which we believe that the international community should exercise its moral leadership by its example. We despair when we note that no region of the world and no country anywhere is completely Immune from this problem. Even the largest and wealthiest countries in the developed world have had to face this difficult issue, and still face it today. Those that face the issue with the greatest candour will make the greatest advances in stemming ethnic fears and bettering human relations.
For developing countries, our failure to recognize that the problem exists can only have disastrous consequences. We wish to see no society torn asunder, no country dismembered, no people displaced or disenfranchised and no Government embarrassed. We wish, rather, to encourage peoples everywhere to respect the cultures, customs and history of others. We wish to encourage greater understanding of what has divided people in the past and what can unite them in the future. We wish to see a broad international consensus appealing for an end to inter-communal strife, better inter-ethnic relations, and social progress and economic development for all peoples in every corner of the world.
Perhaps this vision of ours is a dream. However, it is a dream we are proud to possess and be possessed by. We pray that others share this dream and will be willing to join in making it a reality. What could possibly be more consistent with the ideals that have brought us together? What could possibly be more consistent with our own pronouncements on the evils of apartheid and other forms of institutionalized racism? What better way to commemorate the fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
I conclude by conveying our appreciation of the efforts of the President of the last session, Mr. Peter Florin of the German Democratic Republic, and those of our Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar. Their dedication, their patience and their successes on our behalf have in many ways helped to make the future far brighter than it was one year ago.
The recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the United Nations for its peace-keeping operations is very appropriate recognition of the fact that, through his tireless efforts and with the able assistance of a Secretariat of which we should all be proud, the Secretary-General has at last succeeded in narrowly opening the door to the very long corridor to peace, justice and harmony.
Now we, the nations of the world, must do our best to play our part by opening the door further and taking the next important step. It rests with us to cross the threshold of that door and begin the long walk down that corridor together, hand in hand.
Let us draw strength from our unity. Let us draw courage from the realization of our common fate should we fail or should we falter. Let us be nations that are, in purpose and objectives, truly united.


Mr. President, I should like at the outset to congratulate you on your election to the esteemed post of President of the forty-third session of the General Assembly. I feel sure that the possibility of restoring to the United Nations the spirit of conciliation and peace for which it was founded will depend, in no small measure, on your wise and experienced guidance.
In a discussion of the Middle East, history should precede diplomacy. The region has known epochs of war and golden ages, military conquests and spiritual greatness. It was in the Middle East that an invisible divide saw frustration and promise prevail in an unpredictable, seemingly uncontrollable, cycle. Yet it was man who triggered waves of hope and despair. Thus it was man who determined the course of history.
Today, once again, the region faces a moment of human choice.
We are preparing for a better tomorrow. We are prepared with a vision of peace. It is the vision of an end to a futile, economically devastating arras race now sliding in the inhumane direction of chemical and biological warfare. Ballistic missiles know no boundaries, chemical warheads do not distinguish young from old. Those senseless enough to employ them must recognize that they are creating a danger to themselves as well.
It is a vision of an opportunity to concentrate on scientific and technological breakthroughs on Earth and in space, on civilian requirements rather than military needs where resources wasted on armaments are invested in creative enterprises from the greening of the land to the clearing of the waters, from educating young children to caring for the senior citizen.
It is a vision of a region whose stability is inviting, whose dwelling is hospitable, whose creativity is encouraging, whose needs are seriously addressed by those seeking to invest in promoting stability and in expanding economic potential.
It is a vision of a region come of age, a region cognizant of global rapprochement, a region ready to tackle the heretofore seemingly insoluble in order to offer a better future for all - Jews and Arabs alike - a region ready to respect differences among peoples without discriminating against any.
It is a vision that is a necessity. It is a vision that is within reach.
Yet the smoke of old fires is still in the air and new ones threaten to darken the horizon.
Unless we take decisive action to change course belligerency will not be overcome. We have to do our utmost to ensure that never again will a young man or woman die in a war we failed to prevent.
What should be done to achieve this goal?
I shall start with Israel.
Three years ago Israel stood before this Assembly and pledged to dedicate its efforts to the pursuit of peace. That pledge rested not only on resolve, but also on a conviction: that in the north, war can be brought to an end; in the south, peace can be salvaged and nourished and, in the east, the ground can be laid to start meaningful negotiations.
In all three directions we laboured to fulfil the commitment.
In the north, we put an end to our involvement in Lebanon. We are out of Lebanon, its land and politics. Our sole concern is to see that Lebanon no longer serves as the base for hostile activities against us.
In the south, we have revived our relations with Egypt, which has since restored full diplomatic representation in Israel. We have witnessed Egypt, under the steady leadership of President Mubarak - dedicated to progress at home and peace in the region - reassume its central role in the Arab world without parting with its peace strategy.
In the east, we have experienced hope and frustration. Until less than a year ago, before things went awry, the West Bank turned from the centre of violent debate to the focus of diplomatic efforts. Most significantly, in April 1987, energetic and creative diplomacy produced a framework for negotiations. Known as "the London Document", it provided a non-imposing internationally supported setting for direct negotiations.
Unfortunately, while still viable, the effort has not yet reached fruition. Sadly, the absence of progress was accompanied by an outbreak of violence. Wrongly, the Palestinians chose to knock on the door of the future with stones in their hands. Knocking with a message of peace would have triggered an entirely different situation.
Indeed, the Palestinians must recognize that it is possible to secure their legitimate rights - but not at the expense of Israel's security. Palestinian aspirations and Israeli security are not necessarily incompatible.
Peace is an Israeli national interest. While we have confidence in the capacity of the Israeli Defence Forces to defend our country, by deterring any aggression and defeating it if need be, we consider the achievement of peace through diplomacy the greatest victory of all. My country has never surrendered to the pressures of war and will never yield to violence. In peace negotiations we shall stand firm on our security interests. Yet we stand ready for a historic compromise with our neighbours. For 40 years we have built our strength so as not to negotiate out of weakness. Today we are strong enough to negotiate for peace.
Israel has no intention of harming the Palestinian people. Israel has no desire to dominate their lives or to hurt their pride. We are prepared to negotiate with them, fairly, freely, as equals, a meeting-ground of needs, where Palestinians can enjoy their identity and Israelis security in peace.
We are prepared to conduct negotiations on the basis of the only framework, reaffirmed this week in the trilateral meeting chaired by President Reagan, with the participation of the Egyptian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and accepted by Arab countries as well as by all permanent members of the Security Council - that is. Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), calling for a territorial compromise and secure borders. They are the only existing common ground.
As we stand ready to live up to these commitments, we shall be as clear in addressing our expectations of our neighbours. For there can be peace, but not unilaterally; there can be accommodation, but only by mutual effort. We expect from the Arab world a clear voice for peace. For how long can a desire for peace be treated as a secret password as though we were living in clandestine surroundings? Commitment to peace must emerge loud and clear, for sceptics to witness, for the hopeful to respond.
We expect the Arab world to realize that there is no indirect peace. Peace is meant to reinforce, not to undermine, freedom and security for all involved.
We expect the Arab world, including the Palestinians, to do away with the contradiction of sweet promises and bitter violence. A policy of "no war, no peace", much like a policy that claims to combine both, is an exercise in evasion. A choice must be made: to pay the price of peace or to be resigned to the costs of war.
All of us must recognize changing realities. That which was rejected when offered, that which was doomed by war, that which could have been possible, belongs to the past. In the realities of 1988 the lines of 1947 no longer exist. After the Six-Day War Israel should not be expected to return to the lines from which it attacked. Readiness for a territorial compromise does not include readiness to compromise security.
A breakthrough requires the understanding that peace is a matter of choice; it is the outcome of decisions; it is the product of a historic compromise. No vague formulation can replace a clear strategy to part with the past. The turn to a so-called Government-in-exile, the return to General Assembly partition resolution 181 (II), represents yet another escape to the realm of self-illusion. Any attempt to add to or subtract from the only commonly accepted basis for negotiations is bound to destroy the existing framework without creating a new one. Fuelled by a commitment to no war and no violence, no terrorism and no pressure, we can travel the distance towards accommodation.
To the Palestinians I must say with candour that violence does not pay off. By avoiding negotiations they are depriving themselves of their hope. For there is hardly a chance for a compromise to emerge in the absence of, or prior to, a free negotiating process.
Although we cannot agree in advance on the outcome of negotiations  we can agree on the process by which to go forward - negotiations as an open-ended effort, free of pressure, imposition or threat. In those negotiations, Jordanians and Palestinians, much like ourselves, may present expectations and demands as they labour to balance contradictory aspirations so as to answer the call of peace. We are ready to enter into negotiations with Jordan and with authentic representatives of the Palestinian people who ate men of peace and not men of violence, in order to solve our differences with Jordan and to resolve the Palestinian problem in all its aspects. We are ready to negotiate with a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. Yet, as peace is unlikely to be achieved in one leap, we are prepared to start negotiations without prior conditions with a Jordanian delegation or a Palestinian one. We hope that the Palestinians will not postpone the prospects of peace; and we hope that Jordan, regardless of its relations with them, will not postpone negotiations either.
I wish to express the gratitude of my people to the United States, its leaders and its institutions for their firm and consistent support. The United States has enabled us to guarantee our security. It has encouraged us, as it has our neighbours, to enter into political negotiations.
The Shultz initiative calling upon the parties to enter into direct negotiations and negotiate a just and fair solution calls also on the permanent members of the Security Council to avoid imposing solutions, refrain from applying pressure and serve as supporters of peace. This initiative, which provides for direct negotiations launched in a non-coercive international setting - remains available for consideration.
When we had an opportunity to review the prospects for peace earlier this week we were reassured by the unanimity among the host. President Reagan, and his guests from Egypt and Israel that there is no substitute for an ongoing, uninterrupted effort towards peace, and that all those attending are resolved to fill the next few months with relevant content.
I wish to express my hope that the policies adopted by the Soviet Onion under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbachev will lead to a world of more ploughshares and fewer swords. Moscow has undertaken some steps, which, though partial and limited, are yet of importance. Zionist prisoners have been released. The number of Jewish emigration permits has grown. Consular groups have been stationed in the Soviet Union and Israel respectively. We have taken note of statements from Moscow calling on all sides in the Middle East to adopt realistic positions with the objective of demilitarizing international relations.
I wish to express the hope of my people that the cultural autonomy announced by the Soviet leadership will enable our Jewish brethren to pray to our Lord in their own synagogues, to teach their children the history of the Jewish people, to express themselves in the language of their forefathers, and to set sail to the shores of the promised land.
As we watch with wonder and respect the People's Republic of China rearrange its own destiny, we hope it will find this the occasion to support a non-coercive setting for Arab-Israeli negotiations, as well as to normalize its relations with the State of Israel.
There is nothing in our region's history or in its present that rules out a different future. In an era of peace and co-operation, the industrial dynamics of the Far Fast, the Economic Community of Europe, the free enterprise and the enterprise of freedom of the United States, and the Soviet capacity to introduce an air of glasnost can all apply to the Middle East. We can draw on the experience of others. We can add that which is unique to us and offer our young generation the dawn of prosperity in peace.
In order to prepare the ground for the launching of our region on the long road to peace, may we suggest that all relevant parties undertake the following: those interested in the promotion of peace and stability in the Middle East undertake a moratorium on all threats or acts of violence; those interested in promoting Arab-Israeli peace negotiations undertake to encourage and facilitate the early convening of such negotiations in a non-coercive setting, free of a renewed arms race and free of external pressure; and those committed to the cause of peace in the Middle East reaffirm their adherence to ,the only commonly accepted basis for such negotiations - Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) - the renunciation of violence and terror and recognition of the right of all peoples and States in the region to freedom, dignity, peace and security.
Before I conclude I wish to refer again to yet another issue that is very close to our hearts. As we have pointed out so often in the past, in Yemen, in Syria, in Iran and elsewhere our brethren are today permitted neither the free pursuit of our common heritage nor free departure to Israel. We call upon the Governments of those countries to respect basic human rights. We also call upon the Governments to reject the shameful assertion that Zionism is racism, a statement that shows no understanding of Zionism and a dangerous misunderstanding of racism.
Forty years ago the founder of our State, David Ben-Gurion, against the background of the turmoil of war and revival, introduced our Declaration of Independence, which stated:
"We extend our hand in peace and neighbourliness to all the neighbouring States and their peoples, and invite them to co-operate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all."
Israel at 40, proud of its accomplishments at home, confident about its future, today reiterates that very call; we extend our hand in peace to all our neighbours, peoples and States, as we stand ready to alter the course of Middle East history. At the all-too-familiar crossroads of hope and despair we are convinced that the choice is ours to make.
Most appropriately, this week our people celebrate the holiday of Succoth, the Feast of Tabernacles, as we pray together "Spread over us the Tabernacle of Thy peace ..."
"He who maketh peace in heavens, may He make peace for us ..."
We need it; we can help to achieve it.


Mr. President, may I first congratulate you on your well-deserved election, which indeed guarantees the effectiveness of the work of the forty-third session of the General Assembly and which is a great honour for Argentina, a country with which we are united by ties of friendship and solidarity. We are certain that your outstanding personal qualifications and keen understanding of Latin American and world problems will lead to success in the work of the Assembly in its quest for concrete solutions at all levels of international life, which is today more than ever before filled with challenges, hopes and new ideals.
I am also very pleased to greet Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar, under whose leadership the United Nations h ¿is indeed demonstrated its ability to deal with very important international problems with regard to the maintenance of peace and security. I take special pride in congratulating him on the recent award of the Nobel Peace Prize to a courageous group of men devoted to peace who work within the structure of the Organization. Central America - which was similarly honoured last year when the Prize was awarded to a great Central American, a keen advocate of similar ideals, Mr. Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the sister Republic of Costa Rica - wishes today to pay a well-deserved tribute to these dedicated guardians of peace.
El Salvador has done its part. When in 1984 José Napoleon Duarte, the first freely elected President of El Salvador in more than 50 years took office, my Government set for itself a very clear and precise goal·, to establish democracy in the country as the basis and the principle for the long journey towards peace, reconciliation and social justice. Almost five years later, in the final stages of a convulsive and difficult constitutional exercise of titanic dimensions, we can say with dignity, mission accomplished. This is because the dynamic democratic process the Government of El Salvador initiated is of great historical significance, since it brought about opportunities for action which had never before had been able to develop. This progress is part of our national task in all its aspects; it is a viable component of the strengthening of our free, pluralistic and participatory society - the society roost Salvadorians desire.
The hard work and will of a visionary statesman, José Napoleon Duarte, President of the Republic - whose mandate is to end on 1 June 1989 - must be emphasized. I wish to refer to him not only as a statesman but also as a man who is at this time undergoing great personal trial and tribulation.
President Duarte took on the responsibility of leading El Salvador in full awareness of the problems and sacrifices this entailed at a crucial stage of our history characterized by political repression and social upheaval. This was a formidable challenge, but he has faced up to it without respite, deeply committed to his Christian convictions and principles. Since then he has devoted all his energies towards completing the mission he undertook, despite the most varied difficulties and cruel vicissitudes.
The philosophy and plan of action of this man of unflinching will is and will be in the future of EL Salvador the only practical way in which to develop a new country, a country whose image has largely been formed as one of a struggling people aware of its historical commitment to achieve its own ideals. Thus, President Duarte outlined the plan that will bring El Salvador out of its former stage of backwardness and alienation into an era of democratization, participation, pacification, humanization, economic revitalization and internationalization of dialogue, not of conflict.
Those are the moving forces, the ideas and the strengths that will continue to prevail until the final consolidation of the political landscape in El Salvador. The praxis of this programme is a unique challenge, because the application of these principles requires overcoming the forces of the extreme right and the extreme left while keeping a precarious centrist balance - what the President has termed, "treading the cutting edge of the blade or walking along the edge of a precipice".
This is Duarte's contribution at this most difficult juncture for our country. This is the challenge> this is the philosophy we must promote in the midst of misunderstanding and external aggression. To democratise a society enmeshed in a crisis with so many components and variables is indeed a formidable task.
But matters are now in the hands of the Almighty, a President and his courage, a people and a Government which have closed ranks in order to ensure the application of those principles. A great deal remains to be done, but what has been done with regard to each and every one of these principles has in sum yielded an outstanding result·, democracy, freedom and participation in a true social and humanistic context. This is a concrete legacy, a legacy of hope which impels us to continue to work with the same strength as our President. No doubt, in retrospect we see misunderstanding and destruction; and when we look closer we see a narrow and difficult path but when we look ahead we see the light at the end of the tunnel.
This forum - whose main task is the search for international peace and security is the appropriate forum from which to draw attention to the situation in my country and in Central America in general. In both cases there is a need for broad understanding of the efforts to regain the path of democracy as a way of life and a system of government in which there is plurality of interests in an open society that tolerates differences and promotes fundamental freedoms and the values essential to human dignity.
Therefore, this forum must, as it has always done, firmly reject anti-democratic theses based on violence and terrorism and reaffirm the principles of non-intervention and self-determination, co-operation and respect for the expression of the popular will in the establishment of a Government clearly separate from the army, the product of free elections with the participation of all political and ideological groups. We believe that only tolerance and the rule of law can contribute to lasting peace and security for all. In this context and within the framework of these principles, which are basic to this august institution, the United Nations, I must, in all fairness, repeat that the Government of EI Salvador has endorsed the option which allows and promotes political, economic and social democracy, respect for human tights, both of the individual and of society, and the broadest possible measure of freedom of expression and criticism for all political groups.
May I be permitted at this point to make a necessary and timely distinction with regard to the context in which the problem of Salvador Is taking place. There are two systems at the present time. One is the institutional system, established on the basis of the freely expressed will of our people and embodied in a legitimate government. The other system. Imposed from outside through Cuba and Nicaragua, has given rise to a conflict which has completely lost its legitimacy, as the candidate from Democratic Convergence for the presidency of the Republic, Dr. Guillermo Manuel Ungo, who is from the FDR, recently stated. The fact is that the conflict is obsolete, it is a belated interventionist strategy advocated by the International enemies of democracy.
In the same connection we must now distinguish between this problem and the treatment of the problem of human rights. In this context we see, first, an Institutional area in which human rights and respect for them are treated in a normal way. They are part of the day-to-day activities of the government at the social level. Here we must recognize that the democracy to which I have just referred - free elections, the return and resettlement of refugees, the fullest possible measure of freedom, the broadest and most generous amnesty - all represent undeniable progress on the part of the Government of El Salvador.
In the other context, that of the conflict that has been ongoing, the problems which arise with regard to human rights, while they can be controlled through government action, as indeed has been done in the vast majority of cases, we must consider that in order to eliminate them, we must first remove their cause, which is the conflict itself. Secondly, we must also consider that in this field the most serious problems are brought about by the blind terrorist groups of the FMLN/FDR.	>
We therefore insist that terrorism and subversion are not an option for the Salvadorian people or for the international community. . This has been shown by the political events that took place in March of this year, events in which the Salvadorian people participated and which were witnessed by more than 200 international observers, who confirmed that a pluralist democracy had indeed been established in El Salvador. The people expressed its views freely on 20 March and elected its deputies to the National Legislative Assembly and the municipal councils. The results of the vote favoured the political opposition. That event no doubt constitutes the strongest rejection of violence and is confirmation that most Salvadorians believe in the vote as the only way to obtain public power.
With regard to dialogue and peace, our determination to seek peace has been evident in our government activity since 8 October 1984, when President Duarte, speaking before this General Assembly, took the initiative in instituting a dialogue for peace. It was thus that on 15 October 1984, four years ago, in the city of La Palma, the first meeting took place with representatives of the FMI/J/fDR groups.
Ever since then the path we have followed has gone through Ayagualó Sesori and, finally, after many other dialogues, San Salvador in 1987, in the context of the Guatemala agreement, known under the name of Esquipulas II. Unfortunately, the strategy or tactical lack of understanding on the part of IMLN/POR has impeded the incorporation of these groups, in their entirety, into the democratic process. However, as the undeniable result of tills effort, we can now see that what was formerly a guerrilla band has now been reduced to a group of recalcitrant terrorists helplessly constrained by its very commitment, whose threatened violence even keeps its own comrades from joining in the institutional process.
Actually, the way towards the attainment of peace has been extremely difficult since we cannot compromise when it comes to the lofty values of freedom, democracy and the very institutional 1гаtion of the Republic. No doubt; the conflict has had implications in the economic and social spheres. Its consequences have been felt in that it has not been possible to offer the nation better living conditions. It is true that the people of El Salvador have suffered the loss of their property, which was systematically destroyed by the FMHL/FDR. This has resulted in suffering and poverty, and is a clear and obvious violation of the civil and social rights of the Salvadorian people.
We can say that in El Salvador there is a widespread feeling that action should be taken to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms·, but in a form consistent with the circumstances, the right to self-defence is also allowed within the appropriate channels of a legal order to counteract terrorist action and the violence of the extremist groups.
The democratic process has established areas in which everyone can express himself and criticize as he wishes, without, however, exceeding the legal limits, since respect for these limits and for order are essential conditions of democratic life.
The Government of El Salvador wishes to express its firm resolve to continue to strengthen democracy in which all participate. In this context the leaders of the FDR, together with the PMLN began to return to the country in November1987, as the result of a general state of amnesty. Their incorporation into political activity is an established fact. They have enrolled in the national voters registry and they have announced that they will take part in the presidential elections of 1989 under the name of "Convergencia Perroeratica - Democratic Convergence. Although the political arm of the FMUJ, still states that there is no democratic process, they fear fanatic reprisals from their own allies. The fact is, however, that their incorporation into the electoral process means that there is an obvious recognition on their part of our process toward democracy.
The agreement entitled "Procedure for the Establishment of a Firm and Lasting Peace in Central America", known as Esquipulas II, has not lost its meaning, because the spirit of peace contained therein lives on, and it was the Central Americans themselves, through their Presidents, gathered in Costa Rica on 16 January 1988, who confirmed the value and importance of that agreement, as well as their commitment to its implementation. Similarly, the General Assembly, in its resolution 42/1, expresses its firmest support for the agreement and requests the Secretary-General to afford the fullest support to the Central American Governments in their effort to achieve peace.

The quest for peace in Central America is a historic endeavour for El Salvador, and in this context, and within the framework of this session of the General Assembly, we have continued to pursue initiatives to follow up with meetings of foreign ministers first, and then meetings of presidents, which are to take place within the next few days. The agenda that we shall discuss will include items on amnesty, dialogue, democracy and freedom, refugees, human rights and a Central American Parliament. In this review all countries will be shown to have assets and liabilities in terms of economy, but, regrettably, it must be said that one of them, Nicaragua, despite its efforts, whether serious or not, will have a greater debit balance. The Sandinist Government, reverting to situations that existed prior to the Guatemala agreement, continues, unfortunately, to violate the most elementary freedoms and civil rights. It persecutes and imprisons politicians and activists, represses public manifestations and closes channels of expression. The Sandinist Government has not even made the required clear and definite public statement of a total break, with the armed subversion in El Salvador, which is a clear commitment under the Esquipulas II agreement.
The link between the Sandinist Government and the FMIN is not only at odds with prevailing circumstances in El Salvador, but also totally incompatible with the letter and the spirit of Esquipulas II. Furthermore, the system which the Sandinist Government is trying to consolidate has been shown to be inappropriate at a time when everyone is trying to arrive at formulas of freedom and understanding far removed from totalitarian, oppressive and expansionist systems. Very few are going against the tide of history. We urge the Sandinist Government to reconsider and to join at this time with the world and Central America and no longer to obstruct the co-operation that now may lead to more concrete freedoms in the region, co-operation which the Government and the people of Nicaragua need.
El Salvador has done its part. Esquipulas II has led to the successful implementation of important decisions in the country on, among other things, national reconciliation through the broadest measure of amnesty ever known in the country, the massive repatriation of Salvadorian refugees, and regional co-operation expressed in the Central American Parliament, which has been endorsed our Assembly with a view to eventual, but certain, regional integration, which will have to be based on democratic and pluralistic principles.
The tragedy of Central America must be ended through global and regional solutions leading to a strengthening of peace and the restoration of security, ¡recognition of democracy as the legitimate means of acquiring power, and rejection of all violence, totalitarianism and confrontation.
This entire regional process must be credible. Thus, SI Salvador is proposing the establishment of a verification and follow-up commission at the political level to supervise in the various countries of the area the existence and validity of a true pluralistic, participatory democracy that broadly respects all individual, social, political and economic right the holding of truly free elections; and strict observance of human rights. We are proposing a commission linked to the executive commission of Esquipulas II, which my at its discretion visit the territory of the five countries to observe and determine compliance with these democratic commitments, which form the basic framework for real peace.
Regarding the organization and financing of this commission, it would be made up of five Central Americans designated by the executive commission of Esquipulas II, and would have the necessary assistance of the international community in securing the appropriate technical and financial backing. We Central Americans must accept the commission courageously as a challenge for our future, which will be all the stranger and more vigorous for being based on the concept of a true democratic structure.
This idea of the commission for democracy, far from being contrary to international law, had already been suggested in similar terms within the framework of the draft Contadora on Peace and Co-operation in Central America. Therefore it already had the support of the Latin American group and all nations that supported the draft. We certainly view with interest the suggestion by Honduras about establishing a security commission which was also considered in the Contadora context. We believe  however, that peace and security in Central America can be achieved only through the radical and essential functioning of regional democracy.
El Salvador has done its part. What we have been able to do as guided by the far-sightedness of President Duarte, we have done and gone beyond} what has been beyond our ability and capacity, such as dealing with the effects of irrational conflict imposed from the outside, we have not been able to do, because the solution to this problem, unfortunately, does not depend solely on us, it depends on extraneous factors which violate the sacred principles that govern international coexistence and in which El Salvador firmly believes. These are the principles of non-intervention, non-interference, self-determination, good faith, loyal compliance with international commitment, and the consistent recourse to peaceful means of settling disputes.
Esquipulas II appeals to countries not to support insurgency or armed subversion in El Salvador or in Central America in general. Today, I reiterate that appeal most strongly from this forum of peace, so that our democracy, free from interference, may bear fruit.
We reiterate our call for development, peace and democracy. Co-operation must be directed especially to the less favoured countries. This entails the provision of financial, technical and human resources, because inequality and poverty are certainly hindrances to the permanent maintenance of international peace and stability. It is therefore urgently necessary that one of the most pressing problems in International economic relations between North and South - that is, the foreign debt - be tackled with justice and realism and without delay by creating mechanisms to establish the shared responsibilities of creditors and debtors and the link between this problem and international trade.
We appreciate the co-operation we have received in SI Salvador and in Central America and the welcome intention of various countries and international organizations to continue to co-operate. In this connection, I reiterate the appeal in Esquipulas II to the international community to continue with urgency and determination to assist the region in its straggle to eliminate the deep structural causes of the conflict and to bring about the desired comprehensive development: of its societies, while understanding that democracy and peace cannot be consolidated without a policy of sustained growth. This effort is all-inclusive, and in the task of achieving the ideals of stability there are no priorities. All actions geared to the attainment of these objectives must run simultaneously and in parallel, so that if we wish to have democracy and peace we must also have development, to overcome poverty and backwardness. A colleague of mine has said that support should not wait for peace, because such support is needed to open up the road to peace.
In 1987 the General Assembly adopted resolution 42/1, on the situation in Central America, and resolution 42/204, on special economic assistance to Central America. In this context the Secretary-General submitted to the Assembly a report (А/4У949) containing a plan, which was prepared with the participation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECŁA). El Salvador welcomes these expressions of support and urges the international community of donors to achieve to the plan, which is of immediate need for the region.
Against that background, may I state, with regard to the tragedy of the Salvadorian refugees, that the Government has devoted important resources to their return to the country, in keeping with the principles of humanitarian international law and internal legal norms. More than 8,000 Salvadorians have returned to their country since October 1987 from camps on Honduran territory, which shows that there are indeed encouraging signs of development, peace and democracy in the country which have encouraged them to return.
El Salvador considers it necessary to convene the proposed international conference on Central American refugees and expresses its strong support for that
In this context we welcome the results of the San Salvador Declaration in which the Central American countries and Mexico, with the valuable co-operation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), within an apolitical and strictly humanitarian framework, decided that that international conference should be convened at the highest level and be held in the city of Guatemala in May 1989.
El Salvador wishes to thank the International community and the friendly countries which have shown special concern over this humanitarian question and have offered immediate help and co-operation. We commend the work done by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and we especially agree with tine terms of the letter recently addressed by the High Commissioner to President Duarte recognizing his exemplary attention to this delicate and sensitive problem, which has been addressed exceptionally and with dedication by the Government of EL Salvador, as the High Commissioner has stated.
Democracy, peace and development - that is the triptych of principles which will lead us to regional integration, that being the only politically valid, stable solution to the problems of the isthmus. Only a strong Central America, united in democracy and progress, will provide a sufficient guarantee of subregional stability in a world which is becoming increasingly free and pluralistic and which, fortunately, is overcoming the stages of confrontation through dialogue, understanding and the requirement of plans of action oriented towards gradual universal integration in which technology and science would serve as the binding and motivating element.
This year, in which El Salvador was elected by an overwhelming majority to be the seat of the eighteenth General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) as a gesture of continued support for the sacrifices of its people and Government to achieve democracy, we welcome the presentation to this session of the Secretary-General's report on the item entitled, "Co-operation between the United Nations and the Organization of American States", which is evidence of world solidarity. Our common universal objectives make it imperative for us to work together and I repeat, we welcome this with great hopes.
El Salvador considers that peace and efforts to guarantee peace continue to be threatened in South Africa by the policy of racial discrimination practised by the South African Government. Vie also share in the wish for the adoption of a realistic solution for peace between Iraq and Iran. We continue to be concerned over the situation in Lebanon. We condemn the occupation of Kampuchea by foreign troops and we express the wish that there should be a progressive withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan. We support the strategy of the Republic of Korea, in the framework of its initiative towards reconciliation, co-operation and national reconciliation through dialogue and its wish to become a fully-fledged Member of the United Nations
El Salvador has played its part. My government welcomes and views with hope the progress and the achievements of this Organization and the international community towards consolidating democracy, peace and co-operation throughout the world on the basis of transnational agreements. Six months before the ending of the constitutional Government of President Duarte, after four and a half years of severe tests and enormous work, our commitments have been strengthened to the point where there is an awareness among all of the vital sectors of the country - the armed forces, the private sector, social and cultural organizations and so on - that it is no longer possible to go back. that is our destiny and our conviction. Democracy has been won. We now await peace and we will achieve peace through democracy, in the certainty that the vast majority of the peoples and the Governments represented in this Assembly stand with us in this endeavour.


I wish to extend to you, Sir, the warm congratulations of the Gambian delegation on your election to the high office of President of the forty-third session of the General Assembly. I am sure that with your diplomatic skills and ability, as exemplified by your illustrious career, you will guide the deliberations of this important session to a successful conclusion. In the discharge of your duties you can count on the full co-operation of my delegation.
I should like to take this opportunity to express my delegation's profound thanks and gratitude to Mr. Peter Florin, Deputy Foreign Minister of the German Democratic Republic, for the efficient and businesslike manner in which he conducted the deliberations of the forty-second session of the General Assembly.
Permit me also to pay a special tribute to our indefatigable Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his laudable efforts in the promotion of international co-operation and his devotion to the search for peace among nations. The decision of the Nobel Committee to award the 1988 Peace Prize to the United Nations peace-keeping forces deserves our praise and admiration. This well-deserved recognition is also a testimony to the dedication and courage of the thousands of men and women spread around the globe and fully committed to the aims and ideals of the Charter of the Organization. The United Nations family deserves to be congratulated.
Last year at this time, when the forty-second session of the General Assembly convened, the world was still caught in a web of escalating tensions and regional conflicts. In some areas, these conflicts took on higher intensity and wider involvement, fuelled with even more destructive weapons. The cost, both in material and in human terms, became incalculable, and unprecedented since the last World War.
From the heat of the Sahara to the lush greenery of southern Angola, from the Shatt al-Arab waterway to the rugged mountains of Afghanistan and into the plains of Indochina, the principle of the peaceful resolution of disputes became illusive. It seemed as if the world had forgotten the solemn declaration of the United Nations founding fathers that they were determined "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war". Indeed, conflicts, disputes and a general state of instability continued to prevail. But, at last, there is today a glimmer of hope in the international atmosphere for the resolution of several Long-outs banding conflicts and disputes. In fact, recent developments in many troubled areas have opened up new possibilities for the peaceful settlement of disputes and for co-operative coexistence among nations.
Who would have believed, only a year ago, that during this session we would all be basking in the genuine hope of a more stable world, because of the remarkable achievement of a super-Power agreement actually to destroy a whole class of nuclear weapons? Perhaps, by this act, mankind has finally taken that important first step away from the threat of a nuclear conflict. With the present spirit of co-operation, my delegation is confident that this is just the first step, and that the best is way to come. As the Chinese saying goes, "A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step."
At their last summit in Moscow earlier this year, President Reagan of the United States and President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union laid a solid foundation for a realistic approach to the question of peace, stability and the reduction of the risk of global conflicts. The whole world notes with satisfaction their determination to prevent the risk of war, whether nuclear or conventional.
As the result of a remarkable series of initiatives and of greater understanding, both super-Powers have contributed greatly to the transformation of the world political situation. The new climate of mutual respect, understanding and dialogue has opened the door to more meaningful advances in the efforts of all nations, especially the super-Powers, to strive for a world without nuclear weapons.
My delegation welcomes the fact that disarmament has been a major theme in world politics during the last 12 months. We remain hopeful that the United Nations will continue to play its rightful role in creating the atmosphere for meaningful dialogue and that all current negotiations on this important issue will be expeditiously and successfully concluded. It is also the hope of my delegation that greater attention will be given to increased security in a wider sense, namely, in the release of human and material resources for redeployment on social and economic programmes for the general welfare of all underprivileged peoples around the world.
In his statement to the third special session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to disarmament, held in June this year, the President of the Gambia, His Excellency Alhaji Sir Dawda Kair aba Jawara, addressed this issue of the unfortunate competition in the allocation of available resources for armaments and development as follows: "The allocation of massive resources for armaments is simply a major constraint on the development process, as armaments and development both tend to compete for the same limited resources. Given the general global economic and financial crises, reduced military spending could contribute significantly not only to an increased flow of development assistance to developing countries, but also to an improved climate for global economic growth. We should therefore work tirelessly to ensure that the progress made in disarmament results in increased attention to economic and social development matters and in particular to increased assistance to developing countries. Remote as the chances for this may seem at the moment, we should continue to strive for this important transition, and I would urge that the General Assembly give this important question particular attention at this special session." (A/S-15/PV.9, p. 12)
The current climate of peace, of renewed hope and optimism, is not only evident in the search for a more stable and sustainable relationship between the two super-Powers: it has, as we all know, reached the other areas of conflict around the world.
In Afghanistan, foreign troops that have occupied that country for eight years are now withdrawing. We hope that the signing of the Geneva agreements and the total withdrawal of foreign troops will create conditions that will enable the Afghan refugees to return to their country in safety and dignity. In this way, all Afghans can sit together and chart their own destiny without any external influence.
At this juncture, my delegation would like to pay tribute to the positive and responsible attitude adopted by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Despite the threat to its security, which emanated from the presence of foreign troops in neighbouring Afghanistan, the Islamic republic of Pakistan gallantly provided shelter and relief to over 3 million refugees in accordance with universally recognized humanitarian principles.
We have also been following with keen interest the developments in the Gulf region, mainly because of our genuine desire for peace. In fact, as we all know, the President of the Republic of the Gambia, in his capacity as Chairman of the Peace Committee of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has since 1984 been actively involved in the difficult task of trying to bring an end to the Gulf war and to create better understanding between the brotherly peoples of Iran and Iraq, fortunately, recent developments in the area have generated much optimism. This conflict has caused immense suffering to the populations of the two countries. It is our fervent hope that the cessation of hostilities and the current initiatives of the Secretary-General will lead to an honourable resolution of all the outstanding issues without further delay.
In South-East Asia, we welcome and applaud the initiatives of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which culminated in the recent Jakarta informal meeting, and its endeavour to find a solution to the Kampuchea n problem. We appeal to all sides concerned to explore all possible avenues for the restoration of the rights of the Kampuchean people, while at the same time ensuring the legitimate interests of all the countries in the region to live in peace with one another.
Our support for the current search for & solution is based on the principle that no country should be permitted to define its security in a way that creates insecurity for others. The presence of foreign troops in Kampuchea and the repeated incursions into Thai territory have heightened tension and posed security problems in the region. It has also transformed a large section of the Kampuchean population into refugees and placed an intolerable burden upon neighbouring countries of first asylum, particularly Thailand.
Like the rest of the international community, the Gambia is committed to the complete withdrawal of foreign forces from Kampuchea, in accordance with the relevant United Nations resolutions. This would allow the Kampuchean people to determine their own future, with the full participation of all Kampuchean.
In the Korean peninsula, we continue to support genuine efforts for the peaceful reunification of North Korea and South Korea, in the best interest of both parties. In this regard, a meaningful dialogue is the key to a lasting solution and must therefore be vigorously pursued. Pending reunification, however, my delegation will support the admission of both North Korea and South Korea to the United Nations, based on the principle of universality.
With regard to the situation in the Middle East, the international community must ensure that the already explosive situation in that area is not immune from the prevailing climate of peace, dialogue and understanding. Developments in the occupied territories over the last few months have proved beyond doubt that the time has come for the prevailing winds of peaceful change to blow in this area. While there is anxiety over the need for all States in the region to live within secure and recognized boundaries, we should admit that it is equally important to emphasize that realization of the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people to have a homeland of their own is long overdue.
We, in the Gambia, will therefore continue to support the Palestinian people in their heroic struggle for an independent homeland. We consider the convening of an international conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, a very important step in the search for a genuine and lasting settlement. But if such a conference is to succeed, it must guarantee the full and effective participation of the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).
On the question of Cyprus, my delegation will continue to encourage the ongoing contacts and negotiations taking place under the good offices of the Secretary-General. We reiterate our hope that the two communities will continue to co-operate with the Secretary-General with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable political settlement of the problem. In this connection, an arrangement based on the equal rights of both communities could be an ideal solution.
Let me now focus my attention on Africa. As members are aware, we in Africa have just celebrated the Silver Jubilee of our continental organization, the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The celebrations, however, took place at a most critical time in southern Africa. The celebrations also coincided with the tenth anniversary of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) on Namibia, thus serving as a sombre and bleak reminder of the nature of the monstrous regime in Pretoria.
Today, there exists world-wide revulsion against the racist regime in South Africa. However, this widespread international outcry is not due to the international community sudden realizations that apartheid is evil, violent and immoral. This growing international reaction is due to the sustained struggle being waged by progressive and democratic forces inside South Africa itself. It is the internal struggle that made South Africa the focus of attention. But in bringing this about, the people of South Africa and the front-line States have had to make great sacrifices. In spite of the past record, much has been made by the racist regime and its supporters of South Africa's intention to institute reforms in compliance with internationally recognized norms.
If there is any regime that qualifies to have Chapter VII of the Charter invoked, then surely it is this regime whose policies have been rightly and universally declared as a crime against humanity. We must therefore make greater efforts to support the struggle of the South African people by continuing to strive for the application of comprehensive and mandatory sanctions. The international community must find ways and means of adopting further measures designed to impress on the authorities in Pretoria the compelling urgency of dismantling apartheid and creating the structures of democracy in South Africa.
My delegation would also strongly urge the international community to provide the front-line States with such assistance as would guarantee their territorial integrity and independence. We should, however, make sure that such assistance is not simply regarded as an easy alternative to dealing with the root cause of the crises in southern Africa which, as we all know, is South Africa's ever-increasing internal repression and brutality in its futile attempts to perpetuate apartheid.
At the moment, there is steadily mounting optimism with regard to the peaceful settlement of the Namibian question. Naturally, we, in Africa, welcome the series of negotiations that have so far taken place. We hope they will eventually lead to the independence of Namibia, within the framework of Security Council resolution 435 (1978).
On several occasions in the past, hopes have been raised that South Africa would bow to international public opinion and to morality by accepting the provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978). Those hopes have been repeatedly thwarted by a defiant South Africa; hence the reason for our cautious optimism. We hope that this time, the international consensus on the illegality and inadmissibility of Pretoria's actions and its several military setbacks in southern Angola will ensure that South Africa stays at the negotiating table.
We all do recall that when the founding fathers of the United Nations drew up the Charter in 1945, they reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person. Besides the Charter, the United Nations has also made clear pronouncements on human rights in many fundamental texts, such as, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966.
As we commemorate this year the fortieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, let us remember that all these solemn declarations and covenants recognize that freedom from want and fear can be achieved only if conditions ate created whereby everyone enjoys his or her civil and political rights.
The issue of the protection and promotion of basic human rights cannot therefore be separated from the immediate problems of human survival. There is an indissoluble link between the two. Human rights is indivisible and universal, incorporating, as it were, social and economic rights, such as, the right to a decent diet, shelter and access to basic health care and educational facilities.
In view of the widening gap between the universally accepted practices of human rights and the stark realities in many parts of the world, we must make more intensive efforts to defend the rights and dignity of the individual. The Gambia does not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of any State. Our stance on human rights is motivated only by a special concern for the individual and his freedom and dignity.
It is gratifying to note that specific steps within each region to improve the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms are particularly promising.
In Africa, important decisions have been taken towards the institutionalisation of respect for and protection of human rights in the continent. As this Assembly may be aware, an Organization of African Unity (OAU) Commission on Human and peoples' Rights has now been established and the Gambia's offer to host the headquarters of the Commission has been unanimously accepted by the member States of the OAU. We believe that the confidence and trust which have been reposed in the Government and people of the Gambia are based on our firm and irrevocable commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights, a commitment which is derived from the principles enshrined in both our domestic laws and our foreign policy.
Besides the decision to host the Secretariat of the OAU Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, we in the Gambia ace currently in the process of establishing a centre for democracy and human rights studies in order further to promote and consolidate our achievements in this area. I hasten to add that the proposed centre will be a non-governmental institution, open to all those who share the Gambia's commitment to democracy, the rule of law and the principles of freedom and the integrity of the individual.
Those are some of the more pressing political issues confronting the international community. Throughout the world there seems to be renewed commitment and hope that these political problems, despite their seeming complexity, will all someday be resolved peacefully.
But if the political climate offers some hope for the future the same cannot be said for the international economic environment. My delegation notes, with a great deal of anxiety, that our current economic crises, which pose no less of a threat to international peace and security, are not being imaginatively and effectively tackled. Notwithstanding the special concern about long-term structural problems, the necessary political will to solve them is regrettably still lacking.
As a result of global recession, unfavourable terms of trade, persistent high interest rates in some developed countries and the increasing cost of debt servicing, most African countries, including the Gambia, have had to put in place a comprehensive package of reform measures in order to remove structural imbalances in our economy and establish a firm footing for recovery and development with growth.
Although there has been marked progress in redressing some major macro-economic and sectoral distortions, much still remains to be done. The Government of the Gambia is fully aware of the hardships and difficulties brought about by these domestic policy reforms, but we continue to show full determination in implementing all measures required for a speedy economic recovery and for laying the foundation for sustained long-term economic growth and prosperity.
However, it is clear that our efforts to help ourselves will fail without a new and substantial flow of financial resources on a concessionary basis. We hope that the international community will give significant support to our efforts, in conformity with the commitments made in the context of the United Nations Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development, adopted in 1986. It will be recalled that this Programme of Action was recently revised and reviewed by the Ad Hoc Committee of the Whole of the General Assembly. My delegation sincerely hopes that at this session the Assembly will decide on the measures for overcoming the shortcomings and constraints that have been identified.
The root cause of the current economic crisis of the developing countries has been the collapse in commodity prices. According to recent estimates, the cumulative loss for developing countries resulting from the decline in commodity prices relative to those of manufactured goods imported by them between 1980 and 1985 amounted to about $US 50 billion. Such large losses in a period of declining official development assistance emphasizes the need for increased multilateral co-operation generally.
Nor should we lose sight of the fact that developing countries' dependence on primary commodities has remained strong, ranging between 68 per cent and almost 100 per cent. Moreover, in some cases, such as that of the Gambia, one or two primary commodities account for 90 per cent of total exports. The share of primary commodities in gross development product for the developing countries is over 30 per cent, whereas for the developed market-economy countries it is less than 10 pat cent. Consequently, a decline in commodity export earnings has far-reaching implications for us, not only for current account balances but also for fiscal revenues.
One aspect of the African crisis, which could be directly linked to commodity prices and which places a premium upon the need for flexibility and a new approach towards its solution, is the problem of acute external indebtedness. Africa's economic development has been held back by debt more than by anything else.
This, need for an international conference to tackle this problem is becoming even more urgent, It must be fully recognized, however, that despite the debt-relief measures adopted so far by some developed creditor countries the African debt crisis can be solved only if our economies are given the necessary impetus to grow and all debts are converted to grants. In addition to the restructuring of our national economies, the present crisis in Africa has focused attention on the urgent need to take further action on operating and sustaining closer subregional and regional co-operation. It cannot be overemphasized that Africa's future lies in greater co-operation and self-reliance, with a view to ensuring a balanced development, within the framework of our drive towards the total economic emancipation of Africa in consonance with the spirit of the Lagos Plan of Action and the Final Act of Lagos. That is which the Government of the Gambia attaches the greatest importance to our subregional organization, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Amidst rapid economic changes and uncertainties, EOOWAS continues to find effective ways of improving the standard of living of millions of people in our region. In this regard the Gambian President will, in his capacity as the current Chairman of ECOWAS, strive to give new impetus to the implementation of various programmes of subregional organizations, including the EOOWAS Economic Recovery Programme. Still on EOOWAS matters, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the United Nations Regional Centre for Peace and Disarmament for Africa for organizing a training programme on conflict resolution, crisis prevention and management and confidence-building among ECOWAS States, in Lome, Togo, from 22 August to 2 September 1988.
The programme provided a forum for communication between senior military and civilian officials of ECOWAS States responsible for issues of peace and security in their countries, especially in the practical skills and expertise needed to prevent and manage conflicts. This approach was seen as helping to break down barriers of mistrust and thereby enhance confidence among EOOWAS States.
Both military and civilian perspectives are essential in order to have a complete view of the dynamics of problems being analysed and to establish concrete mechanisms in the future for the realization of lasting peace and security in Africa.
As a result of the success of this programme, the desire has been expressed to continue such programmes and to expand them to include other subregions of Africa.
On this important issue of peace and security in Africa it is encouraging to note that the initiatives taken by our leaders to settle the differences between Chad and Libya, Morocco and Algeria and Ethiopia and Somalia are beginning to bear fruit. We whole-heartedly support this approach to the peaceful settlement of disputes between the brother peoples of Africa, based on the spirit and principles of the charter of the Organization of African Unity.
At a time when all our energies are being concentrated on the twin problems of survival and growth, a new and dangerous phenomenon is beginning to cause widespread anxiety and alarm. I am, of course, referring to the totally unacceptable and irresponsible practice of dumping industrial and toxic waste in Africa. The Gambia is one of a number of countries that have been approached, but we have firmly rejected all requests for the disposal of industrial waste in our country. Given the gravity of this situation, we have also enacted very important and stringent laws to prevent the likelihood of any waste-dumping in the Gambia. And, as I have said on another occasion, despite our poverty no amount of money would lead us to agree to mortgage the future of our environment.
Over the years the Gambia has paid special attention to the better management of our environment as we endeavour to improve the standard of living of our people. In fact, about a decade ago the Government of the Gambia issued a special declaration, known as the Banjul declaration, in which we "pledged our untiring efforts to conserve for now and posterity as wide a spectrum as possible of our remaining fauna and flora." Furthermore, following the long period of drought and the relentless encroachment of the desert in cur subregion, we in west Africa must be spared from any further form of environmental degradation.
My delegation would therefore like to support the proposal first made by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and now accepted as an Economic Community of West African States (ECDWAS) project, for the establishment of a "dump watch", in order that countries which may be subject to the dumping of industrial waste are alerted in good time to enable them to put in place all the precautionary measures necessary to safeguard their environment. The United Nations should set up a special committee that would look into the activities of industrial companies that are guilty of this crime. The countries that have been seductively subjected to the systematic pollution of their environment should also be compensated.
This is the background against which the forty-third session of the General Assembly is convening. Never have there been greater opportunities and possibilities than today for the establishment of a world free of the menace of nuclear conflagration and regional conflicts.
I should like to conclude by reassuring members of the Gambia's deep commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as to international co-operation for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all people.
Let us, therefore, through collective action, rededicate ourselves to the lofty ideals and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations if we are to ensure the survival of mankind and preserve peace among nations.