I wish to offer my congratulations to Ambassador de Pinies on his well-deserved election as President of the fortieth session of the United Nations General Assembly and to thank his predecessor for his noteworthy services.
I avail myself of this opportunity to offer the heartfelt condolences of the people and Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Government and people of Mexico in connection with the very tragic earthquakes in that country and express the hope that international co-operation, however inadequate, may help relieve the suffering of the Mexican people.
The present session of the General Assembly, which coincides with the fortieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations, provides us with a welcome opportunity to take a more serious and responsible look at the present unpleasant world situation and, bearing in mind the high ideals of past and present generations, make an earnest effort to fill the gap between their ideals and our practice through constructive suggestions for the strengthening of this Organization so that it can move faster in the direction of our common human ideals.
In the course of the four decades of the life of this world Organization sincere, exhaustive and persistent attempts have been made at structuring a comprehensive international order to safeguard world peace and security, to develop friendly international relations on the basis of equality, to win collective co-operation for the resolution of international problems and to close the immense technical and economic gap that exists between the rich and poor countries. The end results of all these worthy efforts are manifested in the present form of the United Nations, which, despite its shortcomings, possesses enormous potential and offers great possibilities to mankind.
We are all aware of and agree on the relatively constructive role of the United Nations and its importance in certain complicated situations in the world today. Therefore, instead of utilizing this unique but brief opportunity to restate those common beliefs and praise the fruitful efforts of the United Nations in the political, economic, cultural and social fields, we should make an attempt to identify its weaknesses and find appropriate ways to remove them, in order to strengthen this international Organization.
As stated in the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization,
"The United Nations cannot - and was not intended to - solve all the problems of the international community, but it is the best place to avoid the worst and to strive for improvement." (A/40/1, p. 3)
However, the experience of two world wars which threatened the existence of humanity in less than two decades and a rational analysis of the causes of the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the outbreak of the second of them show that the world community has not yet succeeded in the effective and ideal employment of the great potential of this vast Organization for the just settlement of international disputes and the prevention of aggressive behavior - a regrettable fact that does not leave much room for simple-minded complacency.
In our opinion it is not a great achievement for man, as God's supreme creature on earth, to take pride in having occasionally healed his self-inflicted wounds in such an expensive, well-equipped world clinic.
The recognition of this reality must serve as the basis for constructive criticism to further the fulfillment of our obligations towards this Organization. The first priority in this approach is to assess the values governing this world Organization, because they are the only criteria for judging the success or failure of the United Nations' performance in the past.
There is no doubt that the life of every organization or constitution is dependent upon its value system and it goes without saying that for this very reason the principles, bases, procedures and inevitably the decisions and performance of every organization, and in this particular case the United Nations, are not exempt from value judgments.
But the question is: how and by whom are these value judgments made? The founding of the United Nations and the structure of its organs were overshadowed by the special circumstances and conditions of the political and military balance prevailing after the Second World War. Thus the basic concepts and fundamental values of this Organization, as manifested in the Charter of the United Nations, were all formulated within the framework of the historical and cultural values of the victors in the Second World War. That is why they do not represent the shared values of the majority of the members of the world community.
One of the principal reasons for the failure of the United Nations since its inception to implement the Articles of the Charter in the settlement or prevention of different international crises, particularly in terms of the issue of peace and security, is deeply rooted in this fundamental defect.
Consequently, the concept of justice that should be the main element in the infrastructure of the Charter of the United Nations is not clearly defined and is therefore exposed to all sorts of misinterpretation. A glance at the approach of the united Nations to different crises and problems demonstrates the unambiguous fact that the United Nations has always been mainly concerned with the preservation of the status quo and that the curtailment and temporary stoppage of crises is, in its vocabulary, synonymous with the carrying out of justice. It is quite evident that this approach is hardly likely to result in establishing lasting peace and security or to promise definitive solutions to any problems.
The other difficulty, in our opinion, is the fact that the Charter is full of contradictions and inconsistencies. A glaring example of this is the allocation of the right of veto to the few permanent members of the Security Council. Now, however, four decades after the formulation of the Charter, as there is absolutely no justification for the right of veto other countries have followed suit, and in practice behave as if they too were officially granted the same right, tending to disregard all international obligations and decisions whenever the latter happen to clash with their own interests. On the other hand, the Charter and the Organization itself have their raison d'etre in the acceptance of the principle whereby all Members should, in case of a clash between national and supra-national interests, abide by what is judged to be the interests of th? world community.
It is manifestly clear that the Charter cannot logically make such unjustifiable exceptions of a few countries as far as this fundamental principle is concerned; by having done so it has made a dead letter of its most basic principle and thereby eliminated all operative guarantees for the execution of the decisions of its Security Council.
When we note that from the time of its inception up to September 1985 the Security Council has issued sane 570 resolutions on important international crises, most of which never affected any situation; when we can see very few highlights in the performance of the Security Council; when we consider that the Security Council has failed to put an end to any significant international crisis; when we know that the Security Council's record even in reducing international tension and restricting wars within the framework of existing international laws is insignificant, we are bound to reach the inevitable conclusion that the Council's structure does not logically correlate with the philosophy of its foundation and that it must therefore be replaced by another international apparatus to carry out the important obligation of preserving international peace and security. More significantly, since the foundation of the United Nations, more than 20 million human lives have been lost in the course of some 140 international disputes. Certainly the United Nations has made efforts to prevent or contain such disastrous incidents, but unfortunately existing statistics show that the United Nations efforts have, for a variety of reasons, failed to achieve any substantial results.
I do not suppose that I need to emphasize the fact that the obligation to respect one's commitments is the most primary and fundamental basis for every international agreement. There is no doubt that this principle is the basis of all international laws, agreements and organizations. And the destruction of this fundamental principle would be tantamount to nullification of all mankind's achievements over the decades in the form of international laws and conventions designed to enable men to live without destructive wars and to assert the rights of nations in all social fields.
I must declare here unequivocally that there is an increasing and alarming trend for aggressors against the rights of nations to attack this fundamental
principle. Violation of international laws and norms, especially when questions of international and national peace and security are concerned, is on the increase in variety, quantity and quality, and those human communities which find themselves defenseless in the face of transgressions and aggressions are inevitably drawn to certain unilateral measures and arrangements in order to prepare themselves to confront all sorts of external aggression.
The frequent violation of international law discourages the human community from formulating new regulations or improving existing international laws. The majority of international treaties and conventions lack any international executive guarantees.
The obvious consequence of this process is an increase in demand for arms and weapons on an international level, the flourishing of the arms markets and merchants of death and intensification of the arms race, as a result of which potential aggressors are often persuaded actually to employ their well-stocked arsenals; and the reinforcement of this vicious circle can only end in the total destruction of all the human and economic resources of our planet.
In spite of the fact that colonialism today does not rob the economic resources of these countries and does not swallow their human and intellectual potential through direct military presence in the colonized territories, nevertheless the imposition of inescapable economic conditions on the nations of the third world by controlling markets which set the prices of new materials and industrial products, is the principal cause of the deepening gap between the poor and the rich.
Unfortunately the heavy cost of this is primarily borne by the third world. In the past year, we witnessed the debt crisis - which was exacerbated by an increase in the interest rate in the industrial countries - drag many of the debtor nations to the verge of economic bankruptcy, and arms expenditures broke all previous records.
We are of the opinion that the correlation between the sharp rise in the debts of the third world countries and expenditures on arms is in no way accidental. In other words, the third world's deep economic problems stem from the price the developing countries have to pay for the insane arms race of the big Powers. This correlation is established either indirectly through the export of economic crises from the industrial countries to the third world, or directly through the creation of political tensions in various regions, resulting in an increased demand for armaments.
We should admit that although the efforts of the United Nations and the Secretary-General to slacken the arms race have been conspicuous compared to other activities of this Organization, yet most of the measures ratified have, in effect, been vetoed by the super-Powers.
We believe that the United Nations cannot protect the third world, through the establishment of a new economic order, against the export of economic crises by the industrial West, unless these efforts are coupled with parallel efforts to decrease the pace of the arms race. This can only be achieved by the united, synchronized attempts of all the developing and non-aligned countries against obstacles created by the super-Powers in their bilateral and multilateral disarmament talks.
However, the super-Powers' persistence in the arms race and their continued efforts to excel each other, make their motives for the future Geneva talks highly suspicious. The super-Powers' carelessness towards the problems of the world community and the international tensions that they create on the strength of their arsenals do not leave much hope that humanity can live in a nuclear-free world in the future. The world community, however, expect their talks -this time to go beyond another boring repetitious show and to bring about some tangible results for the actual reduction in arms and prevention of nuclear war.
The United Nations role in preserving international peace and security should undergo a drastic transformation. If these changes require a new definition of obligations, there should not be any hesitation in redefining the United Nations Charter and reorganizing this Organization. The jurisdiction of the Secretary-General, particularly in relation to those conflicts which threaten international peace and security, should increase in such a way that bilateral discussions among the members of the Security Council and the ill wishes of the Powers which benefit from conflicts, do not create impediments for the Secretary-General and the Secretariat in finding just solutions for these conflicts. The United Nations should seriously work out means to guarantee and oversee the implementation of existing international laws, particularly those pertaining to universal human behavior at a time of war. Finding effective punitive measures for those who use force to settle their disputes is among the fundamental duties which should be entrusted to the United Nations. The rate of progress in the disarmament talks, in comparison with the speed of the arms race, is a matter of concern. The direction of these talks should undergo fundamental change and incentives for the arms race should be reduced. A most important consideration by the world community is the absence of an authoritative international body capable of implementing justice in time of conflict. Peace is a sacred word, but the administration of justice precedes that. The existing value system of the United Nations should be reviewed in order to remove this fundamental shortcoming. The qualitative and quantitative development of international organizations is absolutely essential to the present social life of the international community. But the more this need is felt, the more the big Powers become interested in influencing matters.
As soon as a number of countries show resistance in an international organization, every possible political and financial pressure is directed against that organization. This is exactly the sort of development we witness in the case of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
In our belief, one of the goals of the Member States on this fortieth anniversary of the United Nations should be a decisive struggle against imperial-minded Powers that attempt to dominate the smooth operation of the international Organization.
The United Nations is undoubtedly facing many problems today. Our world, in spite of all the technical and scientific advancements, is suffering from an increasingly wide range of political, economic, cultural and social crises. The economic gap between the first and the third world is widening all the time. Human life on earth is being seriously threatened by an increase in nuclear arms. We should know, however, that all the problems which the world community expects the United Nations to solve, have not come to us from outer space. Rather, they are the direct consequence of the actions of the countries and regimes whose representatives are present here.
Our basic problem lies in a lack of political will in this Organization, which results in the adoption of useless resolutions as substitutes for the realization of the aspirations of human communities.
The United Nations is the last place for finding peaceful solutions to the crises of a deeply-troubled world. Do not let it become the venue of final deception, since other solutions, whatever they may be, will, alas, not be peaceful.
What I have said so far about the United Nations is not a product of subjective analysis; it is, on the contrary, the direct result of what the Islamic Republic of Iran has actually experienced in the last few year's.. The indifference and feeble reactions of the United Nations - and especially those of the Security Council - to the repeated acts of aggression by the Iraqi regime against Iran have given the world a very unfavorable impression of the United Nations in dealing with international tensions and crises.
Allow roe to ask members of this Assembly if they know of any international law or humanitarian norm that has not been violated by the Iraqi regime, whenever it could physically do so, for the consolidation of its aggression. If the answer is positive - and the whole world knows that it is - would this single case not be sufficient proof for the Members of the United Nations, and other organizations established to protect peace and security, justifiably to feel that they are left defenseless and alone to face external aggression? Forty years after the establishment of a world Organization which was created after the bitter experience of two world wars in order to prevent future anti-human barbarism, a regime with a five-year record of constant aggression declares most shamelessly that it will only accept "total war or cease-fire" in the context of its aggressive objectives.
I am convinced that the Assembly fully understands the true meaning of this Iraqi regime's slogan. And the Security Council, which has been rebuffed by the Iraqi regime with respect to its latest statement banning the use of chemical weapons, knows perfectly well that, by this, the Iraqi regime is simply saying that if the Islamic Republic of Iran does not agree with conditions set by this regime -which only serve to consolidate its aggression - then Iraq will be authorized, whenever it so chooses, to violate with impunity all international regulations and conventions that bear its worthless signature.
The 1925 Geneva Protocol banning the use of chemical weapons; the 1949 Geneva Conventions relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; the Convention relative to the Treatment of Civilian Persons in Time of War; the Annexed Protocol of 1977 to the 1949 Conventions; the 1907 Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land; the 1972 Convention concerning the natural and cultural heritage; the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning maritime pollution and free navigation; the 1944 Chicago Convention; the 1970 Hague Convention concerning the safety of civil aviation; and scores of other international conventions and resolutions to which all Members of this world community have unconditionally committed themselves in order to respect humane considerations in time of war -have they not all been created to improve upon the law of the jungle during wartime?
However, for the reasons already cited, and according to resolution 3314 (XXIX) on the Definition of Aggression adopted by the General Assembly in 1974, the Iraqi crimes in its aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran are international crimes and, for this reason, it should also be an international obligation to react to these crimes and to punish the war criminals. The reason for the efforts of the Islamic Republic of Iran to persuade international organizations, and especially the United Nations, to take preventive and punitive action against the Iraqi regime is precisely because these international organizations are duty-bound to do so; but experience has, regrettably, shown us that the only effective way to counter Iraqi aggression is through the use of force.
We are certainly not happy to have reached this regrettable conclusion. The repeated violations of the agreement of 12 June 1984 banning raids on residential and civilian areas by the Iraqi regime illustrate the fact that the Islamic Republic of Iran has had to pay a very heavy price, under most trying circumstances, in abiding by this agreement unilaterally. The price includes some 6,000 civilians who day and night have been subjected to indiscriminate bombardment by Iraqi warplanes and the partial or total destruction of more than 50 towns. As we were paying such a heavy toll, we expected the United Nations to employ all levers at its disposal to stop these inhuman crimes.
But it is regret..able to have to admit the bitter fact that it was only our limited retaliatory actions backed by the support of millions of our people on the memorable day of Qods - "Jerusalem Day" - which made the Iraqi regime reduce its futile raids on residential and civilian areas. This is not to say that we do not appreciate the very sincere efforts of the Secretary-General, but we are of the opinion that as long as the whole of the United Nations and its organs do not co-operate with the efforts of the Secretary-General, the unilateral actions of the victim of aggression remain the only means of stopping or reducing aggression.
Allow me to go over the record of the Security Council and its behavior towards the Iraqi regime that has, as we have already explained, endangered international peace and security. We believe that, despite a slight modification of its unjust stance about this war in its last statement, the Security Council is still far from fulfilling the obligations entrusted to it by the United Nations Charter.
I should like to use this opportunity to remove certain ambiguities that may, because of a devotion to or for any other reason, remain in the minds of some representatives. We are sometimes asked why we do not respond to the proposals for a cease-fire or negotiations for the peaceful solution of the conflict made by the Security Council. We think that the way to answer this question is by the Security Council's answering a few other questions.
Why did the Security Council, despite its precedents in other international disputes, not condemn the flagrant aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran by Iraq at the very beginning of the imposition of war on two nations, and why is it not ready to do so even now?
Why did the Security Council not denounce the Iraqi regime as one that resorted to force for the settlement of its alleged dispute with a neighbor and unilaterally abrogated all bilateral agreements between the two countries?
Why did the Security Council, despite its well-known behavior in other international disputes, not request the withdrawal of Iraqi occupying forces from our country in its first resolution on this war?
Does all this negligence not point an accusing finger at those who urged Iraq to invade Iran and, in addition to arming that regime to the teeth, helped consolidate its occupying forces in our country through the adoption of such notorious resolutions?
Now we ask those with the right of veto in the Council which always veto any decision that apparently goes against their interests how they expect us not to oppose what we consider to be absolute injustice.
We have often declared at this world Assembly that when responsible international authorities, especially the Security Council, do not show proper, timely reactions to violations of international law - as was the case when Iraq
invaded Iran and imposed an unwanted war on two nations - this only encourages the aggressor in its aggression. The behavior of the Iraqi regime is the example par excellence of this bitter fact.
Could the members of this international body not ask the Security Council why, with the numerous cases of violation of international law by the Iraqi regime in its aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the course of five long years, it has sufficed to condemn the use of chemical weapons, and that with a one-and-half year delay after their first deployment and without even mentioning the name of the culprit?
Between 3 November 1983, when the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran reported the deployment of chemical weapons by Iraq, and between 26 March 1984, when the United Nations Mission to Iran submitted a report on the use of chemical weapons to the Security Council, and 25 April 1985, when the Security Council indirectly condemned the Iraqi regime for this crime, there were two intervals of 18 and 12 months respectively. How is this period of inaction rationalized? Can it be considered acceptable for the Security Council, as an international organ for the investigation of aggression that threatens world peace and security, to be the last party to take a stance on such a horrifying issue? And, even now, can anyone be certain that the Iraqi regime will not use chemical weapons again?
Five years have passed since the Iraqi aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Each new year a new series of violations of international law by the Iraqi regime was added to that aggression. The statements and documents of the Secretary-General's missions to the Islamic Republic of Iran for the investigation of Iraqi war crimes, despite the fact that they revealed only small parts of those crimes, must have removed all traces of doubt from the minds of those who sincerely wish for the establishment of a lasting peace in the region and must have convinced them that that unscrupulous regime is not to be fully trusted. Those who simple-heartedly recommend an armed cease-fire must know that, if we put a lid on this fire temporarily, it will at a later date flare up in a far more destructive and devastating manner. We have no choice, therefore, even if we have to go through fire and water, but to extinguish it for ever.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is therefore determined to continue its just struggle for the full realization of justice, and by this, we mean circumstances in which the aggressor is properly punished and long-term peace and security in the region is firmly guaranteed. Any other solutions would only result in the payment of heavier prices in the future by us and other countries that have suffered from Iraq's aggression in the past. I believe that one thing is quite clear: the actions of the Iraqi regime in the last few months alone demonstrated that that regime spared no effort to bring oil exports and navigation by the littoral States of the Persian Gulf to a complete halt, and by doing this it was aiming at creating an economic oil crisis which would encourage the super-Powers to interfere in our regional affairs.
One problem that may serve as a proper criterion for the evaluation of the executive power, the range of effect and the stance of the United Nations in the settlement of world problems is the question of Palestine. I believe that the United Nations has issued more resolutions and statements and organized more seminars and meetings in the case of Palestine than in that of any other problem. The minds and souls of some 1 billion Moslems throughout the world are anxiously preoccupied with this question. No part of the world has ever witnessed so much cruelty, aggression, occupation and usurpation of people's rights for so long a time. No other international issue has ever drained so much of the financial and economic resources of so many countries.
Perhaps in no other area has international .'Law been violated to such an amazing extent. No other regional problem has ever involved so many different countries around a single issue. And on no other issue, when there was a flicker of hope for curbing aggression, has the United States of America so frequently used its unjust right of veto in order to expand and strengthen the criminal Israeli acts of aggression.
Despite all this, from among all questions and problems treated by the United Nations, there is scarcely an issue for the settlement of which the total performance of the United Nations has been so insignificant. As a result, the Zionist regime, supported by United States imperialism, has with impunity and without even lessening the scale of its violations of the rights of the Palestinian people with regard to the views of the United Nations, continued to destroy the human, cultural, historical and economic resources of the Palestinian nation more rapidly.
There are no limits to the evil consequences of this bitter fact. The Zionist regime has in fact, become a model of aggression, teaching potential aggressors in the world how to violate people's rights and how to ignore the reactions of the United Nations.
The Iraqi regime has been a good disciple of Israel. It has simply followed the Zionist regime's practices in the violation of international law while paying no attention to the international consequences of its actions. Is it not, therefore, the time for the United Nations to seriously change direction as far as its procedures and practices are concerned, in order to turn itself into an instrument for the execution of its Members' will to end such violations?
Do the disasters inflicted on the people of Lebanon and Palestine during the last twelve months not make a fundamental change in the performance of the
United Nations a necessity? Do the bloodstained roads and by-roads of Lebanese villages point to anything but the' inaction of international organizations, especially the United Nations? Does the split blood of the innocent Lebanese people not cry out for the conviction of those regimes in the region whose compromised positions were revealed in the so-called Jordan-Palestinian proposal? Are the statements made in the Assembly by certain heads of States promoting the infamous policy of "compromise and capitulate" to the usurper Zionist regime, not intended to bury the cause of the Palestinian people forever?
We declare here that the treacherous efforts by the Amman-Baghdad-Cairo axis for recognition and legitimization of the usurper Zionist regime are doomed to failure. We are convinced that the Islamic Ummat will in time confront this aggressor and restore its stolen rights in Palestine, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Lebanon, Egypt and now Tunisia. The latest raid on • Tunisia by the latter-day Nazis occupying Palestine, which was carried out in complete harmony with the United States, serves as another reminder to certain reactionary, compromising elements in our region, that retreating before an aggressive enemy will only make it more violent. It demonstrated once again that the Zionist regime knows no limits for its aggressions and that all Arab and Islamic countries are potential targets for the future invasions of this satanic regime. In other words, this latest act of aggression is the proper reward for those who at this very rostrum uselessly praised the Israeli and American regimes.
The Muslims of Palestine, having learned this lesson whole-heartedly, continue their struggle to regain their usurped rights, and no plots may weaken their resolve for the liberation of Palestine and driving the big Powers out of their homeland.
In reviewing the record of the United Nations and its affiliated organs, we sometimes come across certain encouraging signs, such as the verdict of the International Court of Justice at the Hague on American aggression against Nicaragua. The value of this decision is more clearly recognized when we see the United States declaring that the ruling was outside the jurisdiction of this universally recognized international court. Such equitable decisions by united Nations organs should be strongly supported and helped to become dominant in the Organization. Otherwise aggression against independent countries and intervention in their affairs, and imposition of illegal jurisdiction, such as the so-called mobile sovereignty in the Persian Gulf and other areas granted to the United States fleet by the United States pirate Government itself, will continue unabated. The United States is also intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua and El Salvador and continuously tries to expand its hegemony over Latin American countries in political, military, and economic matters.
It is with regret that we have to mention other sensitive issues receiving similar treatment by the super-Powers in the United Nations. The ongoing talks on Afghanistan is one such issue.
Five years have passed since talks commenced under the auspices of the United Nations aimed at ending the occupation of Afghanistan. Due to certain reasons, however, there seems to be no tangible change in the position of the occupying party. This is what the Islamic Republic of Iran predicted from the very beginning, knowing that the absence of the true representatives of the Afghan people and the conditions set by the occupying forces for immediate withdrawal, had doomed the entire exercise to failure. But the United Nations, which already had the experience of dealing with similar issues for nearly 40 years, has not paid due attention to these two negative factors in these talks. Thus, we may ask, what is now the justification for the continuation of the talks?
Have these talks resulted in anything but entertainment for world public opinion and diverting it from the original question which was supposed to be the unjustified continuation of the occupation of Afghanistan? This problem can be solved only through the unconditional and Mediate withdrawal of the occupation forces, non-replacement of these troops by other imperialist forces, voluntary return of all Afghan refugees to their homeland, respect for Afghan national integrity, and the determination of the future of Afghanistan by the Afghan people themselves.
The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the political crisis in South-East Asia, especially in Kampuchea, can be overcome only on the basis of the wishes of the peoples of that area and in an atmosphere free from great-Power intervention; the Islamic Republic of Iran also supports the aspirations of the Korean people for the unification of their country. On other continents, we must condemn the military occupation of the Argentinian Malvinas Islands and voice our strong support for the struggle of the people of Western Sahara for independence, and for the decisions of the Organization of African Unity and the united Nations in this respect.
Although the United Nations attitude towards the problem of South Africa is clear in comparison with other issues, what is happening in South Africa is a disgrace to humanity. Apartheid is a tunnel that bypasses all the intellectual, cultural and ethical achievements of mankind and links the 20th century to the dark ages of the past. The assistance granted by imperialism, particularly by the United States of America and its satellites, both in overt and covert forms, strengthens and fortifies this horrendous tunnel. The ruling clique in South Africa, supported by imperialism, has not only engaged in the shameless arrest and indiscriminate murder of the leaders of the anti-apartheid campaign but has also stepped up its acts of aggression against the front-line countries.
Not only the South African aggression but also the political realities and, more particularly, the economic situation of the African continent deserve our greater attention. Of course certain constructive measures taken by the United Nations' and the Secretary-General to channel economic assistance to the famine-stricken people of Africa in the past year are to be appreciated; but this aid, plus the voluntary assistance provided by some countries, is far too little to meet the real needs of the African people. The Islamic Republic of Iran has, as a
duty, extended a helping hand, but, unfortunately, because of problems emanating from the war imposed on us, assistance has not readied satisfying levels. Here I deem it necessary to draw the attention of other countries to this human responsibility which all of us must shoulder. How can we justify the poverty, hunger, famine and deprivation of large numbers of people in an era identified with progress and development? How will God and history judge us when we witness the deaths of tens of thousands of people from starvation and deprivation and still spend a great amount of our wealth and natural resources on a lunatic arms race? Can humanity take any pride in centuries of cultural and intellectual advances in view of such diabolical crimes?
I hope this fortieth anniversary of the United Nations will be marked as the beginning of the end of the miseries of mankind; an anniversary for the deepening and consolidating of human bonds, the development of bilateral relations, the establishment of peace, the negation of domination and aggression and the securing of justice throughout the world.


On the historic occasion of this fortieth session of the General Assembly, we hail the fact that mankind has endured. We have survived intact through the sometimes uncomfortable period between the end of the last World War and the threat of a later, more complete destruction.
Much of the credit goes to this Organization, and much to the success of the deliberative mechanisms structured within the system of the United Nations and enshrined in its Charter, mechanisms which have institutionalized and underscored the universal recognition of the continuing need for the nations of planet earth to live together in some semblance of civilized behavior.
To be sure, the success of the United Nations has been limited, for the United Nations has seen an imperfect instrument in an uncertain world, but the very fact of our survival is a cause for celebration. Belize therefore joins the rest of the community in recording its appreciation of the efforts of this Organization in helping to ward off the ultimate destruction of humanity, which the awesome elements of our technology have made so frighteningly possible.
We congratulate you, Mr. President, on your unanimous election to the presidency of the fortieth session of the General Assembly, in full confidence that the brilliant record as statesman and conciliator that you bring to this high office will be placed at our disposal during the coming months.
For your predecessor, Belize's great friend, Paul Lusaka, we have the highest
words of praise for his inspired leadership of the thirty-ninth session of the General Assembly, and for the manner in which he conducted the deliberations of this body during his term of office. We wish him well in what must surely continue to be a distinguished career in the service of his country, Zambia, and of the wider international community.
Since the last session of the General Assembly, the people of Belize have exercised their democratic right to choose another vision of what their future should be. They have chosen growth instead of stagnation; expansion, instead of contraction; hope, instead of despair. They have chosen the United Democratic Party, under the leadership of Prime Minister Manuel Esquivel, to lead Belize as their newly elected Government. This choice was freely made, without coercion, without bloodshed and without recrimination, and Belizeans have chosen a Government dedicated to the cause of freedom, personal independence and democratic development.
The task of the new Government now is to demonstrate the boldness of action necessary to translate beliefs and principles into reality, proceeding in the confidence that within the Belizean people lie the power and the will to transform their lives and the life of the nation.
Our most important goal is to stimulate economic growth and move the nation to increased employment and prosperity. Accordingly, domestic policies are being put into effect aimed at dignifying Belizeans in all walks of life.
Inheriting an economy that has been virtually crippled by the burdens imposed upon us by the limitations of the past, as well as the greater problems arising from unsatisfactory world economic conditions, we do not pretend to face an easy task.
We are not alone in decrying the external factors over which we have no control and which have proved a scourge to every developing country. We continue to face a decline in both the markets and the prices offered for our primary products mainly because of protectionist policies adopted by the importing countries. Our access to international financial assistance becomes more and more limited with the imposition of more difficult - and at times socially unacceptable - conditions for borrowing and repayment. And the debt burden grows heavier with the rise in international interest rates.
While we adhere fully to the principle of observing international obligations, we urge the financial community to look with favor at proposals to reduce the crushing burden of debt repayments. The concept - already developed by some of our sister Latin American nations - of linking repayments to export earnings, is clearly a meritorious one.
In his report to the united Nations this year, the Secretary-General makes pointed reference to the inclination of many countries to resort to protectionism to solve their own problems at the expense of other countries. We too lament this trend towards economic nationalism and urge the implementation of a universal legal principle of obligation to enhance the development of less-advantaged peoples. The problems of poorer countries must continue to be the focus of attention, and the countervailing growth of quasi-regionalism and bilateralism among the big countries must be retarded.
A pillar of our own economic development in Belize is the free enterprise system. But it is difficult for those who want to believe in the wisdom of the system to contemplate its continuing unfairness, where the industrialized world withholds necessary assistance and co-operation; where multilateral financial institutions inject political considerations into eligibility criteria; and where sovereign Governments are told that they must accept externally imposed macro-economic prescriptions or face intolerable contractions in the financial flows from world lending institutions.
Free enterprise should serve the interests of development, not challenge the bases of our fragile economies, nor act as the instrument for the further impoverishment of poor societies. And developing nations like Belize, with small open economies, must wage a constant struggle to preserve their independence and their sovereignty in the face of the geopolitical realities of implied coercion in an increasingly bipolar world.
As a small Central American and Caribbean State, Belize's foreign policy must of necessity project domestic concerns but be based on the principles of peaceful coexistence, political pluralism, non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations and the peaceful resolution of disputes. We must vigilantly and unselfishly act in solidarity with other small States experiencing similar problems and sharing common concerns.
These are the principles that guide Belize's relationship with members of the Caribbean community, who share with us a kinship born of a common cultural heritage, a common history and a common colonial experience. We are committed to acting in concert with our Caribbean sister States to make the subregional grouping more effective, more integrated and more representative of the aspirations of our people. And we urge the co-operation of extra-regional nations with the policy that the Caribbean be made a zone of peace.
In the normal course of events, there is also a coincidence of interests with the larger hemispheric nations, particularly the United States. My Government, however, does not subscribe to any doctrine of geographic determinism. The fact of our being located within the so-called sphere of influence of a world Power cannot dictate that Belize's freedom of action in its international relations should be circumscribed by any need for an external imprimatur.
Belize's relations with neighboring States on our Central American mainland are based on respect for national self-determination, sovereignty and the right of all peoples to choose their own political, social and economic systems free from external threats and pressures. We have of our own accord, however, chosen to subscribe fully to the principles of parliamentary democracy, and we note with satisfaction the marked trend towards the democratization, or perhaps re-democratization, of our America.
The violence that continues to consume Central America and cause wrenching dislocations of people from their homelands is regrettable and weighs heavily on our ability as peace-loving nations to create the conditions for a return to normality in our region.
My Government has a particular concern in this matter because the trans-border migration of those fleeing the conflicts has produced an influx of refugees into Belize which strains our already thinly stretched social and economic resources and threatens to produce serious ethnic and demographic tensions.
Furthermore, Belizeans, with our history of peaceful and stable development, cannot forever remain immune to the inherent hostility and mistrust that characterize the evolution of the conflict in this region. We cannot ignore the attempts being made by outside Powers to exploit historical and prevailing conditions in air effort to gain advantage in the global East-West confrontational struggle.
We maintain the view that a regional political solution is imperative. We hold to the thesis that the Contadora process is the best means to deal with the situation.
During the 10 months of the new administration in Belize, the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet have had an opportunity to begin discussions and exchange views with members of the Contadora countries on developments in Central America. Throughout these discussions, one theme has been recurring, and that is the need finally to put in place the mechanisms which will ensure a lasting solution to the regional problem.
There is now an urgent need for the protagonists in the conflict to summon up the act of political will necessary for the signing of the final draft of the Contadora Act on peace and co-operation in Central America. For only then will there be an elimination of the distances that have been created between polities and groups by artificial political and economic philosophies. And only then will the sovereignty and independence of the States of Central America be strengthened and the creative energies of our people freed to concentrate on the developmental activities necessary to assure us prosperous, well-ordered societies.
My Government has no desire to complicate further the problems of the region, but in view of the still unresolved claim by the Republic of Guatemala to the territory of Belize, we consider the security and defense of our homeland to be our highest foreign policy priority.
The new Government of Belize committed itself to showing realism and flexibility so that a peaceful, diplomatic solution can be found. To that end we participated in informal discussions with officials of the Guatemalan Government earlier this year in order to explore ways of arriving at a solution which recognizes Belizean solidarity and our right to maintain and preserve intact our present and constitutional borders, a solution that will do this even as it seeks to satisfy some of the relevant security concerns of Guatemala.
However, it must be made clear that the independence of Belize is irreversible. It is a practical and legal fact of international life. To seek to maintain otherwise is counter-productive and counter-historical. In order for any real progress to be made, discussions and negotiations with Guatemala must reflect this reality.
Belizeans applaud the signals of a return to democracy and civilian rule in Guatemala and fully expect understanding and flexibility in future discussions with a civilian administration.
A prelude to harmonious relations between Belize and Guatemala, then, is the recognition that two separate, sovereign entities share a common border. Both are involved in the search for better conditions of life for their citizens. This search can best be conducted in an atmosphere of peace, stability and internal security.
Good-neighborliness between our two countries, as well as mutual understanding and respect, can help remove the barriers and mistrust that have prevented us from living together as neighbors should. This is the position of Belize. He appeal to the authorities in Guatemala to respond positively.
On another aspect of our security concerns, my Government has been greatly exercised by, and absolutely condemns, the blot on our society that is the production of and trafficking in drugs.
Over the past five years, and spurred en by the phenomenal and continually expanding consumer market provided by the United States, Belize has become a large-scale producer of and trafficker in marijuana. He do not need anyone to tell us of the insidious nature of the threat posed by this aberrant activity - to our institutions, to the moral and ethical dimensions of our national life, and to the very rule of law and democracy in our country.
Within the limits of our resources we have made Herculean efforts to stamp out the trade and to defeat the danger of destabilization which it poses. Since the beginning of this year joint military/ police operations have succeeded in destroying over 80,000 marijuana plants and 70,000 pounds of processed marijuana. Some 375 persons have been charged in our country for dealing in marijuana and 288 have so far been convicted. In the past 6 months alone four United States registered aircraft and 10 motor vehicles have been seized by the police and confiscated by our courts.
That is why we find it so distressing when the claim is advanced that Belize has failed to eradicate any of its drug crop. To say that is to propagate disinformation of the most malicious sort. To be sure, we have had differences of opinion with others who engage in the war against drugs, principally over the methodology to be used in our own eradication campaign. Aerial spraying of marijuana plantations using chemical herbicides has been pressed upon us, but we have so far preferred to employ manual eradication methods until we can assure ourselves and our people that the aerial-spraying exercise would involve no unacceptable health or environmental risks. Even now, we are taking steps which will enable us to make that determination.
That position has not proved satisfactory to some, which is regrettable. But power disequilibrium cannot be allowed to defeat the sovereign right of small States to act in what they consider to be their national interests. We must therefore stand at this rostrum today and, in accordance with the Charter, reject the threat of coercion implied in the possibility that has been held before us of an aid cut-off or other measure designed to force us to move prematurely and in a way we consider undesirable.
In the wider hemispheric context my Government regrets the exclusion of Belize from the Organization of American States. We trust that the obstacles which now
prevent us from becoming a full member of that important body will soon be overcome. He rely on the wisdom, statesmanship and responsibility of the members of the Permanent Council to refashion the Charter of that organization to accommodate the spirit of hemispheric unity and universality envisaged by the Charter's framers.
My Government's world view generates the imperative for Belize to be an outspoken advocate for parliamentary democracy, for mutual co-operation among States in the world community and for scrupulous respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of our citizens.
He believe in the multilateral approach to resolving some of the pressing economic, social and political problems facing us as nations and as political groupings. Any retreat from multilateralism, in our view, erodes the effectiveness of political communities acting in concert and isolates the smaller and weaker among us from the benefits of joint action. Such retreat is especially to be regretted in this fortieth anniversary year of the United Nations, for the very raison d'etre of the United Nations was interdependence, as was made clear by the 1 January 1942 Declaration that created the wartime alliance, and as is stressed in the Atlantic Charter incorporated in the 1942 Declaration which, in a very real sense, is the forerunner of the present-day United Nations Charter.
With all this in view, Belize reiterates its commitment to all regional and international organizations of which we are a member, including the Caribbean Community, the Commonwealth of nations, the United Nations and the Non-Aligned Movement. While we feel that there are those who have sought to convert the Non-Aligned Movement into a forum for ritual and strident name-calling, and, while we view that as counterproductive, my Government nonetheless feels that the spirit of Bandung, the original principles that animated the Movement, can still be a force for world peace.
My Government supports the original initiatives of the Group of 77, as ratified by the General Assembly, which resulted in the call for a new international economic order. The main goals of the new international economic order are of clear relevance and importance to Belize, since we suffer the common problems and the common concerns of other third-world countries.
Belize commits itself to co-operate fully in the effort to persuade the developed countries that the prosperity of the international community as a whole depends on the prosperity of its constituent parts and that the political, economic and social wellbeing of present and future generations depend more than ever on co-operation among all the members of the international community on the basis of sovereign equality.
Belizeans are profoundly concerned that while we celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations and hail the many accomplishments of the Organization and its positive influences over the emerged world order we also mark the fortieth anniversary of the denial to the Namibian people of their right to freedom and independence.
We agonize over the sheer powerlessness of the international community to exert effective pressure on the white rulers of South Africa to loosen their stranglehold on the fate of the black peoples of southern Africa.
Every step - however little and however late - taken by countries in a position to influence the course of events in southern Africa in an effort to dismantle the morally corrupt and internationally discredited regime of apartheid is a practical demonstration of support for the right of the black majority in its struggle to control its own destiny.
Apartheid is a crime against humanity, and apartheid South Africa has forfeited the right to be regarded as a member of the community of nations. All measures aimed at isolating that regime need to be intensified. The argument that mandatory, effective sanctions will only aggravate the plight of the already suffering black people of South Africa is a spurious one, patronizing at best and, at worst, a dishonest excuse for the inaction that will perpetuate abhorrent apartheid.
Mo less emphatic are we with regard to the need to safeguard the rights of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic, or the rights of the peoples of East Timor and of the Western Sahara to determine their awn destiny, of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland and the right of Israel to exist within secure borders, of the rights of the Lebanese people who yearn for peace, of the Afghan people to regain control of their own land and of the Kampucheans to reestablish their sovereignty.
We find it ironic that the Near and Middle East, which have been the cradle of so many of the world's Lading cultures, should today be the scene of so much tension and so much strife. There must be an end to those unbrotherly actions which, for example, prolong the war between Iran and Iraq.
Finally, we call for immediate action to alleviate the plight of all those countries suffering from hunger, starvation, desertification and disease.
There is no doubt that those wise men who drafted the Charter of the United Nations 40 years ago in San Francisco contemplated the evolution of an imperfect world. They foresaw disharmony and conflict. That is why the Charter stresses conflict resolution and co-operation among States. Much has changed in those 40 years, but the basic goals remain the same.
Of greatest immediacy is whether the world as we know it will survive for another 40 years. Accordingly, we call on all Member States to make this fortieth anniversary a time of re-dedication, a time of renewal. Let us strive with increased assiduity, not for military victories but for diplomatic solutions, not for nuclear advantage but for the safety of the human race.
Belize insists that it is within the principles and practices of the United Nations system, and of its multilateral approach to global peace, that we
find the best means of avoiding the apocalyptic prospect - mankind's final
nightfall.


On behalf of the United Arab Emirates, it gives me great pleasure to extend to Ambassador de Piniés ray heartfelt congratulations on his election as President of the United Nations General Assembly at its fortieth session. Throughout his association with the Organization he has made a considerable contribution, which has had an immense effect in strengthening this international institution, we are also confident that his long experience will guarantee the success of the proceedings at this session. For our part, my congratulations assume a special significance because he is a national of Spain, a great country with which we have had good relations based on historical and cultural ties,
I also take pleasure in expressing sincere thanks and gratitude to his predecessor, Mr. Paul Lusaka, for his presidency of the last session, which was characterized by competence and thorough organization.
I also take this opportunity, on behalf of the United Arab Emirates, to reaffirm our confidence in the efforts and good offices of the Secretary-General Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, in the fulfillment of the aims and purposes of the United Nations.
The Israeli act of aggression committed against fraternal Tunisia yesterday clearly confirms the aggressive policy pursued by Israel, its aircraft violated the sovereignty of an Arab State, a member of the League of Arab states as well as a Member of this Organization, resulting in the death and wounding of hundreds of innocent civilians. In condemning the Israeli aggression against fraternal Tunisia and the Palestinian people, we are convinced that such an act of aggression would not have taken place had Israel not enjoyed the protective umbrella provided by a super-Power to shield it against the condemnation of the international community. This aggression coincides with the aggression of the racist regime of South Africa against Angola and confirms the theory of racist solidarity between Pretoria and Tel Aviv.
This session is being held in conjunction with the commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. It is an occasion for an evaluation of the progress made by the Organization in the preceding years. The purpose is to enable us to strengthen the prospects of success and to eliminate the causes of failure, and to devise new methods consistent with contemporary international conditions, thereby leading to the achievement of the noble purposes for which this Organization was established.
It is not our wish to indulge in enumerating the accomplishments of the United Nations. Nevertheless we must shed light on some of them. First and foremost, the Organization offers an international framework for peaceful dialog among its Members. Its founders intended it to be used for the settlement of disputes through constructive dialog, far from the threat or use of force} to achieve universality through the achievement of independence by the colonized Territories; and to protect refugees and alleviate human suffering in regions afflicted by famine and other natural catastrophes. As a result, the role of the Organization has developed with the Increase In its Miter ship and the extension of its functions to include assistance to developing and newly independent countries in establishing their institutions and building their economic and social structures. This assistance has been extended through the numerous institutions and progresses established and sponsored by the united Nations. The organization has also saved the world from the scourge of a new world war, and has become the foundation for the new international economic order and a tool to channel collective efforts to deal with international conflicts and eliminate nuclear confrontation.
All those positive achievements must not preclude reference to some of the failures encountered by the united Nations in fulfilling its objectives.
Criticism of its weaknesses and lack of effectiveness is basically due to the frustration some feel at the escalating danger of nuclear war and the failure to implement resolutions adopted by the United Nations. This criticism is valid if viewed from the perspective of causes, but lacks merit if viewed on the basis of objectives. The basic responsibility in our view, lies in the absence of the political will of certain States, particularly the major Powers, and their use of pressure, which prevent this Organization from fulfilling its peaceful, humanitarian role.
The events in our Gulf region emphasize the need for the United Nations to play its part in the settlement of disputes among States by peaceful means. The destructive war between the two Muslim neighbors, Iraq and Iran, has been la progress for a long time, having entered its sixth year, with the loss of thousands of innocent lives and substantial material damage, at the expense of development in both countries. This has been to the detriment of the well-being of the two nations.
From the outset my country has stated its position regarding that war and warned against its detrimental consequences for peace and security in the Gulf region. We have always been and continue to be convinced that the only way to end the war and its destructive effects is by means of peaceful negotiations to settle the problems between the two countries in a manner that will preserve the national rights of both parties. My country has demonstrated its position practically by participating in the efforts to bring an end, once and for all, to this dispute. We are always ready to participate in any serious efforts aimed at the cessation of this bipod-letting conflict. We commend the responsive position taken by our brother Iraq regarding peace initiatives and continue to hope that the Islamic Republic of Iran, too, will find it possible to respond positively to the initiatives aimed at the cessation of the war. He are compelled to emphasize this in the interest of the stability of our region and of averting the dangers of foreign intervention, which could turn the region into an arena of conflict by the super-powers and foreign interests.
In commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations, we welcome the scores of nations that have succeeded in gaining freedom and establishing their national entities in independent States where they manage their affairs in full freedom, in the interest of progress and the well-being of their peoples, and play their role in the international community through their membership as sovereign States of this organization.
An exception to this is the Arab people of Palestine, who are living through a stage of persecution and displacement, resulting from the denial of their basic right to freedom and self-determination. This has been caused by the uprooting of the Palestinian people from their land, the usurpation of their country, attempts to suppress their national identity and the suspension of the human and cultural role enjoyed by it throughout its history.
The question of Palestine, with its political, social and moral implications, continues to pose a challenge to the human conscience and to test the effectiveness of this Organization which created it. Any review of the developments and consequences of this question inevitably indicates the extent of their responsibility and arrogance that characterize the racist policy which has been adopted by Israel as a pattern for its acts of aggression against the Palestinian people and the Arab States. This is inspired by the colonial aims of the Zionist movement and its reliance on military night drawn from external sources. Everyone is wall aware of the role of some of the big Powers in supporting and consolidating Israeli occupation through the supply of economic, military and technological assistance, in addition to unequivocal political support by impeding the implementation of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly and preventing the Security Council from adopting deterrent measures against the expansionist Israeli policies.
The deteriorating situation in the Middle East is an inevitable and logical consequence of the failure of the international community to deal with the basic problem of putting an end to aggression and compelling the aggressor to cease its aggression.
Events in our area have proved that separate settlements and partial solutions not only are incapable of laying sound foundations but contribute to aggravation and complication of the problem. Thus, ignoring the essence of the problem cannot, in our view, lead to the just and permanent solution to which we, with the other members of the international community, aspire. By this we mean recognition of the legitimate national right of the Palestinian people to regain self-determination and establish its Independent State in Palestine under the leadership cf its legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and through the implementation of General Assembly resolutions calling for the convening of an international conference on peace in the Middle East, under the auspices of the United Nations.
With regard to other issues relating to the situation in the Middle East, the sister State of Lebanon continues to suffer from aggressive Israeli practices on its territory manifested through the occupation of a part of Lebanese territory, in clear violation of the principles of the charter, international law and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. It is also manifested in fomenting conflicts among the Lebanese parties, while we pay a tribute to the Lebanese resistance for its heroic struggle against the Israeli occupation forces, we appeal to our brothers in Lebanon to settle their disputes and to endeavor to restore stability and sovereignty to Lebanon, we call upon the international community to assist Lebanon in overcoating its ordeal.
The people of southern Africa are subjected to inhuman practices by the racist Pretoria regime, which has recently intensified its terrorist and discriminatory measures against the indigenous population in South Africa and occupied Namibia. The United Nations has adopted a number of resolutions condemning that racist regime and demanding an end to those measures, which violate the human rights of those people and deprive them of their freedom. However, those resolutions have gone unheeded, because of the failure of certain Member States to impose the sanctions provided for in them. This is an infringement of the principles of the Charter and encourages that regime to proceed with its persecution of the native population of southern Africa, in complete defiance of the international will. Those States should join in the international consensus by rejecting the racist practices of the Pretoria regime and complying with international resolutions.
The declaration by Mr. Botha, the head of the racist regime, which unabashedly and arrogantly rejects all changes in the established policy of apartheid, supports our conviction that the only means to end this policy, which constitutes a crime against the rights and dignity of man, lies in the application of Chapter VII of the Charter against the racist regime. We reject the policy of leniency adopted by certain States since the so-called constructive engagement has failed completely to persuade that regime to change its policy.
In condemning the heinous apartheid policy, the united Arab Emirates renews its support for the struggle of the people of southern Africa and the struggle of the Namibian people under the leadership of the South West Africa People's organization (SWAPO). it calls upon the international community to continue its aid to that valiant persecuted people to enable it to regain its usurped rights.
The commemoration of the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations lends special and distinct importance to the question of disarmament, it is highly pertinent to refer to the first paragraph of the preamble of the Charter which calls for saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war. However, the danger of war, in particular nuclear war, is growing day by day. We are hopeful that resumption of the negotiations between the two super-Powers will lead to the laying of the necessary grounds tor arms limitation and disarmament. The achievement of these two objectives and the resultant savings of enormous resources for economic and social development can be effected only in an atmosphere of political stability and mutual confidence, namely, by securing international peace and security. Events and experience have proved that peace cannot be attained through the stockpiling and development of arms.
My country calls once once more for the establishment of nuclear-free zones, in particular in the Middle East. My country reaffirms its support for the United Nations resolution declaring the Indian Ocean a zone of peace We look forward to the convening of a conference on the Indian Ocean during the coming year in order to adopt measures necessary to implement the Declaration and to adhere to it, specifically by the big Powers.
A commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter and to United Nations resolutions which provide for the right of countries and peoples to self-determination and for respect for their wishes and non-interference in their
domestic affairs is certain to reduce to a large extent the degree of current international tension and consequently to guarantee the security and stability of States, in particular the small and developing ones.
This leads us to refer to the situation in Afghanistan, whose people are suffering from foreign interference and a conflict of alien interests. The united Arab Emirates calls upon all foreign forces to stop such interference and to withdraw foreign troops from Afghanistan's territory.
This applies equally to the situation in Kampuchea, whose people have suffered from foreign interference. The same holds true for the problems in Central America. In this connection we support the formula proposed by the Contadora Group for settling the problems of the countries involved on a regional basis. For our part, we also urge the settlement of the existing dispute between North and South Korea through dialog between them, aimed at eliminating the causes for dispute and realization of their peoples' wishes for reunification.
The Cyprus question presents one of the problems that calls for a continuation by the United Nations of its efforts to reach a final solution.
In this connection we wish to express our appreciation of and support for the accomplishments of the Secretary-General of the United Nations In his efforts to find a solution to the Cyprus question by bringing closer the positions of the two parties to the conflict, which could lead to the conclusion of an early agreement regarding the necessary framework for a just and permanent settlement of the problem. This would guarantee for the island of Cyprus its independence, security, territorial integrity and non-alignment, as well as the legitimate rights of the two communities there.
The issues of economic and social development are as important as the world's political problems. Despite the fact that much has been accomplished in the areas
of economic development and technological progress, there are serious problems that the world continues to face.
The experience of the past 40 years has proved that the basic problem, intrinsic to the nature of the existing economic order, lies in the fact that blind market forces deepen the inequity of opportunities and the unfairness of economic relationships which were originally unequal among the participants in that established order.
Under the prevailing system, the tremendous progress in technological capabilities has led to increasing impediments to economic development instead of lessening its burden. The world development process, instead of leading to an increase in the growth rates and improvement in living standards, is presenting the developing countries with a frightening decline in their levels of growth and standards of living. Furthermore, the developing countries are confronted with mounting external debts, which have reached dangerous levels at a time when their terms of trade are worsening, their export earnings are decreasing and their national revenues are being eroded as a result of the increasing inflation and the fluctuating rates of exchange.
Consequently the capacity of the developing countries to cope with the costs of development, whether economic, social or political, is declining rapidly while those costs are steadily increasing.
This situation is occurring in an atmosphere of an increasing lack of confidence among the participants to the existing economic order and against a background of a marked decline in the spirit of co-operation and commitment, in particular on the part of the developed and industrialized countries, and also of attests to reduce the role of multilateral co-operation agencies.
It is therefore necessary to emphasize that the solution or this problem requires a considerable effort and courage to face the principal and fundamental problems, the most important of which is to end the influence of the market forces on the international economic situation. This can be accomplished by providing an opportunity, seriously and sincerely, for the United Nations system and its various economic bodies to become the avenue for restoring confidence in the capability of international collective forces to reach successful solutions that would guarantee a future development for all peoples, and to save the human race from possible catastrophes that are likely to result from a continuation of the current economic order.
During the past 40 years the United Nations has passed through several experiences ranging from success to failure. Whatever may be our views and positions, reality requires that we state that the United Nations continues to represent the hope and means of the future for saving the world from the scourge of a third world war, for laying the foundations of a world order and for establishing an effective and democratic framework for international participation in formulating resolutions relating to the standards of international conduct.
The power of the United Nations lies in the commitment of its Members to adhere to the Charter, in the achievement of political harmony between East and West, and of economic harmony between North and South. The existence of the United Nations is dictated by the imperative of our survival and the need for continued interaction in this troubled world. Consequently we must endeavor to support the Organization and to enhance its position in order to realize our aspirations for a new world founded on peace and security, based on justice and equality and in which progress and prosperity can be realized.