My country, Australia, is delighted to see you, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, presiding over the forty-first session of the General Assembly. Coming from a major third-world country, you will bring special sensitivity to so many of the problems with which we shall be concerned during this session.
I should also like to express Australia's sincere appreciation to your predecessor, the former Permanent Representative of Spain, for his skill in presiding so effectively over the fortieth session of the General Assembly.
Australia has historical reasons to be conscious of the United Nations, of the grave responsibilities that it bears and the great hopes invested in it. Our nation was the first to have a permanent mission accredited to the United Nations in New York. An Australian was the first President of the Security Council. A predecessor of mine, as Minister for Foreign Affairs of Australia, was President of the Assembly in its third turbulent year. In this forty-first year of the united Nations Australia is reaching the end of its fourth term on the Security Council. It has been a period of high significance, both to the cause of global security and to the effectiveness of the Council itself.
There is another good reason why Australians have been more acutely aware than usual of these developments: 1986 is the International Year of Peace, and Australia has invested great resources into making it more than just a rhetorical event. The concept of peace - what it actually is, what obstacles stand in its way, what its maintenance asks of individual citizens - has been very much on our minds in the course of this year. Australians have reacted to the idea of the Year of Peace in an extraordinarily energetic and committed way, and at all levels in our community, from the most junior of school-children to the highest levels of government.
It is not hard to think of reasons for this degree of interest. Australia is in an area of the world which seems to be growing more attractive in the configurations of great-Power interests and forces. It is in an area which has known great stress from colonization and the winning of independence. It is in an area which has been - for whatever reason - a major killing field over the past 40 years or so.
It is true that Australians have been protected more than most from the worst effects of all this, but they have not been hidden from it. Anxiety about the threat - and even conviction about the inevitability - of nuclear war has been found to be widespread, especially among young people in Australia, as in other parts of the world. This is a terrible heritage to hand on. The early reality of people my age was economic insecurity, if not deprivation. That was bad enough.
The experience of young people these days is worse: of terrorism and assassination brought into their homes by television, children starving to death, nuclear explosion and threat. No wonder so many young people are found to be so cynical and pessimistic. They appreciate that - such is the state of the art of war - it needs only the tiniest miscalculation or mistake to set off events that can transform all life into instant archeology. They fear the consequences when distant, arcane and often seemingly trivial disagreement is taken up and used in the kind of ideological, nationalist or economic competitiveness that has set off two world wars so far this century.
Australians, like other normal people, yearn for an end to this insecurity. Their Government believes that the multilateral process, and this Organization particularly, offer the most effective ways to deal with the tensions and problems that disturb world peace. This forty-first session of the General Assembly in the International Year of Peace is an opportune moment to measure the durability of those tensions, and the problems and the efficacy of the multilateral way of solving them.
The most obviously urgent of these tensions is the instability caused by nuclear weapons. We are on the threshold of developments that could so change the nature of the strategic relationship that it could be many unstable years before the super-Powers are sufficiently confident once more to engage in productive negotiations. The Australian Government believes that it would be highly dangerous to stunt)le - as we risk doing - into the competitive development of ballistic missile defenses and an arms race in space. The discussions last November between President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev gave significant impetus to the arms-control process: for instance, the agreement to accelerate negotiations and the call for early progress on matters where there was common ground, such as the principle of reductions in the nuclear arms of the United States and the USSR -appropriately measured - and the idea of an interim intermediate-range nuclear force agreement. Both super-Powers have now put forward a number of detailed proposals for reductions in their nuclear arsenals. Recent meetings have taken place between United States and Soviet arms-control experts. Mow we have the welcome announcement that President Reagan and General Secretary Gorbachev will meet in Iceland next week.
The Australian Government hopes that these developments will pave the way for substantial negotiations and early agreement on deep reductions in offensive nuclear forces. We hope for agreement on practical arrangements and understandings on the issue of strategic defense and the future of the anti-ballistic missile Treaty. We hope that both sides can now show willingness on the issue of a comprehensive test-ban treaty, which the Australian Government considers a most urgent practical step on the road to nuclear arms control. It is in this context of multilateral action and agreement on forms of arms control that I draw attention to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which the Australian Government supports as a significant step against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Australia also wishes to draw attention to the disarmament provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, which has provided the effective manner in which Antarctica has been managed in support of the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. We re-emphasize our commitment to the existing system for the management of Antarctica and, accordingly, we disagree on this matter with my good friend the Prime Minister of Malaysia. Australia was disappointed that the fortieth session of the General Assembly broke with the tradition of consensus on this issue. This was not due to the Consultative Parties, and we hope that that tradition can be restored at this forty-first session. The fact and the implications of nuclear arms understandably overshadow the issue of the trade in conventional arms. In the Australian Government's view, they should not be allowed to do so. Right now conventional weapons are being used to kill people in northern and southern Africa, Afghanistan, Central America and Cambodia.
It is a shameful fact that respectable Members of this Organization ace providing the weapons with which Iranians and Iraqis are killing each other. The Australian Government believes that countries contributing to such tragedies should be held accountable for doing so, as with pollution which crosses national borders. Members of the United Nations should agree not to export defense materials to nations engaged in military conflict or where the potential for conflict is high, or where it is likely to be used to suppress human rights. As a first step and at the very least, all States should release more information on their conventional arsenals and transfers, and subscribe to the Secretary-General's standardized reporting instrument on military expenditures so that a more accurate picture of the problem can be built up.
More than 80 per cent of the world's military expenditure - estimated at more than $US 900 billion a year and rising - goes on conventional weapons, outlays on conventional arms by developing countries are estimated as being roughly equal to the development assistance they get from developed countries. Brandt, Palme, the Panel of Eminent Personalities, the Secretary-General*, these are among a long list of authorities who have described the contradiction between the demands of militarization and the demands of development; that is, the waste of scarce human, capital and material resources on the arms race. Dwight Eisenhower was a leader in war and in recovery from war. He had good reason as President of the United states to warn that
"every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. Thirty years later, the Thorssen report on the relationship between disarmament and development still saw the need to point out that the world can choose to pursue either the arms race or a more stable social and economic order. It cannot do both.
The logic cannot be challenged. Poverty, hunger and disease are major causes of social and political instability. They cannot be tackled effectively when scarce resources are being used for armaments. Experience shows that unrest leads to government repression in so many countries, leading to the spread of authoritarianism. It is no wonder that, in so many countries, democracy has come to be seen as a luxury, the dessert course of economically sound societies. If military spending is such an obviously important ingredient in the economic problems of developing countries, reduction in military spending is an obviously important ingredient in solutions to those problems.
As it is, developing countries particularly face grave economic difficulties from the plague of protectionism in world trade and the complicated and fragile issue of international debt adjustment. The World Bank has estimated that farm subsidies by members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 1986 will total more than $US 100 billion. This is a policy that, if permitted to continue, will lead to ruin for agriculture-based economies. This, in the main, means the economies of developing countries, which have to make their way at a time when the international economy as a whole is undergoing difficulty, uncertainty and challenge. The Australian Government has been involved in the recent General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) discussions in Uruguay and elsewhere in the cause of fairer and freer trade. We hope that these discussions will continue so that the issues of trade subsidies, and particularly agricultural trade reform, can be dealt with on a basis which is fair and realistic. We also hope that the spirit that prevailed in Uruguay will continue to be applied to the other great problem for many developing countries: the scope and terms of their formidable debt. I should observe that the Australian Government supports the general thrust of the Baker proposals for solution of this problem. We also support the general approach of the International Monetary Fund to adjustment and conditionality, noting that it should continue to be handled with care. Democratic institutions, sometimes at delicate stages of development, should not be undermined by the process. The economic benefits of conditionality have to be balanced against their potential for causing distress and dislocation. There is not a lot of profit, either for debtors or for creditors, in encouraging economic activity in nations whose export markets are closed off by trade subsidization and other protectionist policies. On both the trade reform and debt adjustment issues, the lessons of the events of 50 or 60 years ago should be ominously clear; the results when nations refuse to co-operate can be devastating.
No solutions to great economic problems will work if they do not have the approbation and support of those who are affected by them. No order can endure unless those who are subject to it believe themselves to have a stake in it. This principle applies to other natters on the agenda of this Organization in which Australia has a special interest. It is why the Australian Government continues to condemn the occupation of Afghanistan. It is the reason for our continuing denunciation of Viet Nam's occupation of Cambodia and the atrocities committed in Cambodia by the leadership of the Khmer Rouge. Human freedoms and the agreement of the governed are at the heart of the divisions between the people of North and South Korea. The United Nations once went to war over these divisions. It seems only sensible that, by admitting both North and South Korea, the United Nations should promote the contact and dialog that will help heal those divisions.
Freedom and the agreement of the governed are highly significant factors in a matter which is of special concern to Australia and our Pacific neighbors: New Caledonia. Australia would like to see New Caledonia join the community of
independent nations in the South Pacific as soon as it is realistically possible, with a system of multiracial independence which recognizes the rights of the indigenous Kanak people and other long-term residents, and which maintains the support and good will of France - a point which I have made repeatedly to my good friends in the Kanak movement. Australia supports the call by South Pacific Forum countries for re-inscribing New Caledonia on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and we and our South Pacific neighbors will work to do so at this session. We believe that it will facilitate progress towards self-government and independence, through constructive dialog with all parties involved, including the French Government, to be reviewed regularly by this Organization.
Freedom and participation are central also in two issues which concern Australia because of their capacity to threaten international peace. I refer to the continuing and deteriorating situations in South Africa and the Middle Bast. The Australian Government believes that the system by which South Africa is governed represents precisely that which the United Nations was designed to oppose; institutional inequity, injustice, violence, oppression and discrimination, it is surprising, therefore, that the South African situation has not been treated in all the statements made by members at this session so far as what it really is; a threat to fundamental United Nations values. The Australian Government's disgust with the system of government in South Africa and that country's continuing illegal occupation of Namibia is well known and needs no explanation here. We genuinely want to see apartheid eliminated quickly and peacefully before it plunges the region, and areas beyond, into wider conflict. Australia and other Commonwealth countries have tried to persuade South Africa to set such basic reform in train, but without success. We believe that the United Nations should set up a mandatory system of concerted and coherent sanctions which would pressure South Africa into real reform. Certainly those Members that cannot or will not adopt sanction policies should refrain or should be discouraged by this Organization from taking commercial advantage of those who can and will.
Already in this debate we have heard expressions of hope that some progress might be made in 1987 towards finding a solution of the intractable problems of the Middle East. As a country which has drawn new settlers from diverse parts of the Middle East, which contributes to United Nations peace-keeping efforts, which in simple human terms has not failed to be touched by the plight of refugees and the results of conflict and terrorism, Australia shares this hope. Progress can be made only if compromises and accommodations can be reached which take into account the rights and aspirations of all those involved.
The late President Roosevelt saw the United Nations as a replacement for exclusive alliances, spheres of influence and other failed expedients. At the time, on the one hand stood the untrammeled influence of the victorious Powers and, on the other, the dispossessed. It fell to the United Nations to try to fill the vacuum of authority between them. There are many who would say that that pattern has not changed in any substantial way. Certainly, the Australian Government sees the Organization as the only viable alternative to the authority that prevailed previously, very often to the great detriment of huge numbers of humankind - the power of the prevailing empire or State. Yet, despite this, and despite the fact that the world is at a stage in its history when fewer problems can be solved by national measures alone, confidence in international organizations seems to have lessened. Reliance on unilateral action seems more attractive to some people.
The Australian Government has some understanding of the impatience expressed about the United Nations and its operations. We would argue that there is room for more efficient administration of the Organization, less wasteful duplication of function and operation and a more rational decision-making process for its budget. In view of its high mission and the poverty and exploitation against which it is struggling, it is quite wrong that the United Nations should be in any way an example of conspicuous consumption. In view of the high expectations of it in every part of the world, it would be a shame if the United Nations were to degenerate into a broadcasting agency for pointless, meaningless and ultimately useless declarations. Australia is among the vanguard of those who seek to make the Security Council more effective. It should, be allowed to act more flexibly, for instance, to play more of a mediator or preventive role. It should be allowed to work more closely with the Secretary-General. I use the word "allowed" deliberately, because it is clear that the Council is inhibited by two factors: the trend that has turned it into a kind of mini-General Assembly and the failure of its permanent members always to remember the greater responsibility that goes with their privileged position. Australia will assist the Secretary-General in his aim of making the United Nations a more effective Organization as energetically and as positively as it can.
It would be quite wrong to infer from this, however, that the Australian Government has any sympathy with those who act to diminish the United Nations itself and its various organizations. The United Nations has the firm support of the Australian Government. It should not be allowed to become the scapegoat because individual Members fail to subsume their national interests. As Dag Hammarskjold once said, that is like blaming the storm on the ship. The fact is, that the United Nations is no better or worse than the countries which control its purse-strings. If Member States have cause to quarrel with United Nations procedures or if large nations are frustrated because of the way small nations use the system, the solution is to stay and help the fight for sensible reform, not to walk away from the problem.
There are many thousands - even millions - of people who owe their shelter, their food, their schooling and even their survival to the organizations of the United Nations. The United Nations has achieved steady progress on a whole range of practical matters: environmental control, for instance*, conditions of work; literacy, the codification of law, the orderly management of transport and communications. It has been instrumental in winning and protecting individual and national freedoms. It has helped keep the peace between nations. It has promoted in people's consciousness an awareness of the gravity and potential for destruction of the great scourges of humankind: oppression of individuals, poverty and the wastage of resources, the causes of war. It has established and defended a moral climate for the conduct of international affairs. It has become the main platform and protector - for many people, the only platform and protector - of those
who feel strong as members of the international community but weak when left to operate alone.
I am not so unwise as to exaggerate Australia's influence on these matters, but I speak as the representative of a nation which feels strongly about threats to the capacity of the United Nations to maintain and defend the rights of individuals and nations in a just and effective world order. I reiterate the pledge given by the Australian Government at the fortieth session of the General Assembly of active, committed and profound loyalty to the United Nations and its ideals. Our Government feels very strongly that the Organization is in danger so long as it refuses or postpones reform, but it believes equally strongly that there is no substitute for the United Nations in a multilateral system of co-operative management of global problems and the maintenance of world peace.


 Allow me first to convey to you, sir, the warm and sincere congratulations of the delegation of Burma, and my own, on your unanimous election to the high office of President of the forty-first session of the General Assembly. We are particularly pleased to see you, a good friend from a friendly neighboring country, presiding over this session of the Assembly. Your long and distinguished career and your wide knowledge of international affairs and of the practices of the United Nations are a guarantee to all of us that the proceedings of this session will be conducted efficiently and effectively towards a successful conclusion. I wish to assure you of the full support and co-operation of the delegation of Burma.
May I also express our deep appreciation and gratitude to your eminent predecessor, Ambassador Jaime de Pinie's, for his able guidance of the historic fortieth session of the General Assembly.
For the past several years the Assembly has been working under conditions of marked international tension. In our view, the world today is less secure and more
precarious than the world that the framers of the Charter envisaged some 40 years ago. We live today in a time of uncertainty, and, far from diminishing, tensions and conflicts are on the increase. Although a global war has so far been avoided, the threat of a nuclear conflagration continues to be of growing concern to all mankind.
For all nations, the concept of security is a subjective matter. For a few, security is being sought through reliance on nuclear weapons, and for the majority, the essence is the defense of their sovereignty and independence. At a time of widening disparity between abundance and want, in which the international system has a diminishing capacity for just and ecruitable co-operation between nations, particularly between the developed and the developing, it becomes increasingly important that the issues of peace, security, economic well-being and social justice, as well as other major issues of global concern, be dealt with effectively through co-operation within the United Nations system. Much depends upon the political will and attitude of States, particularly the more powerful ones. It is therefore clear that the national interests of individual States can best be served by meeting the wider interests of the world at large. The commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations during last year's session of the General Assembly was an important landmark in the history of the Organization. It can truly be considered as an occasion that goes beyond its symbolic significance. It provided a unique opportunity for all its members to give expression to the fact that the United Nations constitutes the best hope for mankind to live in peace and prosperity. To realize that hcJpe it is necessary for its members to participate in the United Nations system with a deeper commitment to its principles. In that context, the Secretary-General said in his concluding statement:
"The commemoration assumed the importance that it did because international relations had reached a critical stage. The time has come to reflect on where a retreat from multilateralism would lead the world." (A/40/PV. 49, p. 2) Mankind has been afflicted by wars since the dawn of history. Yet every human heart has cherished peace, and the need for peace has never been stronger or more compelling than it is now. It was a most propitious omen that the General Assembly at its last session proclaimed 1986 the International Year of Peace. We hope that the political momentum thus created will continue and create conditions favorable to peace in the years ahead.
The United Nations is not a government of nations, nor does it have all the answers to the ills that afflict the world today. But without doubt it can be an effective instrument in our search for solutions to the problems of the world and, beyond that, in building a more peaceful and just system of relations between States.
Time and again it has been said that the diminishing capacity of the United Nations to carry out the functions for which it was intended lies not in the Organization itself, but in the lack of political will on the part of its Members to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Charter. That is particularly relevant with regard to Article 2 (4) of the Charter, which prohibits the threat or the use of force and in relations between States in the interests of maintaining international peace and security, which remains an unattained goal. We find today a situation in which it is becoming increasingly difficult for smaller nations to place their reliance on the Charter to ensure their security.
Security and survival are the foremost concern of our time. This has never been more keenly felt by the world, and the greatest challenge to mankind is to avert the threat of a nuclear catastrophe. The most urgent task of our time is the prevention of nuclear war. International peace and security can be ensured only by meaningful disarmament, for in the final analysis the possession and continued accumulation of nuclear weapons leaves the door open to the risk of a global disaster.
Progress in disarmament negotiations depends largely on lessening mutual distrust, and for all practical purposes the militarily significant States, particularly the two most powerful, have a special responsibility to accelerate the ongoing negotiations.
Meaningful efforts made recently to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race give us a renewed sense of hope that serious initiatives have been taken to avert the dangers arising from the existence of nuclear weapons. We feel that a favorable political climate conducive to better understanding would enhance the prospects of disarmament.
However, we cannot fail to note the lack of consistency in the approach, where efforts made to reach agreements on disarmament are negated by an arms race conducted without respite, which defeats the very purpose of the negotiations.
Negotiations at the bilateral level should have a positive bearing at the multilateral level, and constitute a source of encouragement to give the political impetus that is needed for meaningful work in the multilateral context. It is rightly said that international security is the concern of all nations and peoples. Thus negotiations between the Soviet union and the United States cannot diminish the importance of multilateral disarmament efforts.
However, we are in a situation in which multilateral disarmament negotiations are at an impasse. Though the issues of disarmament have been on the agenda of the United Nations and the Conference on Disarmament for several years, meaningful results have yet to be attained, and the underlying reason for that is the lack of political will on the part of some Members. A recommitment to negotiations at the multilateral level is needed to remedy the situation. Multilateral negotiations have contributed much to the achievement of disarmament agreements in the past. It is also important to maintain the viability and validity of the disarmament agreements reached so far, to enhance the prospects of further positive measures.
The potential threat of the extension of the arms race into outer space constitutes a new danger. It is inconceivable that the arms race can be halted and effective measures taken on earth unless steps can be taken, while there is still time, to prevent a new dimension of the arms race in outer space.
In view of the operational capabilities that are new being developed, it is a matter of urgent concern that only timely action can prevent the escalation of the arms race into outer space, which could intensify the arms race on earth.
We feel the answer lies in the reduction of nuclear weapons on earth and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. It does not appear feasible that the deployment of new weapons systems in outer space can remove the threat that nuclear weapons pose on earth. The situation in Kampuchea continues to be a matter of international concern, as the prolongation of the conflict has serious implications for international peace and security. It inhibits the promotion of friendly relations and co-operation between States within the region.
The fundamental issue is to create conditions favorable to the exercise by the Kampuchean people of their right of self-determination. The restoration of their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity requires the withdrawal of foreign troops and non-intervention by other States in the country's internal affairs.
It is undoubtedly the Kampuchean people themselves who must determine their own future. At the same time, the search for a meaningful solution rests on efforts by the international community, as well as the States concerned within the region. The efforts of the Secretary-General have produced a positive momentum for better understanding between the parties concerned. In the search for a peaceful solution through the process of genuine negotiation and mutual accommodation, it is important to recall what the Secretary-General said in his 1985 report on the situation: that the problems of the region cannot be solved by military means, and that protracted confrontation can only generate further tension and enhance the risks of escalation.
In our consideration of the situation in Afghanistan, we should understand that the underlying problem concerns the fundamental principles on which relations between States must be based. The delegation of Burma endorses the support of the international community for efforts to arrive at a negotiated settlement in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations. The diplomatic process initiated by the Secretary-General is commendable, in that the stage has now been reached at which it is possible to finalize the texts to be agreed upon relating to non-interference in the affairs of States, international guarantees of non-interference and the voluntary return of refugees to their homeland. It is therefore necessary to continue the process in order to reach a just and comprehensive political settlement. Resolution of the outstanding substantive issue of the withdrawal of foreign troops is essential for the achievement of such a settlement.
Prom the time of its inception almost the United Nations has been actively involved in the continuing search for a political solution to the problems of the Middle East. Its activities in the region have been significant. Prospects for a comprehensive solution of the Middle East issue continue to be elusive despite efforts both within and outside the United Nations. The path to peace in the Middle East lies in the willingness of all the parties concerned genuinely to co-operate in the peace process. The present situation lessens the prospects for optimism, as the current year has witnessed a mounting wave of violence in the region.
The problem of Palestine is central to the Middle East problem and therefore constitutes the key to its solution. Needless to say, the principles and framework for a peaceful solution were formulated long ago and have been affirmed repeatedly by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Those principles are the withdrawal of all forces of occupation from the occupied territories in accordance with Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and recognition of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, independence and sovereignty and the right of all States in the region to exist within internationally recognized borders.
In recent years no country in the Middle East has been more affected by war and devastation than Lebanon. Peace in Lebanon lies in respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the country. This calls for respect for the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, which would enable the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) to carry out effectively its mandate in southern Lebanon.
On the conflict between Iran and Iraq, we share the concern of the world community. Despite the efforts of the United Nations, and particularly of the Secretary-General, the war has brought untold suffering and devastation to both
sides and has serious implications for peace and stability in the region. Recourse to arms is contrary to the principles of the United Nations Charter, and the best hope lies in both parties submitting to mediation or to any other means of peaceful settlement in accordance with Security Council resolution 582 (1986).
The aggravation of the situation in southern Africa continues to be of concern not only to the African continent but also to the world at large. This is evident from the fact that the Security Council has been preoccupied with issues relating to the region on numerous occasions in the course of the present year.
The complexity of the situation has three basic dimensions: first, South Africa continues relentlessly to practice the abhorrent system of apartheid; secondly, its illegal occupation of Namibia, contrary to the aspirations of its people and the will of the international community, continues; and, thirdly, it has further intensified acts of aggression against neighboring independent States. This policy of destabilization of its neighbors is contrary to the norms of international law and violates the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of those States. The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of other States, which is one of the mainstays of stable inter-State relations, has been ignored by the South African regime.
South Africa, by its blatant occupation of Namibia, disregards all relevant resolutions of the United Nations. It continues to use delaying tactics to place obstacles in the way of implementation of resolution 435 (1978), which constitutes the internationally acceptable basis for the independence of Namibia. The international community has found it necessary to call once again on South Africa to co-operate in good faith to bring about the immediate implementation of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia. The eradication of apartheid and unconditional independence: for Namibia would create the conditions necessary for the return of peace to South Africa.
The escalation of violence and force in South Africa has led to an urgent international call for the exercise of pressure through peaceful means to make the regime realize the futility of its policies. The World Conference on Sanctions against Racist South Africa, held in Paris earlier this year, considered the situation in South Africa to be extremely grave. It stressed the imperative need to take all necessary action, with a sense of urgency, for the speedy abolition of apartheid and to end the violence in South Africa, the illegal occupation of Namibia and acts of aggression against independent African States. With those objectives, the Conference called for a comprehensive program of action by the international community and mandatory sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
For four successive years the item relating to the situation in Central America has been on the agenda of the General Assembly. It is evident that solutions should be found within a regional framework through the Contadora peace process, since it is acceptable to all the parties involved in the search for a negotiated peace settlement. It is noteworthy that the Contadora Group has persevered in its efforts to restore peace and co-operation in Central America. The international community can contribute most positively by extending continued support and encouragement.
While the world's political situation offers little cause for optimism, the global economic scene is also quite disheartening. The world economy continues to face difficulties. Imbalances in the international economic situation are likely to deteriorate further, with adverse implications for the economies of developing countries. The persistence of such a situation demonstrates that the crisis is not just a temporary phenomenon but the result of long-rooted imbalances in the international economic structure. The perception that expansion of production in the industrialized countries will automatically lead to growth in developing countries new seems to have faded.
The developing countries in general continue to face serious balance-of-payments problems and are unable to stimulate economic development through the medium of domestic policies. They are adversely affected by deteriorating terms of trade, debt problems and falling commodity prices, all of which hamper their prospects of growth and aggravate their indebtedness.
The developing countries are aware of the need to reactivate growth through domestic policies and coherent international economic co-operation in the areas of money, finance, trade and debt. An overall improvement in the situation would come about through sustained expansion of world economic activity, improvement in the terms of trade of developing countries, escape from high interest rates, an upswing in commodity prices and reversal of the increasing trend towards restrictionism and protectionism.
The international trade and payments system, with national economies weakened as they are, has very little capacity for additional strain. An examination of how it may be reordered and restructured to promote better economic performance by national economies is urgently needed. Reform of the trade and payments system is unlikely, given the present arrangements for international economic discussions, which separate from one another the interrelated problems of development, employment, debt and trade and payment balances, the major obstacle being that decisions on international monetary and financial systems remain the exclusive preserve of the minority rich nations.
One of the immediate issues is debt, which can be satisfactorily resolved only in the wider context of reform of the trade and payments system. At the same time, the system itself will inevitably be affected and its long-term evolution heavily influenced by decisions regarding debt in the more immediate future. The developing countries experiencing debt servicing problems have already made substantial policy efforts to reduce external deficits through cutting back imports and reducing growth. Internal adjustment programs made by debtor countries with a view to relieving the acute debt problems, and any other ad hoc measures, would not solve the problem.
Prom this wider perspective the reordering and restructuring of the international trade and payments system need to be addressed in a constructive, co-operative and comprehensive manner. This calls for the restructuring of international trade, and monetary and development institutions, so that their decision-making process and functioning as a whole could become more equitable, just, and conducive to promoting development and global prosperity. It does not appear that ad hoc policies in a narrower context would solve comprehensively the problems of the developing countries or even those which enjoy substantial advantages from the existing international economic order.
Finally, may I deal with the most overriding issue before us. This session of the General Assembly will give serious consideration to the financial crisis which the United Nations faces. The Secretary-General, in bringing the situation to the attention of the resumed session of the General Assembly last May, said that what is at stake is the operational effectiveness of the United Nations. The consensus of opinion expressed by delegations during the resumed session was that, while the present crisis is one of insufficient funds, it is also one of political dimensions. From this broader perspective, while measures of a financial nature are being taken to alleviate the situation in the short term, the search for long-term solutions requires a comprehensive and integrated approach that needs to take the broad political perspectives into consideration. Although considerations on a more effective use of funds is an integral part of solving the crisis, it has not arisen because expenditure has exceeded the Organization's regular budget, what is of serious concern is the deficit in cash flews, which has been felt over the years due to withholdings of assessed contributions, particularly by some of the permanent members of the Security Council. When unilateral decisions create huge deficits in cash flows, the crisis assumes serious proportions; the integrity and viability of the United Nations system becomes an issue when such actions contradict the obligations of membership.
This session will need to find long-term solutions and to consider the recommendations by the Group of High-Level Experts, whose mandate is to identify measures for improving the efficiency of administrative and financial matters of the United Nations. We believe that concerted efforts by all Member States is urgently needed; only the fulfillment of each Member's obligations would ensure the future of this Organization, which, despite some failings, has also achieved much.
Allow me to conclude by stating that my delegation expresses the hope that, at this Assembly, we shall help to find ways and means of overcoming the many obstacles which stand in the way of resolving the numerous problems that beset us. In so doing we can infuse new life and vigor in the United Nations and reinvest the Charter with its full force of inspiration.


we come once again to this important rostrum, on the occasion of the forty-first session of the General Assembly, in 1986, which has been proclaimed the International Year of Peace. I wish peace to you, Mr. President, peace to all delegations, peace to all nations, peace on our earth. Catharsis is not needed to recall the dream of mankind that peace will reign among all men and all peoples. Is it not the desire of all that we can extinguish the hotbeds of tension throughout the world? What would be the meaning of the celebration of this International Year of Peace were we to continue to deny the right to development of some and seek to maintain our domination over others, to continue the frenetic arms race? Can our Organization one day fulfill its raison d'etre, that is, the maintenance of peace and security in the world? Members will understand my perplexity faced with this desolate theater that is our world and conscious as I am of being a burlesque character in a play in which the stupidity of man prevents him from realizing the world of peace to which he aspires.
Last year, the fortieth anniversary of our Organization aroused great hope of a fresh start in international relations, and the celebration of the International Year of Peace should be considered as a milestone in this renewal, which calls for new thinking about the role of our Organization.
The founding Members, who had witnessed tragedies that sowed death and desolation on earth, gave the maintenance of peace pride of place in the Charter of the Organization to which we all belong.

By becoming signatories to the Charter did we not declare that
"We, the peoples of the United Nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small"?
By becoming signatories to the Charter did we not declare our faith in the purposes and principles of the Organization? Did we not undertake
"To maintain international peace and security ... to take effective collective measures ... for the suppression of acts of aggression ... and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace"? Does the celebration of the International Year of Peace herald the fulfillment of our hopes for the strengthening of peace and mutual trust among nations and the advent of more just and equitable co-operation so that our Organization may fulfill its destiny?
Can the celebration of the International Year of Peace mean that the present hotbeds of tension will be extinguished, that effective negotiations on nuclear disarmament will be resumed, that it will be realized that peace on earth is essential if we are to achieve our common destiny?
This common destiny, Mr. President, is a bond between my country and yours, with which we enjoy close ties of friendship and oo-operation. It is no mere coincidence that at the time of the celebration of the International Year of Peace you are presiding over the work of our session. You belong to a country and a Continent which are the cradle of an age-old civilization and great religions the
essence of which are virtue and peace. Issued with this philosophy of peace, the corollary of which is love and tolerance - there is absolutely no doubt that you will be able to harmonize any discordant notes that nay be heard in guiding our work in harmony towards positive results. It therefore gives my delegation great pleasure to congratulate you on your unanimous election to the presidency of the forty-first session of the General Assembly. We assure you of the readiness of the delegation of Togo to co-operate with you in carrying out your heavy responsibilities.
We have not yet forgotten the outstanding nature of last year's session, on the occasion of the fortieth anniversary of our Organization. With his clear thinking, his sense of moderation and his wisdom, combined with his great diplomatic skill, Mr. Jaime de Pinie's won the admiration of all for the ability with which he presided over the work of that session. I should like to pay a personal tribute to him as well as to his country.
In this year in which ws are celebrating the International Year of Peace, no one, i think, could deny the efforts made by the Secretary-General of our Organization, His Excellency Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, to establish peace in the tense regions of our world. The timely initiatives he has always undertaken, which reflect his determination to attain the primary goal of our Organization - the maintenance of international peace and security - as well as his devotion, call for a special tribute, for encouragement and congratulation from my Government and my delegation. Our pleasure at seeing him participate in our work is particularly great since we were deeply disquieted to learn of the brief indisposition that had prevented him from fully assuming his functions. It is our sincere hope that he will regain his full strength so that he may continue the work to which he is devoted as the head of the Secretariat of this Organization.
The peace that we all sincerely hope for through respect for the Charter of the United Nations would be completely meaningless were we to forget that it must help to bring about the full development of man in all aspects of his being.
It seems appropriate therefore to remind ourselves once again of this basic truth by quoting the words of our Secretary-Generals
"When we pursue together the ideals and purposes of the Charter, let us be careful not to forget the quality of the world we are seeking to build and the ultimate raison d'etre of all our work: the human being as an individual for whom the Declaration of Human Rights recognizes the right to a social and international order so that human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully respected."
It seems that we have lost sight of the quality of the world in which we want to live as well as our basic raison d'etre on this earth. How else can we explain that we have failed to resolve problems such as apartheid in South Africa, the
illegal occupation of Namibia, Kampuchea and Afghanistan, the situation in the Middle East, the Iran-Iraq war, the situation in Korea and in Central America, the arms race and the underdevelopment of young nations, among other things, Yes, apartheid must cease in South Africa. Yes, we forget too often that the fundamental raison d'etre of all our activities is man.
We too often forget that we signed the Charter of the United Nations or that we acceded to it, and in so doing, we proclaimed
"faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person".
We too often forget that human rights are universal and inherent in the human person and that they cannot vary with color of skin. For its part, as General Gnassingbe Eyadema, President-Founder of the Rally of the Togolese People and President of the Republic said:
"Togo cannot tolerate the situation of injustice and oppression now prevailing in this region, where a regime unworthy of man and of our era and contrary to any moral code is being maintained by means of extraordinary violence carried out against a population whose wrong is only the color of their skin." For that reason the Government of Togo appeals to the whole of the international community to mobilize all its resources to put an end to the despicable apartheid regime. For how long will the international community resign itself to the defiance of South Africa? Everything leads one to believe that this regime will continue to flout the international community as long as it can count on the understanding of some countries that refuse to take action against it. The purpose of United Nations resolutions calling on all States to put an end to diplomatic, military, economic and other relations with the regime of South Africa in order to inflict on South Africa sufficiently meaningful penalties to oblige it
to give up its inhuman policy of apartheid has never been achieved. The principal partners concerned take shelter behind their constitution and their own national opinion, which, however, has reacted in favor of the abolition of that apartheid policy. The Afrikaner poet Breyten Breytenbach quite rightly summed up the situation when he wrote:
"The apartheid regime only exists because the world allows it to exist. It flourishes, it is accepted, encouraged, fed, armed, and saved if necessary, because it benefits South Africa's trading partners and investors." It is comforting, however, to note that the international community has stepped up its political and economic pressure on the racist regime. That pressure must be increased and comprehensive mandatory sanctions must be implemented. We salute the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States Senate which, at the beginning of August, almost unanimously approved the imposition of economic sanctions against the apartheid regime in South Africa, following the trade embargo already adopted by the House of Representatives.
The commercial restrictions decided on against the apartheid regime by Canada, the Scandinavian countries, the countries of the European Economic Community and others should be encouraged, so that they may attain their goal.
We praise those Governments for their determination and for the measures they have taken. The courageous position of the front-line States and of some Commonwealth States must also be commended. Those measures should be increased following the introduction by the Pretoria Government of further measures to strengthen the emergency law imposed on 12 June and aimed at giving the heads of the local police forces enormous powers, such as the power to arrest anti-apartheid militants, to impose curfews in black zones, to prohibit political activities, and
to impose restrictions on freedom of the press.
It is time that States that have refused to adopt meaningful sanctions against South Africa reacted in a similar manner. It is time for the States that continue to maintain direct or indirect relations with the racist regime of Pretoria to understand that it is they who support and encourage apartheid, with no respect for the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, notwithstanding the dignity of the human person in South Africa. It is time for South Africa to understand that apartheid is going through its death throes and that measures must be taken immediately to bring about its elimination through peaceful means. Otherwise - without wishing to be a prophet of doom - the new multiracial, egalitarian society called for by the blacks will be writ in blood.
Such is the grim conclusion reached by Sir Shridath Ramphal, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, when he stated at the latest Paris conference on sanctions against South Africa:
"... in 10 years, things have changed. Apartheid must cease ... and it will cease - if necessary by means of a bloody struggle whose cost in human lives will be reckoned in millions of victims, whose agony will have repercussions in every corner of our multiracial world."
No individual, no people can indefinitely put up with the tyranny of another individual or another people. No people can bear passive witness to its own destruction.
History is full of edifying examples, and a number of countries which now tacitly or openly protect the racist regime of Pretoria should recall the struggle of their own peoples to regain their rights.
Let us wake up and courageously take proper steps to bring about the peaceful advent of a multiracial, egalitarian society, before it is too late. Let us think more deeply about our reason for being on this earth and the purpose of our
existence, and we will understand the need to rid ourselves of the instincts to accumulate and to dominate whereby we deny the blacks in South Africa their human rights.
Let us not forget the words of President Eyadema:
"What we must remember is the need for the whole of humanity to guarantee humane living conditions for all individuals.19 Let us thus make an effort to guarantee to all South Africas, whether white, black colored or Indian, those humane living conditions by tolling the knell for the odious practice of apartheid. For its part, Africa is ready to face its responsibilities, not by accepting reform, modernization or any mere cosmetic change of apartheid, but its total destruction. As was proclaimed by Oliver Tambo the courageous African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) militant: "We must make the South African regime ungovernable and apartheid impracticable."o)
Still on the subject of southern Africa, the racist regime of Pretoria continues to maintain its domination over the people of Namibia. In order to perpetuate its illegal occupation of Namibia through a so-called internal solution, the South Africa Government has increased and is increasing the obstacles it has placed in the way of the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 (1978) containing the United Nations plan for that Territory's independence. Further, it has continued its acts of armed intervention against the front-line countries, with the encouragement of the supporters of the rebel groups that harass those States. As in the case of apartheid, it is essential that pressures be brought to bear on the Pretoria Government to force it to abandon this latest neocolonialist maneuver of an interim government and to recognize that the only valid course is independence granted under .'evolution 435 (1978), free of any linkage with the withdrawal of the Cuban troops from Angola. In this International Year of Peace we must hope for the advent of an independent Namibia in which the Namibians can live in peace.
It is fitting to recall in this connection operative paragraphs 1 and 6 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which state:
"1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
"6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter cf the United Nations." (resolution 1514 (XV))
Those provisions have their basis in the Charter of the United Nations itself. Article 1, paragraph 2, of which states that one of the purposes of the United Nations is
"Tb develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."
A review of some of the provisions of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence t' Colonial Countries and Peoples and of the United Nations Charter is necessary in order to highlight once again the contradiction that exists between the consenting of States to the United Nations and the actual comportment of those States. Everywhere in the world we are witnessing acts of violence, whereas all our actions should be bait towards the search for peace, to such an extent that we cannot help but wonder whether people have not lost sight of the provisions of the Charter, bewitched by the sway of power, whose corollaries are hatred, intolerance and a will to dominate. Contempt for human rights unfortunately prevails throughout the world - in Namibia, in Chad, in Western Sahara, in Kampuchea, in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, in Korea, in Central America.
More than ever before, the problem of the right of peoples to self-determination exists in Namibia, a Territory that should have been independent long ago. All peace-loving States, all States for whom human rights and the rights of peoples have any meaning at all, should join efforts to see that Security Council resolution 435 (1978) is finally implemented to bring about the self-determination of the Namibian people and their independence.
In Chad, part of that country's territory is still under foreign domination. The Government of Togo, which welcomes the fact that most of the opposition groups have rallied to the legal Government in N'Djamena, hopes that soon all the people of Chad will regain control over the whole of their territory within internationally
recognized borders so that peace and concord can finally be reestablished. That is our wish for that suffering people in this International Year of Peace.
Still in Africa, the Sahraoui people are seeking self-determination. Their right to self-determination has been recognized by all, and the adoption of resolutions to that end by the United Nations General Assembly and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) can only speed up the process of self-determination. My Government welcomes the efforts being made by the former Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), Mr. Abdou Diouf, and by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, to implement the provisions of those resolutions. It appeals to the patties concerned to return to negotiations under conditions appropriate to reaching a peaceful solution to that conflict.
Two other peoples are victims of the violation of their rights and the principles of the Charters the peoples of Kampuchea and of Afghanistan. My country has followed with great interest the development of the situation in Kampuchea. By heroically continuing their struggle to resist the impressive forces deployed by the foreign occupying troops, the Kampuchean people have given us proof of their staunch determination to live in freedom and to recover the peace wrested from them. It is that determination for peace that explains the creation of the tripartite coalition led by Principe Sihanouk for the purpose of exploring new means of prevailing upon the occupying Power to withdraw and thereby put an end to an occupation that flouts international law and the principles of the Charter. As a country of peace and dialog, Togo has always hoped for a speedy resolution cs the problem of Kampuchea. Accordingly, it has always supported the wise proposals of the General Assembly and of Prince Sihanouk, which seek merely bring about respect for the principles of the Charter in order that the peace to which the Kampuchean people are entitled can be reestablished. Determined to regain that
lost peace, the Kampuchean people has made yet another proposal, consisting of 8 points, formulating the conditions necessary to a peaceful settlement of the problem. That proposal - and we cannot overemphasize this - is inspired by the sincere desire of the people and coalition Government of Kampuchea led by Prince Sihanouk - to whom we pay a resounding tribute for his deep sense of humanity - to find a political solution to the problem. The proposal is based on the principles of our Organization and has been reflected in the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly in recent years.
The Government and people of Togo would like to express their support for the latest proposal of the Kampuchean people and hopes that it will meet with a favorable response so that peace can return to that region in this year when our Organization is celebrating the International Year of Peace. In this year of peace, the international community must support that proposal in order to resolve a problem that has dragged on for far too long.
The same is true of the situation in Afghanistan. There too a people that wishes only to live in peace has for more than six years suffered from a situation of war. The foreign troops, which will go to any lengths to establish their domination, must withdraw from Afghanistan. The Organization must do its utmost to see that the relevant resolutions adopted are implemented. The indirect negotiations between Pakistan and Afghanistan are aimed at resolving the problems of millions of Afghans who have fled their homes in search of peace in neighboring countries.
It is time, therefore, for all foreign troops to withdraw from that country. Such a withdrawal would mean that the refugee question could be resolved at the same time. The announcement by the Soviet authorities that some of those troops would soon be withdrawn is a sign of goodwill to resolve the problem. We hope that
the occupying troops can soon be completely withdrawn so that the Afghan people may fully enjoy their rights.
In the Middle East we must face the fact that the diplomatic efforts to resolve the region's problem have been futile. That problem, which revolves around the question of Palestine, the Israel-Arab conflict and the civil war in Lebanon, must be resolved within the framework of an international conference, which we favor. The problem of the Middle East is one of the most serious challenges to the credibility of our Organization. The evolution in the relations between the various parties involved and concerned gives rise to some glimmer of hope that the problem may be settled. In order to achieve a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the region, guaranteed by the two great Powers and other interested States, in particular France and the United Kingdom, the international conference on Palestine must find a solution to three main questions: first, the creation of a Palestinian State on the basis of the General Assembly resolution on the partition of Palestine; secondly, withdrawal from the territories occupied since 1967 and, thirdly, the right of all State in the region, including Israel, to live in peace within secure and recognized borders.
It is essential that solutions be found to these questions without delay, which-are the core of the Palestinian problem. This eternal question of Palestine is made even more painful and difficult because of the exacerbation of the clashing antagonisms in Lebanon. Armed confrontations between opposing factions in that couitry continue to prevent a halt in the civil war. One cease-fire agreement follows another without being kept, and the people permanently chained to a powder keg. UNIFIL should be allowed to discharge its mandate properly so that our Organization can attain the basic goal for which it was established. There must be more dynamic, more honest, more direct co-operation among the Powers concerned with the Lebanese leaders so that peace can be finally restored to that country. He appeal to the Lebanese themselves to look beyond their rivalries and contemplate healing the wounds they are inflicting on a country that used to be universally admired. In that context Togo welcomes the agreement reached on 3 September between Muslims and Christians to adopt a national charter to put an end to 11 years of civil war.
Not far from the Middle East, in South-West Asia, two brother countries continue their terrible gladiatorial struggle. At a time whet people are becoming aware of the need to strengthen co-operation among States, it is regrettable that the excesses of nationalism which have led to war between two States which should live in peace continue to keep them away from the negotiating table. The Iran-Iraq war, which is entering its seventh year, is a pointless war, and it is high time that the protagonists took stock of the great loss of human life and material damage, and realized that hopes of military victory are illusory. The efforts of the Secretary-General, of the Islamic conference and of countries that have good relations with the two brothers who are now enemies must be encouraged, so that this International Year of Peace that we are celebrating can have some meaning for the peoples of Iraq and Iran.
Once again from this rostrum, cm behalf of the Government and people of Togo, we appeal to the authorities in Iran and Iraq to think of their peoples, whose only wish is to live in peace. As President Eyadema has said:
"May universal peace reign so that the enormous resources now being devoted to war can be released and so that a world of true fraternity can be established, a world of equal justice for all where the dignity of the human person is respected." The arms merchants also should endorse that wish and supplying weapons to that theater of war. We wish to reaffirm our support for the mediation efforts of the Secretary-General, and would urge him to continue them in order to bring about a peaceful settlement of the conflict.
Elsewhere in Asia the Korean people has been divided for more than 40 years. How much longer will families remain separated? Does the international community wish to endorse that accidental and temporary partition? We do not think so, and we are convinced that all sides will learn from past mistakes. In that context, my Government has doubts about the advisability of admitting the two Koreas to the United Nations. To admit them as separate Mentors of the Organization would create a situation identical to one that we are all familiar with, that is the consolidation of two separate States and the acceptance of a de facto situation, which would be a serious obstacle to the reunification desired by the Korean people.
It is to be hoped that the obvious desire of the North Koreans for dialog with a view to reunification should receive a favorable response from the parties concerned, so that the three-point plan that they propose, which is intended to lead to the establishment of a democratic federal republic of Roryo, where at a first stage each of the two Koreas would maintain the regime of its choice, before moving on to the final stage of reunification. We reaffirm our support for that
plan. We hope that the meetings that have taken place between various humanitarian and economic bodies in the two countries can continue and be taken a stage further, so that there can be a speedy settlement of this question and peace can be restored in the Korean peninsula.
In Central America the situation has continued to worsen, endangering peace and security in that part of the world. It is regrettable that the efforts made by the Contadora Group to end the fratricidal conflict have not met with the hoped for response. If this situation continues it will considerably weaken and even rule out any chance of a negotiated solution to the problems of the region. Once again, Togo appeals to the good will of the parties concerned, and urges them to respect the principles and purposes of our Organization so that peace can be .restored to the region.
To add to the grim picture of the political situation, as if the misfortunes besetting our earth were not sufficient, another scourge is threatening us all, and is becoming increasingly dangerous every days international terrorism. It is not without reason that the media consider it the plague of our times, because it strikes without discrimination, leaving innocent victims, and sowing destruction and desolation along its path. Terrorism is a crime against humanity, whether committed by individuals, groups, or states and whatever the alleged motives. Terrorists are criminals and must be combated and condemned as such by the international community at large. The very survival of organized society is at stake. Togo adds its voice to all those throughout the world who have condemned this scourge and we call upon all States to engage in close co-operation to put a speedy end to it.
An analysis of the various situations we have just reviewed clearly shows that these have come about only because of weapons. Undoubtedly the needs of national
defense seem to justify the existence, equipment and the maintaining of armies by every nation, but unfortunately these needs encourage the trade in arms at the expense of the social, humanitarian and ethical considerations which should prevail over the arguments of profit and over political and ideological motives. Unfortunately, we are witnessing a frenzied arms race which is increasing the prospect of our own destruction, the destruction of mankind, whom we are striving to protect. How far will human vanity lead us before we understand, as President Eyaderaa has said that
"The shot that emerges from the gun causes indiscriminate casualties among the population. The nuclear bomb does not distinguish between developed or underdeveloped countries, when chemical and bacteriological weapons are released, they do not select their victims* they strike indiscriminately. The frenzied nuclear arms race is a threat to all mankind, rich and poor, developed and less developed."
We must all commit ourselves to ending the arms race, inter alia, by giving active support to the World Disarmament Campaign.
In this context my country is sparing no effort, and our desire to provide the headquarters for the United Nations Regional center for Peace and Disarmament clearly reflects that commitment. We sincerely thank the whole international community for the choice of Togo to host this important regional center. We are counting on the generosity of all peace-loving nations to contribute to the smooth running of the center. We have offered material facilities and a financial contribution to allow the center to start its work. We are counting on the good will of other States. Peace is a joint asset that all States must try to safeguard in all regions of the world. We should stress the role of the two super-Powers in
the maintenance of that peace. Thus it is to be hoped they will be able to agree on a formula for peaceful compromise in which star wars and star peace can be harmonized, so that the resources released as a consequence of the abolition of all the arsenals can be allocated to the development of States, and bring about the prosperity that our peoples desire.
Hundreds of millions of people are now living in total destitution and cannot meet their essential needs for a normal life offering them enough food and a modicum of clothing, water, a roof over their heads, and so on. Hundreds of millions of people are prevented from enjoying most of the basic and inalienable human rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At the same time, part of humanity, basically in the developed countries, is living in comfort and abundance. This injustice must be redressed and humanity must find a solution to this situation by contemplating a system of international co-operation able to eliminate the serious disparities in today's world and to establish a just equitable world, economic and social order, where people have the same chances of development.
More than 12 years ago the Member States of the united Nations, anxious to remedy the serious crisis besetting the world, decided, following the sixth special session of the General Assembly, to think about establishing a just, equitable international economic order. That order would replace the obsolete laws that governed international economic relations and put an end to widespread exploitation and confusion.
Today, more than a decade since its adoption, the program of Action for the Establishment of a New International Economic Order is a dead letter, because of the selfishness of the developed countries, which are still clinging on desperately to some of their prerogatives.
The North-South dialog, which should have been established between rich and poor countries to ensure harmonious growth of the world economy has become in most cases a confrontation where all kinds of interests clash.
Thus the widespread crisis, which has been going on for so many years, still goes on, even if some industrialized countries have at some point noted a few vague signs of recovery. However, it is clear that a world economic recovery cannot
really be brought about at the expense of the developing countries, and it would be an illusion on the part of some developed States to wish to build their prosperity on the ashes of the poor nations.
The many hard-working poor people in the third world are indubitably full' partners on the international economic chess board, whose just remuneration is essential for the recovery of the world economy.
The countries of the North must fully realize the interdependence of all economies whether developed or developing. They must take all proper action to put an end to disorder and the uncertainty marking international economic trade, which so strikingly affect third world economies.
Everything should be done to halt the present order based on the phenomenon of dependence, which derives from the unequal relationships that emerged in colonial history.
This order, which was imposed on developing countries at the time when most of them suffered from colonial subjugation, is the main obstacle to their growth and keeps them, even after they have won independence, in the role of supplying raw materials and purchasing of manufactured products. Thus, the third world countries have been lagging behind the rich countries and are feeling even more acutely the after effects of the crisis and do not have any dynamism of their own to resist it. Whereas the prices of commodities that they export and which generate most of their financial resources are collapsing, the prices of the manufactured products that they import are sky-rocketing, causing a serious deterioration in the terms of trade.
The development efforts undertaken by the poor countries have thus been nullified, whereas their indebtedness is increasing beyond all tolerable limits.
This chronic indebtedness, which is for our peoples a very heavy burden, would not be so serious, so crushing, so difficult to bear, if the forces that are completely beyond our control, did not exploit the interest and exchange rates of certain strong currencies.
Impelled by a desire for profit, these forces no longer realize that the question of paying off our debts is intimately linked with an improvement in the socio-economic situation of our countries. Is it not time for the donor countries to bring about a better organized financial and monetary system? Is it not important that in order to recover their credits in good time they should contribute to the recovery of our economies, effectively giving assistance to our industrialization, enabling us to produce and to sell, by seeking to bring about the disappearance of protectionist measures preventing our products from access to the markets of the developed countries.
The world, for several years, has been going through a difficult period, where only mutual understanding and solidarity among all nations, both large and small, is the proper course of action.
The thirteenth special session of the United Nations General Assembly, held from 27 May to 1 June of this year, which stressed the critical economic situation in Africa, doubtless created better awareness of the effects of the international crisis on the African economies in the minds of all Member States which joined in devising ways and means to assist Africa. That session was timely indeed and it can never be over-emphasized that our continent, which has the sorry privilege of having two thirds of the least-developed countries, and where poverty seems to have found fertile grounds, is suffering indescribable difficulties, not only because of the widespread crisis, but because of the drought, desertification and famine.
The particularly disquieting situation in Africa was eloquently described in the document submitted by the African states and in the statement made by President Diouf of Senegal, who was then Chairman of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). We do not intend to describe that again.
We would merely here welcome the fact that the priority program for the economic recovery of Africa, 1986-1990, was taken into account in the program of Action adopted by the General Assembly.
In keeping with that program of Action, African States have undertaken to finance national and regional development programs of a socio-economic nature, and the international community has expressed its will to support and supplement their efforts.
The African countries, as was reaffirmed at the last session of the Conference of Reads of state and Government of the OAU, will respect their commitment because they have understood that they themselves must take their own destiny into their own hands before requesting assistance from the international community.
It remains for that community to show solidarity with Africa and ipso facto show proof of its resolve to promote international co-operation, which would benefit all States without exception. The interdependence of nations in the world requires that after Africa, certainly an under-developed continent, the efforts of the international community should turn to other poor regions and should consider the establishment of a just, equitable economic order. All necessary initiatives must be taken here, because the dignity of the human race, and indeed the future of peoples are at stake.
We are mindful of what President Eyadema said:, "Today the development of science and technology has brought people on
our earth closer together and has given developed nations amazing means to bring about spectacular changes in our lives. But what would be the point of this progress, the result of so much intelligence and work by the human community were these changes not to include as a prerequisite in their goals, the overall development of the human condition?"
The peoples of the third world for their part are firmly resolved to rally round and to increase co-operation among the developing countries, to supplement north-south co-operation.
This south-south co-operation which is now indispensable for many reasons, will be strengthened for the well-being of the poor nations.
Here, my delegation welcomes the results of the high-level meetings of the Group of 77 on economic co-operation among developing countries, held in Cairo in August, and the summit conference of the Non-Aligned Movement in Harare.
We commend the decisive action of the Group of 77 and the Non-Aligned Movement for south-south co-operation and thus of the socio-economic emancipation of the poorest countries.
It is also appropriate to pay a well-deserved tribute to the organizations and agencies of the United Nations system, among others, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the United Nations Development program, which have been making a very useful contribution to the promotion of economic and technical co-operation among developing countries. This tribute is also extended to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which has been making decisive and effective efforts to stave off famine and to ensure self-sufficiency in food in the countries of the third world.
More than ever before, in this Year of Peace, a campaign of publicity and persuasion is needed to induce States to assume their full responsibilities to mankind, in keeping with the principles of the United Nations Charter and with human rights, in order to bring about the development of all peoples in peace and harmony. The celebration of the International Year of Peace should be an opportunity for us to question our own conduct so that it can be directed towards achieving that peace. We must regain our faith in our Organization and its principles so that we can effectively create a world where all peoples, while respecting the differences between them, can decide in complete freedom on the forms of association that they need to work on a basis of complementarity, in dignity and peace, for their happiness.
Peace to all Members.