149 .  It is a particular pleasure for me to express to you, Sir, on behalf of the Government of the People's Republic of Angola, our warmest congratulations on your election to the presidency of the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly. Your election is a high tribute to your country, Panama, but it is also a reflection of your acknowledged remarkable diplomatic skill. We wish you the greatest success in carrying out your great responsibilities.
150.	Allow us to take this opportunity to convey to Mr. Imre Hollai our great appreciation for the far-sighted and dignified way in which he carried out his mandate from the very beginning of the thirty-seventh session.
151.	We should like also to reiterate our keen appreciation of the devotion of the Secretary-General to the fundamental principles of the United Nations and of his important contribution to the search for just solutions commensurate with the serious problems confronting the international community.
152.	The delegation of the People's Republic of Angola would like at this point to congratulate Saint Christopher and Nevis on its admission to membership of the United Nations.
153.	Each year, when a new session of the General Assembly is convened, we all come here to reaffirm our commitment to the noble purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and to reiterate our devotion to the cause of freedom, peace, justice, democracy, solidarity, development and co-operation.
154.	At the beginning of their statements, the speakers —almost invariably—stress that the General Assembly session is taking place at a very critical moment, for the international situation has badly deteriorated, to the point of seriously threatening the survival of mankind.
155.	But it is undeniable that there is an ever-widening gap between fine words or good intentions and action. All of us merely repeat ourselves annually, thus putting to the test the tolerance, or resistance, of our auditors and the credibility of those who speak before this Assembly.
156.	On several occasions, from this very rostrum, we have made no secret of the deep concern of the Government of the People's Republic of Angola over the impotence or resignation of competent international bodies or their abdication of their responsibility to face up to the proliferation of hotbeds of tension, which are kindled, directly or indirectly, by the imperialist Powers.
157.	No one here can be unaware of the causes of and the agents responsible for this grim international picture. We repeat the question: how long will the peoples and Governments that cherish peace and justice have to wait before the existing United Nations bodies—which are adequate to the task—truly shoulder their responsibilities and firmly take the most effective measures, which they do indeed have at their disposal, against those who violate the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations; against those who carry on colonial wars and foment all sorts of acts of aggression, direct or indirect, the victims being States that take independent, progressive positions; against those who engage in the economic plunder of underdeveloped countries and who persist in preventing the gradual reduction of the gap which exists between the rich or developed countries and the poor or underdeveloped countries; against those who deliberately hinder the serious efforts of the socialist countries and the progressive, democratic forces to achieve detente, general and complete disarmament, and a comprehensive prohibition of the manufacture and use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons; against those who stimulate the arms race, thus ensuring fabulous profits for their military industries and leading to faster increases in military budgets and expenditures; against those who engage in an ever-increasing number of gigantic military manoeuvres which are intended to intimidate certain peoples or States, or even to carry out acts of aggression against them; against those who do not respect relevant resolutions or decisions of the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Non-Aligned Movement and the OAU; against those who undermine the authority of the Secretary-General and his efforts to carry out his great responsibilities by failing to provide him with all the means of which he has need; and against those who threaten international peace and security through military intervention and illegal occupation of territories, through interference in the internal affairs of other States and through a lack of respect for the principles of non-use of force and the settlement of disputes by means of negotiations?
158.	All these things, but especially the unbridled arms race and the threat of a nuclear war, involve huge expenditures, thus accelerating inflation, causing large budget deficits and further reducing the already decreasing volume of economic assistance to the underdeveloped countries. This has greatly contributed to the present economic crisis, which can be solved only by taking effective measures to establish the new international economic order advocated several years ago by the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries.
159.	Given this alarming situation, which clearly threatens the future of the peoples, and given the growing tragedy of the millions of human beings still deprived of their freedom and the right to choose their own destiny and without any means of resisting servitude, humiliation, tyranny, poverty, famine, ignorance and disease, it is imperative that at this session the General Assembly dedicate itself to the search for effective solutions to the problems afflicting mankind.
160.	We feel that the situation in southern Africa deserves the very special attention of this session of the General Assembly, in that we are witnessing a dangerous escalation of aggression by the racist, fascist Pretoria regime against the front-line countries, and especially against the People's Republic of Angola.
161.	The persistent efforts of the apartheid regime to increase its military potential and even to acquire an arsenal of nuclear weapons is one further proof of its sinister projects, which are designed to perpetuate colonialism in South Africa and deprive the overwhelming majority of the South African people of their freedom and their political, economic and social rights, so as to keep them subjected to the white minority; to maintain the illegal occupation of Namibia and to destabilize the front-line countries, employing for that purpose armed
puppets. The complicity of certain Western countries and Israel with the South African regime in these areas, as well as the investments and economic assistance with which those countries provide South Africa, cannot help but encourage the Pretoria regime in its stubbornness and in its role of the policeman of imperialism.
162.	Everybody here knows that South African aggression against the People's Republic of Angola goes back to August 1975. Everybody knows too that South African troops invaded Angola several weeks before the proclamation of independence, which was scheduled for 11 November 1975. Everybody knows also that the racist and fascist Pretoria regime, encouraged by the militarist, warlike policy of the present United States Administration, put into operation a mysterious plan entitled  Operation Proteus , which resulted in a new invasion and the occupation since 23 August 1981 of a considerable area of the province of Cunene.
163.	To this day, reconnaissance flights, aerial bombardments, helicopter troop operations, land bombardments and attacks, mining operations and acts of sabotage against the Angolan economic infrastructure are gradually increasing. A certain number of villages are today either in ruins or are mere remnants of what they were in the past.
164.	The disturbing dimension of the escalation of South African acts of aggression has become even more clear through the attack on the village of Cangamba in the province of Moxico, 500 kilometres from the frontier with Namibia. Between 2 and 8 August, six battalions, made up of UNIT A   bands of South African commandos and of mercenaries, supported by heavy artillery, carried out several attacks against Cangamba, which is an important crossroads. None the less, the heroic resistance of our armed forces inflicted a crushing defeat on the enemy forces, who left behind 1,100 dead and much South African and NATO equipment.
165.	Following this defeat the Pretoria regime launched an air attack against the village of Cangamba, using a squadron of Mirage fighters and Canberra bombers, and completely destroyed the village.
166.	Faced with the escalation of the acts of aggression by the racist and fascist Pretoria regime against the People's Republic of Angola, the Angolan Government has alerted the competent international bodies to the seriousness of the situation and the unpredictable consequences. It is becoming clear to the Angolan Government that such acts of aggression constitute an integral part of collusion or a plot between certain Western Powers and the South African regime, closely associated with the puppet UNIT A bandits, aimed at the destabilization of the Angolan revolutionary process and the overthrow of the legitimate Government of the People's Republic of Angola. This would lead to the establishment of a neo- colonial regime in Angola, the annihilation of SWAPO and, consequently, the inevitable destruction of the Namibian independence process.
167.	Those plans are thus both serious and dangerous, and all this is largely due to the fact that the Angolan people, their Party and their Government have shown firm and unconditional solidarity with SWAPO and ANC in their struggle for national independence.
168.	It is appropriate to recall here that the General Assembly, in its resolution 36/121 A of 10 December 1981, declared that  the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa continues to constitute an act of aggression against the Namibian people and against the United Nations, which has direct responsibility for the Territory until independence . We should also recall that the
Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries in its Political Declaration
 strongly condemned the continued military ( pupation of part of Angolan territory by the South African racist troops in violation of the national sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the People's Republic of Angola. The Conference considered the occupation of Angolan territory as an act of aggression against the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of South African troops from Angolan territory and decided to increase support for and solidarity with the people and Government of Angola in order to consolidate Angola's national independence, and safeguard its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
To the extent that these two international bodies consider aggression to have been committed against them by South Africa, an adequate retort is called for. None the less, and in all honesty, it must be agreed that in spite of the legitimacy, the firmness and the scope of such positions, they have remained a dead letter as far as the overwhelming majority of the Members of the United Nations are concerned.
169.	And so it seems to us unjust and a bitter irony that because of the selfish interests of some and the passivity or unjustified indifference of others, the heroic Angolan people are being left almost alone to bear the high cost of solidarity with the Namibian people, reflected in the loss of more than 10,000 lives, thousands of mutilated and handicapped, and hundreds of thousands of people displaced from their homes. It is also reflected in $10 billion in material damages caused by the criminal aggressions carried out by the racist and Fascist Pretoria regime since 1975.
170.	None the less, the Angolan Government ventures once again to express the hope at this critical time for the People's Republic of Angola that each Member State of the United Nations will assume its responsibilities and meet its commitments, if only to maintain the credibility of this international body. Therefore, we appeal to each Member of the Organization to lend, as an emergency measure, either individually or collectively, all the material and financial assistance the People's Republic of Angola needs. We also request an intensive and permanent national and international campaign for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of South African troops from Angolan territory. We would also ask for all forms of pressure to be exerted on the Pretoria regime as well as on its  friends and allies , including mandatory global sanctions, which have often been recommended but never enforced due to the opposition, of the Western Powers, so that its illegal occupation of Namibia may be ended. We also request that resolution 435 (1978) of the Security Council be enforced without further delay.
171.	Five years have elapsed since the Security Council adopted resolution 435 (1978). In its resolution 532 (1983), the Council decided  to mandate the Secretary- General to undertake consultations with the parties to the proposed cease-fire, with a view to securing the speedy implementation of [Security Council] resolution 435 (1978) .
172.	In discharging his mandate, the Secretary-General made known to all of us his further report concerning the implementation of Security Council resolutions 435 (1978) and 439 (1978) concerning the question of Namibia, which will certainly be submitted to the Security Council for its assessment in a meeting to be held shortly.

173.	However, is it not surprising and perhaps significant that during this session of the General Assembly only one of the members of the so-called contact group- Canada—-has taken a stand on the Namibian question, especially when this was the subject of a detailed report by the Secretary-General? In this context, we take the liberty of making known to all Members an excerpt from an important statement made by President Jos6 Eduardo dos Santos, during a public meeting on the occasion of the arrival in Angola of the Secretary-General, in which he firmly reiterated, without any ambiguity whatsoever, the official position of MP LA,  the party of the workers and of the Government of the People's Republic of Angola:
 We do not agree with the idea that there should be a demand for the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. They are there because their presence was requested by the sovereign Government of Angola. What is needed is a demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the racist South African troops occupying part of our territory in the south of Angola.
 All those who seek to establish a link or parallelism between the independence of Namibia and the presence of Cuban forces in Angola are not our friends. They are our enemies, because they want to allow the South African troops, which are already occupying part of our territory, to march on towards Luanda and to do so without meeting the slightest resistance.
 We are prepared to continue to fight and to continue to undertake diplomatic actions for a just solution to the problems in southern Africa. And once again, I reaffirm here the position of our vanguard party and of our Government:
 The first requirement is the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of South African troops occupying this territory; secondly, resolution 435 (1978) of the Security Council must be speedily implemented in order to steer Namibia to real independence; thirdly, South Africa's attacks on Angola must cease; fourthly, all logistical and military support given to the gangs of UNITA puppets terrorizing our towns must cease.
 Only if these conditions are observed will Angola be prepared to discuss with Cuba the new timetable for the gradual withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola which are guaranteeing its security.
In this connection, it should be emphasized that this is the official position. Therefore, there is no other position, as claimed by some.
174.	We should now like to restate the position of the People's Republic of Angola on a certain number of specific political issues which are continuing to disturb international relations and to threaten world peace and security.
175.	The people of Chad are today embroiled in a bloody fratricidal war. Chad must be spared from foreign intervention so that the people can decide without constraint or hindrance how best to solve their problem in keeping with the efforts of the OAU.
176.	The solution to the conflict between POLISARIO   and the Kingdom of Morocco resides in the implementation of the resolution on the Western Sahara adopted at the nineteenth session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity. It is regrettable that the Kingdom of Morocco refuse   to follow the path of direct negotiation. It thus shows   n- tempt for the sovereign decision of the Heads of State and Government of Africa. It is thus responsible for the failure of the meetings of the Implementation Committee and for the consequences of the worsening of the conflict. We reiterate our militant solidarity with the heroic Saharan people and its sole and legitimate representative, POLISARIO.
177.	We reaffirm our steadfast solidarity with the valiant Palestinian people and its legitimate representative, the PLO, in the continuation of its struggle to recover its usurped land and to establish an independent State. Furthermore, we reiterate our support for the Declaration and the Programme of Action adopted by the International Conference on the Question of Palestine, held at Geneva from 29 August to 7 September 1983. Once again we call for the unconditional withdrawal of Israel from the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and we commend the efforts of the Lebanese people to secure their unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity.
178.	After eight years of armed struggle, the people of East Timor is still continuing with determination and courage its resistance to Indonesian occupation. Given the defeats inflicted on its army as a result of the scope of the political and military action of the FRETILIN fighters, the Indonesian Government was forced to seek a meeting with the leaders of FRETILIN. That meeting took place from 20 to 23 March 1983, in the free territory of East Timor. During those talks a cease-fire was arranged in order to create a climate favourable for formal negotiations, which were to be held subsequently under the auspices of the Secretary-General and with the participation of representatives of Portugal, the former administering Power.
179.	On that occasion, the delegation of FRETILIN presented to the Indonesian delegation the following conditions: first, the unconditional withdrawal of Indonesian occupation forces from East Timor; secondly, the presence of a United Nations multinational force to replace Indonesian troops during the period of transition; thirdly, the forces of FRETILIN to remain in the regions which they controlled in order to keep the people free from any pressure; fourthly, a referendum supervised by the United Nations in order to determine the wishes of the people of East Timor.
180.	Unfortunately, it must be noted that the Indonesian Government did not respect its undertakings following the cease-fire, because it did not wish to inform the Secretary-General of the results of the talks. Instead it chose to try to go back on those talks and to reduce them to an offer of amnesty to FRETILIN. Furthermore, starting on 17 August, it launched a major military offensive in order to try to crush the heroic resistance of the people of East Timor.
181.	It is difficult to imagine that a certain number of States members of the Non-Aligned Movement, States that should be identified with the struggle of that valiant people if only out of respect for the fundamental principles of non-alignment, are in fact remaining indifferent to the genocide which is being carried out against the people of East Timor. And the United Nations cannot shirk its responsibilities with respect to that serious problem. Our solidarity is a vital duty.
182.	The central region of Latin America has experienced extremely disturbing developments as a result of threats and military intervention by the United States Government, particularly in Nicaragua and El Salvador. It is necessary to seek peace in the region through a negotiated political solution. To that end, we support the six-point position of the Government of Nicaragua as well as the efforts of the Contadora Group. In order to have peace in Central America, there must be peace
in El Salvador and aggression against Nicaragua and EI Salvador must end. We reaffirm our militant solidarity with the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front and the Revolutionary Democratic Front, the sole, legitimate representatives of the Salvadoran people.
183.	We renew our steadfast support for the Cuban revolution and we denounce acts of aggression and threats perpetrated against the Cuban people. We reiterate our feelings of solidarity with the peoples of Panama, Grenada, Chile, Uruguay, Suriname and Puerto Rico in their just struggles for their national interests, independence and territorial integrity.
184.	We reaffirm our support for finding a solution to the border dispute between Guyana and Venezuela through bilateral negotiations. Furthermore, and in keeping with resolutions of the General Assembly, we express the hope that there can be an immediate beginning of negotiations between the United Kingdom and Argentina for the return to Argentina of the Malvinas, South Georgia and Sandvrk islands. At the same time, we must express our deep concern at the decision taken by the British Government to establish a military base in the Malvinas Islands, since such action would constitute a further obstacle to negotiations and a new source of tension.
185.	We also reaffirm our support for the efforts of the Indo-Chinese countries to secure peace and stability in South-East Asia, without foreign intervention, and for a continuation of constructive dialogue between the parties to the conflict. However, we consider it deplorable and almost inconceivable that the Kampuchean people should not yet be represented at the United Nations by the Government of the People's Republic of Kampuchea. This is an injustice, which must be corrected.
186.	We reiterate our solidarity with the just cause of the people of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in their aims of bringing about a peaceful reunification of the country without outside interference and of securing the withdrawal of United States troops from the southern part of the Korean territory.
187.	Furthermore, we reaffirm our support for the position taken and the efforts made by the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan in the search for a normalization, through negotiation, of the situation prevailing in and around that country.
188.	We also reiterate our complete solidarity with the people and Government of Cyprus and we support their efforts to preserve their independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, unity and non-alignment.
189.	Once again we urgently appeal to the Governments of Iraq and Iran to end their war and to find a negotiated solution to the dispute between them.
190.	It is deplorable that the Angolan Government finds itself still compelled to devote the bulk of its human and material resources to the defence of its independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The undeclared war imposed on us by the racist and fascist South African regime must cease.
191.	The Angolan people longs for peace. It has never attacked anyone in the past and it never will. It merely wishes to live in peace and to work to build a future of progress and happiness within a just society of its own free choosing. The struggle continues, and victory is certain.


74.	 First of all, please allow me to extend our congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly. Nicaragua is honoured that a brother Central American occupies this position of high responsibility at such a difficult time for our region and for the world. Your well- known dedication to the United Nations, your solid espousal of the ideals of nationalism, non-alignment and defence of the right of self-determination of peoples that Omar Torrijos Herrera left as a legacy for Panama, Latin America and the world, ensure for us a wise leadership in the work of the thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly, in which you may always rely on the Nicaraguan delegation's co-operation.
75.	We also wish to welcome Saint Christopher and Nevis into the United Nations. We are certain that it will contribute to the efforts of the Organization to secure peace.
76.	This thirty-eighth session of the General Assembly has begun in a climate of world tension similar to others in this century which led to ever more destructive wars, involving irreparable human, material and cultural losses and representing a step backward in the history of human development.
77.	Our concern knows no limits, for it is obvious that in a third world conflagration there will be no victors, only the vanquished, including those who seek military hegemony and who fan the flames of war. It is impossible to underestimate the consequences for world peace and security that stem from the proliferation of nuclear weapons since they were first dropped on the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
78.	The report by the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization reflects this critical international situation that appears to be growing worse.
79.	The efforts of peoples in search of justice, freedom and peace clash with those defending monopolistic interests and denying the legitimate aspirations of the peoples. The results of this monopolistic policy are in violation of our peoples' human rights, for while $800 billion are squandered on weapons and efforts are made to increase their number and especially their degree of sophistication, 46,000 children die each day of hunger, malnutrition and lack of medical attention.
80.	Those who dream of breaking the strategic balance and impose an arms race are committing genocide. Those who ar6 using scientific knowledge which is the heritage of all humanity, outdoing the Nazis in the macabre task of spreading death, now even taking care not to destroy buildings or other physical objects, those whose latest nightmares foresee an arms race in the cosmos: they are committing genocide. Those who remain inflexible in the search for mutual security, stability and world peace are committing genocide. Those who invoke the name of God and human rights in order to justify a climate of cold war, larger budgets for nuclear weapons and more aggression against peoples around the world, they are committing genocide. They are participating in the murder of millions of children who die each year, victims of the economic injustice imposed on the world, but, above all, they are threatening humankind with extinction.
81.	Today, when the threat of nuclear war takes on uncontrollable dimensions, it has become an urgent matter to reach realistic agreements in the Geneva framework. Let no more death-bearing missiles be stationed; let the nuclear arsenal be frozen in its development, production, accumulation and deployment; let the nuclear arsenal be reduced and eventually eliminated. Only when disarmament is universal, only when disarmament is complete, can there be international security. Let us station missiles of peace and bury once and for all the missiles of war.
82.	In the wake of this policy of arms build-up, an escalation of aggression has been unleashed in different parts of the world, victimizing the peoples of the third world, some of whom have attained their liberation while others are still fighting for it.
83.	The racist regime of Pretoria, with the approval and encouragement of the United States Government and other Governments which paradoxically claim to be concerned for human rights, attacks and invades Mozambique, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Seychelles, Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland in an attempt to consolidate and perpetuate apartheid and racism. Nicaragua condemns the racist South African regime and voices its solidarity with the front-line States in their decision to support the total liberation of southern Africa.
84.	By the same token, we support the struggle of the people of Namibia and their legitimate representative, the South West Africa People's Organization, and we demand the speedy implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), as the Organization of African Unity demanded at its most recent summit meeting.
85.	We also express our solidarity with the African National Congress, many of whose courageous members have fallen in its just struggle, among them the three South African anti-racist militants, amid the silence of Governments which maintain excellent relations with that regime.
86.	Amidst democratic and humanistic postulates, assumed from monopolistic and demagogic positions, the peoples find themselves subjected to colonial and neo- colonial rule imposed by those so-called democracies. Such situation of the peoples of the Western Sahara and Puerto Rico, whose inalienable right to self-determination continues to be trampled; of the Palestinian people, whose right to form their own State continues to be denied; of the Korean people still artificially divided; of the Cypriot, Cuban, Argentine and Panamanian peoples, part of whose territories are either occupied by or under the control of foreign Governments; and of the Honduran people, whose sovereignty has been undermined and whose territory has been occupied by the American army.
87.	Nicaragua repudiates the situations faced by those territories and therefore supports the struggle of the Saharan people and their representative. Nicaragua demands the decolonization of Puerto Rico and regards as unacceptable any measure aimed at changing this sister nation's political status without its consent and explicit participation. Nicaragua reaffirms its support for the Palestinian cause in the just struggle to recover the territory that has been taken away. We also support the holding of an international meeting on Palestine with the full participation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the United States and the Soviet Union. Nicaragua supports the reunification of Korea and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the area. Nicaragua reaffirms its support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus. Nicaragua demands the return to Cuba of the occupied territory of Guantanamo, the lifting of the blockade, a halt to the spy flights that violate Cuba's airspace and an end to violations of the territorial waters of this sister nation.
88.	Still present on the Latin American scene is the military aggression that was carried out in the Malvinas Islands, which attempted to eternalize colonial domination over that territory, which is part of the Argentine nation. Nicaragua demands the implementation of the decision by the Committee on decolonization on the status of the Malvinas Islands, totally supporting the right to which the Argentine people is entitled.
89.	Once more we reiterate our support for the legitimate and just demand by the Republic of Bolivia for the " recovery of a direct and useful route to the Pacific Ocean, with full sovereignty over it. We appeal to all States to voice their solidarity with the Bolivian people in this inalienable right.
90.	With respect to the tragic and dangerous conflict in Lebanon, the current crisis there is a direct result of the Zionist invasion and the expansionists and hegemonistic ambitions in the area. We appeal for respect of the cease-fire so that progress can be made toward reconciliation among all forces and sectors of that nation, in order to safeguard its sovereignty and end the increasingly direct intervention of the Powers currently involved there.
91.	This policy of American military escalation can also be seen in major, ongoing provocation against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. Nicaragua denounces and repudiates these actions, while expressing its support to the Libyan people and Government. This aggressive policy is also manifested in South-East Asia, where plans are being hatched against the peoples of Viet Nam, Laos and Kampuchea. Nicaragua confirms its solidarity with the heroic peoples of Viet Nam, Laos, and Kampuchea; condemns those destabilizing plans; and welcomes the efforts by the Secretary-General and the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries to promote unconditional dialogue among the countries of the region.
92.	Meanwhile, in Afghanistan the United Nations has also made considerable efforts through its Secretary- General in the search for a political solution to the situation in that region. The Non-Aligned Movement has made similar efforts, issuing appeals that Nicaragua supports.
93.	Among the most painful problems in the critical world situation is the war between Iran and Iraq, brother nations and members of the Non-Aligned Movement. We join in the calls for an end to this war so that through negotiations both sides can reach an honourable, just and lasting peace.
94.	There should also be dialogue among the parties involved in, and a peaceful solution to, the conflict in Chad, safeguarding the right of the people of Chad to determine their own future freely. We extend our support to the efforts being made to attain a solution within the framework of anti-colonialist principles and within the OAU.
95.	This aggressive and militaristic escalation in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America is also expressed in overt and covert actions promoted by the Government of the United States against the people and Government of Grenada. Nicaragua condemns this policy of destabilization and demands respect for the self-determination of the people and Government of Grenada.
96.	This aggressive escalation also aims, through the Central Intelligence Agency, at overthrowing the revolutionary Government of Suriname by encouraging acts of destabilization against it. Nicaragua condemns the aggressive actions of the CIA and supports Suriname's right to determine its own future, free of all foreign interference and pressure.
97.	At its Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at New Delhi in March 1983, the Non-Aligned Movement reaffirmed its support for the social and economic transformations that were begun in the Republic of Chile by President Salvador Allende. Nicaragua, paying homage to President Allende, supports the legitimate aspirations of the Chilean people to a re-establishment of their basic freedoms and human rights, and the policy of non- alignment that President Allende and the Government of Popular Unity defended until the very last moment.
98.	After the long struggle led by General Omar Torrijos, the people of Panama achieved the signing of the Torrijos-Carter treaties. There have been attempts to violate and block the implementation of these agreements, and the United States Government also continues to use Panamanian territory, in the so-called Canal Zone, to train soldiers and mercenaries who are later employed against the people of El Salvador and the people of Nicaragua. Further abusing its presence on Panamanian territory, the United States uses the bases of the Southern Command for the trans-shipment of tons of weapons, the transport of American soldiers and for spy-flights of U-2, SR-71 and RC-135 aircraft—all with the intention of strengthening its policy of aggression against the Central American people.
99.	Nicaragua demands the full application of the Torrijos-Carter treaties and demands that the Government of the United States stop using Panamanian territory in the so-called Canal Zone for launching aggressive actions against the peoples of Central America.
100.	This international situation, which constitutes an ever greater threat to peace, is related directly to the inequality and exploitation suffered by our peoples at the hands of the developed countries with a market economy, which have imposed an unjust international economic order. This economic order has fed the prosperity of those countries and has expanded at the price of our underdevelopment. It is facing a crisis of its own making, the cost of which it is shifting to our nations. This economic order reactivates its economy through restrictive economic adjustments and industrial redeployment which has exacted a high social price from the inhabitants of those countries, with corresponding effects on the economies of our countries. In the last four years this economic order has meant a drop in per capita income of 19 per cent for the countries of the Central American region. This economic order meant a drop in export prices as large as 3.5 per cent in the year 1982 for the developing countries that do not produce oil, while in that same year the industrialized countries' trade relations grew by 1.5 per cent. This economic order has meant for the non-oil-producing countries of the third world a growing balance-of-payments deficit, which in 1982 reached $90 billion. This economic order aggravates our countries' foreign debt problem, now reaching $664 billion. This economic order has established the logic of the minorities; it expresses itself through the stabilization programmes which are imposed on third world countries as a precondition for the renegotiation of their debts. This economic order pursues a strategy that attempts to reduce the public debt, especially in terms of social services and subsidies for production and consumption, freezing salaries and increasing the cost of public services, thus re-introducing the former growth model. This economic order, which encourages, while imposing restrictive measures on our peoples, an economic policy that can only be termed antidemocratic, anti-human and irrational, disproportionately inflates its fiscal deficit in order to produce more and more weapons by investing billions of dollars in the laboratories of death. This economic order, which is irrational and contrary to our peoples' human rights, invests millions in subsidies to farmers so that they produce less in a world that is hungry and that requires more and improved agricultural production. This economic order has restricted our countries' access to financing. The international banks, which in 1980 granted up to $160 billion in new loans, have reduced new loans to only $95 billion in 1982.
101.	But in the face of this unjust economic order, in the face of this logic of the minorities, the logic of the majority emerges with greater strength, and it demands a reduction in the development gap between the market- economy industrialized countries and the countries of the third world and a renegotiation of the terms of trade in order to establish a new international economic order which would include a strategy for food production aimed at achieving third world self-sufficiency, with the collaboration of the developed countries and the international agencies.
102.	The economic needs of the impoverished countries must no longer be manipulated through economic and military blackmail. The international community must reject all forms of discrimination and economic aggression. We repeat that in the face of the strategy of the wealthy lenders, a strategy must be found by the impoverished debtors.
103.	We have a duty to our peoples to establish an organization of debtor countries which would enable us to unite in a single forum. In that way we could move towards the formulation of a world economic policy in line with the logic of the majority. The problem of debt is not a unilateral problem, and that is why we must unite our efforts. This struggle must encompass the establishment of fair trade prices and credit at reasonable interest rates sufficient to promote a massive transfer of resources; the opening up of opportunities for development and for fulfilling our obligations with dignity; the attainment of a suitable level of dialogue between the wealthy and the impoverished; the establishment of a permanent means of consultation among debtor nations; and the establishment of a point of reference for the activation of mechanisms of reciprocal assistance and solidarity.
104.	In that way we will be taking specific steps in favour of peace and stability without further sacrificing the well-being of our peoples. This requires above all an understanding of the whole for a more balanced process of integral development for mankind, and therefore a change in the attitude of the lender nations.
105.	The Central American region is not exempt from this upsurge of military, political and economic tensions. Our peoples, historically deprived of the benefits of development, victims of injustice and a lack of freedom, are today assertively demanding these rights. The current struggle of the Central American peoples has its roots in the expansionist policies of the United States of America. In the year 1855 this expansionist policy—under which extensive territory was grabbed from Mexico—brought about a military presence in Nicaragua in William Walker and his mercenaries, who were finally defeated and expelled after a bloody struggle. Since that time the various United States Administrations have endeavoured to stabilize brutal regimes in the region, which were to become their principal instruments of domination. From that time in the history of our peoples there were to be one landing of American soldiers after another and acts of direct intervention by the United States in our lands aimed at propping up tyrannical Governments and drowning the peoples' struggle in blood. That was how the Government of the United States became the best friend of tyrants such as Somoza, Ubico, Cartas and Hernandez. And that was how the United States Government became the greatest enemy of our peoples. In our region, American democracy has meant hunger and exploitation for the peasants and for the workers, and it has meant fabulous wealth for the exploiting minorities.
106.	The triumph of the Nicaraguan revolution was but the result of this long struggle against American domination, a struggle which began in 1855 against Walker and which culminated on 19 July 1979 with the overthrow of Anastasio Somoza. Our revolution triumphed over this unjust United States policy, and while it is true that in the months immediately following that victory the possibility of new relations with the United States was opened, the entry into office of the new Administration in 1981 cut short this effort. Once more it was the policy of the "big stick", the policy of gunboats, the policy of terror.
107.	We could say that from that moment on, from January 1981, the new United States Administration had declared war on the people of Nicaragua. The strategy was clear: military aggression, more economic aggression, more slander campaigns, more attempts to isolate us internationally, all with the goal of destabilizing the Nicaraguan revolution in order to bring about its destruction.
108.	Thus they proposed to undermine the struggle of the peoples of the region, and in particular the struggle of the people of El Salvador. Crushing the Nicaraguan revolution—according to the thinking of the United States Administration's strategists—would mean crushing the possibilities for change in Central America and would maintain unchanged the situation of injustice and lack of freedom. They decided, therefore, to carry out a military encirclement of the fighting people of El Salvador, aimed too against the liberated people of Nicaragua. From that time on the American military presence in the region has been on the increase, openly in El Salvador and Honduras and covertly in Costa Rica.
109.	Immediately there followed actions by the guards of the Somoza regime. Armed, financed and directed by the United States Government through the CIA and the Pentagon, they began their criminal operations against our people from their bases of operations in Honduran territory.
110.	Joining these aggressive actions from Costa Rican territory were foreign mercenaries, counter- revolutionaries of Nicaraguan origin and more Somoza guards. From its military base in the Southern Command in
Panama, the United States began spy-flights over our territory with RC-135, SR-71 and U-2 aircraft. To date, there have been 203 spy-flights and 512 violations of our airspace by Honduran air force planes and by others provided by the CIA to the counter-revolutionaries who have penetrated our territory on supply, reconnaissance and attack missions from their operational bases in Honduras and Costa Rica.
111.	In the same period between 1981 and 1983, we have detected on 34 occasions the presence in our territorial waters of United States naval vessels, totalling 56 violations of our territorial waters, 24 from Honduran territory and 32 from Costa Rican territory. These activities are for the infiltration and supplying of counter-revolutionary groups. These activities by the United States Administration, for which $19 million was initially appropriated, were of a covert nature at the time. In the first months of 1982 the CIA had already designed a plan for military escalation, one that would be put into operation towards the end of that same year.
112.	The response of our people was immediate. Between December of 1982 and January of this year these aggressions were defeated. In February the United States carried out joint military manoeuvres with the Honduran army to provide support to the counter-revolutionaries, who had embarked on a new wave of invasions, but they were again defeated.
113.	In July and September the Government of the United States undertook new invasion attempts through the CIA, relying on the counter-revolutionaries and the Honduran army. At the same time it continued to conduct joint manoeuvres with the Honduran army in the area bordering on Nicaragua. In this month, September, it began an exercise called "Ahuas Tara II", designed to create a military situation involving the Honduran army in support of the army of El Salvador, on the one hand, and on the other, to threaten our revolution with a show of force in which a blockade and direct aggression are in no way ruled out. These military manoeuvres have been accompanied by naval manoeuvres unprecedented in the region, involving 19 warships with 16,484 troops on board and 5,000 more United States troops operating on Honduran soil.
114.	These systematic military aggressions by the United States Government have become increasingly overt, and from 1979 to 1983 they have taken a toll of 717 Nicaraguans killed, including civilians and members of the armed forces. Forty-one of these were teachers and 154 were workers linked to production centres. Furthermore, 529 people—workers, students and technicians—have been kidnapped and 514 have been wounded. In defence of their sovereignty our armed people have annihilated 1,636 counter-revolutionaries and wounded 280. As another consequence of this United States policy we must add the losses our country has suffered from the destruction of ports, damages to production facilities and destruction of construction equipment, health centres, schools and day-care centres, which represent a total of 3 billion cordobas in damages, amounting to one quarter of our annual investments.
115.	This month a new form of attack began to be employed in an attempt to "normalize" escalation against Nicaragua. Rocket-equipped planes coming from both Costa Rican and Honduran territory have dropped 500-pound bombs on the Augusto Cesar Sandino International Airport and on schools, houses and fuel tanks in the Port of Corinto. These bombings continue. Another part of this new American escalation is the blowing up of an oil-pumping station located two miles off our shores in the Pacific Ocean, and other criminal actions aimed at seriously affecting our economy.
116.	As we have already pointed out, this aggressive activity is part of the increase in the United States military presence in the region, including the establishment of military and naval bases with new airports in Honduras, the organization and direction of the Salvadorian army in its military operations against the Salvadorian patriots and an increase in pressure on the governments of the region to involve them even further in the terrorist actions against Nicaragua.
117.	The efforts carried out to contain the aggressive policy of the United States in the region and to promote dialogue and negotiation in pursuit of political solutions have also been significant. This Organization, through the Security Council and the Secretary-General, has watched the situation closely and has been active in these effort. The countries members of the Movement of Non- Aligned Countries have also assumed a position that clearly condemns the aggressive destabilizing and interventionist policy in the region and have supported efforts to find a political solution. In this peace effort Mexico and France have made a valuable contribution in promoting dialogue. The activity undertaken in the Contadora Group by Mexico, Venezuela, Panama and Colombia has been solidly supported by all those genuinely interested in the search for peace. The position assumed by members of the United States Congress and important sectors of the press in the United States, by intellectuals, the religious community and the public at large, is consistent with the desire for peace on the part of the peoples of Central America who reject these aggressive policies.
118.	We can say that there is agreement among very different ideological positions throughout the world in condemning the aggressive and bellicose escalation in the Central American region and in demanding that dialogue be the means for resolving these problems. The American Administration, however, tramples on all these efforts, rejecting them in practice, and is swiftly carrying forward its aggressive plans. The American Administration is trying to ignore the defeat its policy has suffered in the region. It has failed in its attempt to destroy the Salvadorian patriots and to send thousands of Somoza mercenaries against the Nicaraguan people. Our people are inflicting more casualties on them every day, and more of them are deserting.
119.	Where are the successes of American policy in Central America? Where are its victories in El Salvador? Where are its champions of freedom in Nicaragua? The policy of military attacks and aggression by the United States in the region has already failed, and the only alternative left to the American Administration is greater and ever more direct involvement. This explains the presence of the United States warships, the presence of the United States soldiers, the visit by Mr. Weinberger, the statements by Mr. Ikle, the demands made by Mr. Shultz, Mr. Clark and Mr. Casey and the approval, in spite of a vote in Congress, of a further appropriation of $19 million to continue the covert operations against Nicaragua.
120.	Nicaragua struggled against imperialist domination and the Somoza dictatorship in its search for peace, for justice and for freedom. Nicaragua cultivates and defends this vocation for peace, which is nothing more than the sacred right of our peoples to demand peace, to win peace and to defend it.
121.	Yesterday we heard President Reagan state here, in the United Nations, that in Central America, as in southern Africa, the United States is trying to be persuasive regarding the need to avoid reliance on the use of force. We also heard him say that the United States was trying to construct a framework for peaceful negotiations, thereby pursuing a policy of keeping the major Powers out of the conflicts of the third world.
122.	We must therefore expect a consistent policy in South Africa. We must therefore expect an immediate halt to the aggression in the Central American region. In other words, we must expect the immediate withdrawal of the United States warships from our territorial waters and from the region, the withdrawal of the United States soldiers from the region, the withdrawal of United States Government support for the armed activities of the Somoza guardsmen and the other counter-revolutionary mercenaries and an end to the covert operations.
123.	Only concrete steps such as those would prove the existence of a genuine political will to support the peace initiative and of the process of dialogue and negotiations in order to ensure the security of all Central American States and strict implementation of Security Council resolution 530 (1983). Nicaragua believes that so long as those concrete steps are not taken there will be no way to find a solution to the region's crisis. We should like to reaffirm what we have already stated: first, an attempt must be made to win security for those States that feel threatened. Nicaragua is the most threatened and attacked country of our continent, threatened and attacked by an extra regional Power that openly defends such a policy. Therefore, as the military aggression increases, it is our right and sovereign obligation to provide our people with more and better weapons to defend the nation under attack.
124.	We reiterate that the United States must withdraw its aggressive forces from the region and desist from its policy of aggression. Agreements must be reached offering security to all Stat is in the region. An end must be put to the participation of Honduras in the aggression against Nicaragua and the people of El Salvador. A solution must be found to the conflict in El Salvador, with the full participation of the Salvadorian patriots. Then we shall be in a position to discuss problems of weapons and advisers.
125.	The United States Government has continued to put forward different pretexts for its aggressive policy in the region. It has called Nicaragua a threat because of the alleged arms traffic to El Salvador. On other occasions it has invoked the alleged East-West confrontation under way in the region. It has also voiced concern about the state of democracy in Nicaragua. Most recently, however, it has stated quite clearly that the problem is the very existence of a free Nicaragua.
126.	All this indicates the lack of coherence and the instability of American policy, and the United States must be told that it is unable today, as it was unable yesterday, to see the root of the problem: the expansionist policy it first employed in the last century and which it continues to defend today.
127.	Nicaragua has won its right to be free and that right must be respected. Nicaragua has defined itself and therefore acts as a non-aligned country, and this too must be respected. Nicaragua is building its democracy, and the sovereign right to choose its own internal system, its own brand of democracy, is a right of our people that cannot be negotiated, cannot be discussed and must be respected.
128.	The avoidance of a conflagration in Central America is an obligation that concerns the entire international community, defenders of the principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations. In the course of this year the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, meeting first in an extraordinary Ministerial Meeting of its Coordinating Bureau at Managua last January and then at New Delhi in March at the Seventh Conference of Heads of State or Government, has expressed its resolute support for the efforts to find a peaceful solution to the problems of our region.
129.	The Security Council, in its resolution 330 (1983), also appealed urgently to all States to support the efforts of the Contadora Group to resolve differences by means of frank and constructive dialogue.
130.	Despite the appeals and efforts, the situation in Central America is becoming more complicated. The acts of aggression against Nicaragua continue and are stepped up; there are threats, intimidation and intervention; there is an attempt to place the so-called vital interests of a great Power above the delicate efforts being made to achieve peace and coexistence in Central America on the basis of full respect for the sovereignty of all nations in the region.
131.	Nicaragua has never attacked any country, but it will defend itself against any act of aggression, regardless of how great and powerful the aggressor may be—and we know that the United States, a military Power, is threatening Nicaragua. Whenever Nicaragua has been attacked and invaded it has defended itself, it has struggled, it has fought, and we Nicaraguans will always be ready to confront, resist and defeat new imperialist intervention.
132.	In the face of this situation, the Assembly must give a new momentum and support to peace-making efforts through a new, urgent appeal to all States to refrain from committing acts that worsen the situation in the region. To this end, Nicaragua is asking that the question of Central America—threats to peace, sovereignty, the exercise by the Central American peoples of the right to self-determination and peace initiatives—be considered as an urgent item on the agenda of the current session of the General Assembly.
133.	This session of the General Assembly brings us together at a time of great suffering for our peoples and of unprecedented threats to the future of mankind.
134.	There is still time to avoid a catastrophe. We must speak with one voice and be resolved, but above all, we must take action to denounce and expose the irrational positions that have been taken and to strengthen the rational ones. This is no time for us to ignore the situation; this is no time for timid, vacillating positions. There is a risk of confronting more difficult situations, but what is at stake goes beyond specific interests. It is the obligation of all, particularly those of us that have no nuclear weapons nor economic power, to demand peace and fight for peace with all the moral force of our peoples.


First, Sir, let me take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election as President of this session of the General Assembly. Your long diplomatic experience and our proven personal abilities mean that the Assembly is and will be in good hands under your leadership. You have the good wishes of the Tanzanian people as you carry
Out this onerous task and you can rest assured of the full co-operation of the Tanzanian delegation throughout your year of office. I should also like to pay tribute to the Secretary-General for the work he has already done to strengthen the Organization, and in particular for his efforts in southern Africa. As have said from this rostrum previously, the Secretary-General and his staff can do no more
Than to assist us, the Members of the United Nations, to make decisions in the cause of peace and to facilitate the implementation of any decisions we make. United Nations peace-keeping forces can buy time for us. But if we, the Members, and in particular the powerful Members, do not realty want peace or are not prepared to pay even a small price for peace. The United Nations staff can
Achieve very little, if anything. Can therefore only thank them, and particularly the able Secretary-General, for their great efforts on our behalf.
I last spoke to the General Assembly during the twenty-fifth session in October 1970, devoting the bulk of my speech to the problems of colonialism and racism in southern Africa. Progress have been
made since then. Angola, Mozambique and the other Territories which were Portuguese colonies at that time are now sovereign nations and Members of this body. So is Zimbabwe. But peace and freedom have not come to our region.
The danger that the freedom struggle in southern Africa will be confused by the East-West power conflict has become greater and more obvious. Namibia is still occupied by South Africa, and the tentative movements towards the isolation of apartheid South Africa from the world community which could be discerned during the 1970s are now apparently being reversed. Indeed, far from being forced to the defensive by world pressure, South Africa has been allowed to attack its neighbours with little reaction from the international community, it has received only verbal condemnation in response to its raids into Mozambique and Lesotho, its destabilization activities in those countries and also in Zimbabwe and Zambia and its innumerable aggressive actions against Angola, culminating in the occupation of part of Angolan territory.
South Africa's attempts to destabilize its neighbours are intensifying, yet South Africa is treated by many of us as if it were a respectable member of the world community which could be encouraged by constructive engagement into being a good neighbour. And when these countries look for world support, some Members of the United Nations advise that if they would only avoid provoking South Africa they would not suffer from the economic, social and political problems which the South African attacks create for them. The provocation referred to is their open and public opposition to apartheid and the reception of refugees from apartheid South Africa.
Unfortunately for South Africa's neighbours, the real provocation they offer is their very existence. The example, especially along Its borders, of Independent nations which proclaim the equality of man and are trying to promote human dignity Is a continual threat to the apartheid regime.
The choice facing South Africa's neighbours is therefore very clear: either they become accomplices of this racist regime or they must prepare to defend themselves against its attacks. And the United Nations has either to support them In their defence or to become itself an accomplice of the racist State's attacks on Its own people and its neighbours. In this context the United Nations means all our States, severalty and jointly. Neutrality on racism is immoral and politically unsustainable in the long run.
Nor is it only in relation to apartheid that the United Nations has a responsibility to impress Its will upon South Africa. We—the United Nations—have withdrawn South Africa's mandate for the government of Namibia. After long discussions and consultations the Security Council passed resolution 435 (475), as long as five year ago. It was designed to effect a transfer of power to the people of Namibia and bring an end to the war of liberation being waged there.  South Africa has been constantly stalling and manufacturing new objections to the plan, while the South West Africa People's Organization makes concession after concession m the search for peace.
As a result of the Security Council's deliberations, the Secretary-General has recently assumed a central role in the negotiations. Acting on our behalf he visited South Africa. He has reported that the transition plan as set out and negotiated has now been accepted by both sides, but South Africa refuses to begin its implementation because Angola has troops from Cuba helping it to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
I must reiterate once more that Tanzania categorically rejects this attempt to link the independence of Namibia with the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. We know that South Africa has adopted this policy in the last two years on the encouragement of a permanent member of the Security Council. We know that South Africa is remaining stubborn with the encouragement of that State. Tanzania still says that Angola is an independent sovereign State which has suffered from external aggression from the moment of its birth. It has a right to decide for itself on its defence needs. The attempts to link the independence of Namibia with Angola’s sovereign decisions has to be rejected by the whole of the United Nations.
The people of Namibia have a country, it is the freedom of that country to govern itself that they are
fighting for. What they suffer is continued colonialism under South Africa. They do not suffer from homelessness. The non-whites people of South Africa have a country, South Africa. What they suffer are the evils of racial discrimination under apartheid. Even the attempts by South Africa to deprive its black people of their citizenship by the creation of so-called independent homelands are not recognized by the international community. We continue to recognize the right of the people of South Africa to all of South Africa.
But the people of Palestine have no home. They are a nation without a country, In 1947, long before Tanzania came into existence, the General Assembly decided that in order to give a homeland to the homeless Jewish people the land of Palestine should be divided into two. That decision had its own complications. Not surprisingly, the Palestinians and other Arabs rejected it and resisted its implementation. But, faced with the background of the suffering of the Jewish people in Europe, the international community proceeded with the Partition Plan. The rationale for that decision was to undo the wrong done to the Jewish people by Hitlerite fascism.
Today it is the people of Palestine who are homeless. Even their right to Gaza and the West Bank is disputed. How can humanity tolerate this injustice How can the international community recognize the "right" of the Jewish people to a part of Palestine and yet deny the Arab people of Palestine the right to form their own State on at least part of that territory?
Tanzania recognizes the State of Israel, but we do not recognize that State's right to deny a homeland to the people of Palestine and to refuse to negotiate with the genuine representatives of that people, the Palestine Liberation Organization. Nor do we recognize Israel’s right to commit aggression at will against its neighbours, occupying large parts of Lebanon and making its withdrawal conditional upon the actions of others.
The United Nations promoted the creation of the State of Israel. Both super-Powers were involved, together, in the original decision to divide Palestine. Both have a responsibility to work together, and in concert with the international community, to ensure that the Palestinian people exercise their inalienable right to self-determination—including the right to establish an independent State of their own in Palestine.
Let me now turn to a world problem which has very special relevance to and importance for Africa.
In the General Assembly, in innumerable other large and small international gatherings and in several international commissions, we have discussed the problems of world poverty, the workings of the world trading and financial institutions and the economic responsibilities of our nations one to another. Yet the harsh truth is that the indecency—nay, the obscenity—of un alloyed poverty is now more widespread and afflicts more people in the world than ever before. The gap between rich nations and poor nations gets larger and larger with every year that passes. And in the last few years many African countries have experienced an objective fail, as well as a relative fail, in an already by many low level of national wealth. Finally, the intimate financial and economic links between third world countries and the developed nations have caused the problems of third world national poverty to impinge with damaging effect on the economies of the wealthy nations.
Those are facts. They are indisputable. I think there is general agreement that they are ultimately incompatible with world peace. But when we get to analysing their causes and the actions necessary to change them, then differences arise amongst us; in particular, differences arise between what is now known as the "economic South" and the dominant members of the "economic North". Furthermore, our discussions have recently become increasingly barren; less and less of substance has resulted from more and more international conferences.
Generally, we have concluded our meetings by congratulating ourselves and each other on our speeches and agreeing to meet again in a further attempt to reach a consensus on united action. Occasionally, some individual countries have increased their economic aid to the poor nations or improved the terms of their assistance as a result of a meeting. But at different times, other States have decreased their aid or worsened its terms. In any case, the substance and the basis of the economic relations between our States have only on the rarest occasions been made noticeably better by our meetings, Indeed, judging by the evidence of the economic crisis which now grips the whole world, these relations have got worse. Meanwhile, the present international systems and institutions have proved less and less able to fulfil the functions of promoting trade and prosperity throughout the world. Where are we going wrong?
At our conferences we meet as Governments. This is natural because there are decisions to be made. Our purpose is to discuss a problem and find a solution. But each of us begins by stating our own position on it we think is wrong and what kind of action, if any, we are prepared to support. From these fixed positions we proceed to bargain. In committees and in the corridors of our conferences we discuss who will give way a little on one thing and what they will demand in return. In a large gathering there are usually the "hard-liners" and sometimes the "mediators" in between them. The result is either an apparent triumph for the most intransigent— an intransigence which will be meaningless unless the stubborn Government also has power— or a fudged consensus  subject to a dozen different interpretations, with little if any resulting action. For we have met an opponents and we part as opponents, whether or not we claim victory or regard the outcome of our meeting as a defeat.
Yet it is becoming increasingly clear that we have many common international economic goals. It also appears likely that positively directed discussion could lead to agreement on how we can work together to fulfil them.
First, all nations—capitalist, socialist, agricultural, industrial, poor and rich—want and need some kind of international economic stability. Business organizations, whether public or private, prefer to have some advance knowledge of their future costs of production and the quantities of raw materials likely to be needed or available. The longer the gestation period for an investment, the more important stability becomes for those considering such investment. Workers also want an assurance that they will be back to earn their living in the future.
So the priority issue for all of us is the creation, or re-establishment, of that economic stability which is a necessary basis for our future welfare. in the 1950s and 1960s this job was done, to at least a reasonable extent, by IMF and other Bretton Woods organizations. Clearly, they no longer fulfil that function. They are still in existence, yet there is no stability and even less economic progress.
Secondly, none of our nations wants famine and starvation, epidemics and plagues, or the consequential social unrest and war, anywhere in the world. These evils can no longer be confined within national boundaries; their effects overflow into countries even thousands of miles away. We must tackle the problem of world poverty together. The question for us all is not whether we should do so but how we can act together more effectively.
Thirdly, all of us—rich and poor nations—want to increase the wealth produced and available to our own people. Whether we are elected or not, all our Governments know that we have a greater chance of avoiding trouble when our people are enjoying a rising standard of living, and vice versa. And all of us know, I think, believe that social unrest in another country can affect our own nation if we normally trade with it or for other reasons have close contact with it.
This legitimate interest in each other's progress and welfare does not give any nation the right to interfere politically in the affairs of another State. It implies, however, that in the longer run we all suffer if the international economic system affects the rewards which a particular type of economy or worker can earn. It means that we would all benefit from a system which facilitates the prosperity of those to whom we might wish to sell and which safeguards our creditors ‘ability to repay us by producing and selling goods. Economically, an impoverished customer is no good to a shopkeeper, a destitute man is no use to a farmer and a bankrupt creditor is a disaster for a bank.
These Interests we all have in common, all of us. But at present It is not clear whether, In the face of the current world economic crisis, the rich nations still understand that they are unavoidably linked with the poor. For we hear of economic projections and of action programmes which talk as if recovery from the present recession must start among the rich, internally and amongst themselves. The poor nations, it is said, will then be "pulled up" by—and after—the rich, when these have overcome their own problems of unemployment, low demand and low production. In the meantime, It is suggested that the transfer of resources from the poor must be reduced in real terms and that any sizeable increase in international liquidity must be rejected for fear of its possible inflationary effects upon the rich countries
This talk, and the actions based on it, provides another example of the failure to look at world problems from a world perspective, to the ultimate detriment of rich as well as poor. In 1980 the Brandt Commission report spoke of the urgent need for international action to avert the dangers of economic, social and political collapse in many of the third world countries, with consequential implications for peace in the world and prosperity in the developed nations. It made proposal, which have not been implemented.
Earlier this year a second report was published by the Commission. This also made proposals, practical proposal drawn up by people who come from North and South and have diverse ideological approaches to economic problems. Judging by the sixth session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, held at Belgrade from 6 June to 2 July 1983, and many other indications, it appears that once again we are going to ignore their hard work and their success in reaching agreement on matters of substance. Yet the events of 1980 to 1983 have borne out the first analysis of the Brandt Commission. There has been social upheaval and financial or economic crisis, along with political unrest and shifting alliances, In many poor countries of the world.
Also, "economic recovery" in the developed nations keeps "beginning"—and being put back by the threat of some new disaster in the third world, or some new and economically Induced change in the pattern of world political relationships.
In pointing to these facts It is not my intention to attribute bad faith to the people of any nation or to any leader, still less to abuse any of them. Just as the world is overflowing with examples of avoidable misery, destitution, and death, so it is full of examples of human generosity to other human beings. The problem does not Be In the deliberate inhumanity of people in the rich
countries, nor in the malevolence of the world's leaders. It lies in our failure to recognize that the problem of the poor nations is but part—albeit a very urgent part—of a common and joint world problem. This requires action from all of us according to our relative strength.
Even the priority part of the problem which relates to the poor countries it’s not simple. Nor is it a single problem. We, the poor, are frequently told of the millions of dollars which have been "poured Into" our countries. And some economic aid has been given. Our failures and our mistakes are pointed out to us—and they do exist. For the whole programme Is, In historical terms, In its infancy. We are all, donor and recipient countries, lenders and borrowers alike, learning how to develop a nation In the 20th century world by trying to develop. We are all learning to walk by walking. And simultaneously with the deliberate transfer of resources to the third world through aid, concessional loans or private Investment, there is an automatic and unnoticed transfer of resources from the poor third world to the rich nations as debts are repaid with Interest—sometimes very high interest—as profits of third world enterprises are paid out for disbursement elsewhere and as the terms of International trade move relentlessly against the primary producers.
The economic crisis and Imbalance In the world does exist. There is widespread unemployment in the North and ever slower economic growth rates; international debt crises threaten the whole structure of world trade and finance; the least developed countries get even poorer and their prospect of future advance gets fainter. At the same time, the North-South negotiations have stagnated, and there are some who would rather that there were no global negotiations. Where do we go from here What is the way out of the morass Into which we seem to be blundering
This world problem could be solved only by all nations working together. That is why we, the poor, have been appealing to the great nations of the world to permit meaningful global negotiations to take place. We are still appealing to them to do this, so that together we can find genuine solutions to our common problems. But if some nations cannot see that it is a world problem or do not feel able at present to join in the work of tackling it, then the rest of us must do what is within our  capacity in as large or small a group as we can gather together for that purpose.
The Bretton Woods institutions were established without the Soviet Union and its allies. For some twenty years they served the purposes of their original members. Today it is quite clear that these institutions cannot meet the needs of the poor, and therefore they are not able efficiently to serve the interests of the rich in our independent world. Their failure is partly because they do not have the necessary funds, but more because neither their structure nor their rules were intended to deal with the problems of poverty.
The world has changed since then. Change is needed now to enable these institutions to tackle the
problems of the developing as well as of the developed countries. if we cannot all work together to meet the needs of the 1980s, then it those governments of North and South which recognize the need for action get together to do as much as they can. It is not necessary to close any doors against nations which are not ready now. But we should not continue to allow any nation or nations, however powerful, to prevent the rest of us from doing what is within our power to arrest the present drift to disaster.
Tackling the economic problems of the modern world means recognizing the interdependence of all nations, and it means using some of the world's resources more than we are using now for investment in the development of people and their creativity and productivity.
Finally, it means tackling poverty and backwardness directly, where they are, that is, in the third world, and on the principles of organic growth. We must accept that results will not and cannot come quickly. They will be slower the fewer the nations which co-operate in these tasks. t is better that a few nations should act than that there should be no action at all. Nevertheless, I am making an earnest appeal for the start of global negotiations
now, under the auspices of the United Nations.
We, the poor, are often asked where these extra resources are to come from. This world does not lack resources; it only tacks the political will to tackle the indecency of world poverty. When a super-Power or a wealthy nation, or even a comparatively wealthy nation, decides that something is necessary, it usually does it. Resources will not be available unless the rich decide that the abolition of world poverty is a matter of priority.
Although the national income in the rich countries
has been rising throughout the past two decades and is
stilt rising, although now more slowly, virtually none of
that increase has Seen set aside for the relief of poverty
in the third world. For example, the percentage of their
gross national product used by countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
for this purpose was lower in 1978, and is lower
now, than it was in 1965. The suggestion that when the
recession is over an attack can be made on world poverty
Is thus act very convincing.

In 1892 the world spent $850 billion on armaments; the spending of the OECD countries and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries on official development aid was approximately $36 billion. According to the World Bank's World Development Report for 1983, in
1981 the net inflow of public products guaranteed
loans to 34 low-income countries, including India and
China, amounted to just over 35 billion. Net direct private
investment was something like $300 million, almost half
of which was it a country in that category which is an
oil producer.
40.	That brings me to my last point. What is this?
defence expenditure to which we a give so high a priority AH nations, including the poorest, spend some
money for armaments and defence, but over half the total
world expenditure is made by the super-Powers, and a
sizeable proportion of the rest is accounted for by their
allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
and the Warsaw Treaty Organization.
41.	Some people believe that the mutual deterrent
capacity of the power blocs is a contribution to peace,
but if that is true then the purpose has been achieved.
Bach power bloc has the capacity to destroy the other
and all of us together many, many times. Yet a man,
woman or child can be kilted only once. Military superiority over a nation's potential or feared adversary does
not require an ability to kill its entire people eleven times
over, rather than ten times over.
42.	Some of us see a constant world danger in the
number of weapons which are placed or fly or float or
move under water, ready to go off at any minute on any
day. That danger would be reduced by the destruction
of some of the weapons which already exist.
43.	Negotiating disarmament is not a simple matter,
even if the will to do so exists. A nuclear freeze, however,
would provide a basis from which serious negotiation for
disarmament could be advanced, for at the moment new
weapons are being produced faster than agreement is
being reached on the control of old ones.
44.	The difficulty about disarmament is first and foremost the lack of trust among nations and among men.
Their distrust may be fed by many things, but I believe
it has fear as its root. When either Moscow or Washington makes a new disarmament proposal, the first and
immediate reaction of the other is suspicion. Surety it
would be more constructive to react to any new initiative
from the other side by responding with agreement to
discuss the idea together to see if it can be made to work.
And do these proposals have to be made publicly A
public proposal requires a public answer. But is this the
best way of conducting such vital matters as nuclear
disarmament
45.	A positive approach is required if any international
problems are to be solved. We all inhabit one planet.
Neither nuclear fall-out, nor bubonic plague, nor the
violence borne of frustration nor even the miseries of
avoidable famine can be confined within national boundaries or within continents. Development, disarmament,
the environment, all are world problems even while we
see them from the viewpoint of our Independent sovereign
States. They can and they must be dealt with by us all
working together, for at the lowest we can all harm
each other and at the highest we could all benefit from
co-operation on the bests of equality.
46.	If we so decide, the United Nations can be a major
instrument of peace, peace based on tackling world problems as what they are: the common problems of a common humanity.
47.	We may not like each other. We may distrust each
other. But neither liking nor distrust is relevant, in this
twentieth century our nations have to work together in
order to survive. The alternative is to die. ail or us, and
ail our peoples. The choice is ours: co-operation slowly
and painfully built up, or inevitable and pervading chaos
and insecurity and disaster.
48.	Let us decide to work together for the good of
humanity.