I have the honor. Sir, to extend to you on behalf of Kuwait, its Emir, its Government and its people our heartfelt congratulations on your election to the presidency of the forty-firs' session of the General Assembly. You come from Bangladesh, a friendly Muslim country with which Kuwait has the strongest bonds. We are confident that your great skill and long experience will effectively assist us in making the work of
B this session successful. I also wish to commend the skill and expertise with which Mr. de Pinies performed his task ^s President of the fortieth session of the General Assembly and his praiseworthy efforts in directing the affairs of that historic session.
I take pleasure, too, in expressing to Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar our full appreciation of his endeavors, good offices and diplomacy in handling the various complex world issues and of his command of the administrative situation in our Organization, as reflected in his valuable report to the current session. We welcome his presence today, following his recuperation, and we wish him good health for the future.
The General Assembly resumed its fortieth session five months ago to discuss the most serious financial crisis experienced by the United Nations since its inception. Unfortunately, that crisis, which still casts a dark shadow over the activities and future of our world Organization, has taken on political dimensions that are already complicating and impeding multilateralism.
Kuwait views with great concern the crisis which the United Nations is facing. We believe that in order to deal with it fairly and prudently we must all refrain from exploiting the Organization for political purposes - as are certain countries with their own ideas of what the effective role of the United Nations should be. Instead, efforts should be focused on the definitive fulfillment by all countries of their political and financial obligations in accordance with the Charter. We hope that the crisis is merely a passing cloud that will not affect the principle of collective action and that the role of our world Organization will regain the status envisaged for it under the Charter, in the interest of international peace and security and of the survival and continued progress of mankind.
We must try with all the vigor at our command to transform that crisis into momentum for administrative reform, rationalization of expenditure and the creation of an exemplary world structure within which constant efforts are made for the well-being of all humanity. After all, the viability of the United Nations and the preservation of its role are in the interest of all mankind and all nations, regardless of narrow political concerns. It is reassuring and auspicious that the Organization has lately been witnessing the gradual abandonment by critical Members of their intransigence and a renewed recognition on their part of the Organization's significance for world stability and the importance of collective action in the sphere of international relations.
In this regard, we wish to place on record our appreciation of the efforts of the Group of High-Lev el Intergovernmental Experts in reviewing the efficiency of the administrative and financial performance of the United Nations. We hope that the General Assembly will seriously consider and study the Group's recommendations in the interest of multilateralism.
In recognition of the importance of collective international action, whether in the framework of the United Nations or that of other international or regional forums, Kuwait will host next January the summit conference of the Islamic countries, which is convened every three years. We wish to stress that our work when we we 1 cone the leaders of Muslim countries to Kuwaiti soil will constitute an important brick in the edifice of collective international action and a contribution to the consolidation of world peace and security and the solution of complex global problems.
With this lofty aim of serving world peace and the peoples of the region, we look forward to the forthcoming summit conference of the leaders of the Arab Gulf Co-operation Council, which will be convened, God willing, in the United Arab Emirates in November. We are confident that what is achieved there will give an impetus to the drive towards well-being and peace initiated by States members of the Council at their first summit meeting.
Kuwait is deeply concerned about the continuing intensity of disputes, tensions and the arms race, as well as the exacerbation of international political conflicts and economic problems and their repercussions, which lead to the escalation and extension of disputes and divisions in various regions of the world. We are also increasingly concerned that the phenomena of terrorism, particularly State-sponsored terrorism, have become so widespread as to endanger the security of peoples and States alike.
The most serious threat to the ability of the international community today is that attention is being distracted from the vital issues of man's survival, development and prosperity by regional and international conflicts, in which precious resources are wasted, innocent blood is shed aid lives are lost and which engender ill will and animosity that threaten mankind's future.
A case in point is the Iran-Iraq conflict, which has now entered its seventh year. That tragic conflict causes heavy loss of life and saps the resources of two States Mentors of the Organization. It also constitutes a threat to the security and stability of the countries of the region and freedom of navigation in the Arab Gulf region as a result of the seizure and bombing of ships and tankers that belong to countries not parties to the conflict.
 Kuwait's commercial fleet has been affected over the past three years by the numerous unjustified attacks, the latest of which was directed against the Hl-Puntas tanker on Tuesday, 16 September 1986. In conformity with Security Council resolution 555 (1984), we have given the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council a detailed account of that incident. While referring to the above-mentioned Security Council resolution, which is considered to constitute a framework which the parties to the conflict must observe, Kuwait believes that the Security Council has a special responsibility under the Charter to maintain peace and security in the world in general, and to influence the hotbeds of conflict in particular, and to ensure that the flames do not spread to other States that are not parties to the conflicts.
We, the small States, look up to the Security Council and expect it to shoulder its responsibilities under the Charter and put an end to this conflict.
The persistence of this tragic conflict has afforded outside Powers the opportunity to seek to exploit and perpetuate it for in it they found a chance to weaken the Muslim ranks, throw them into disarray, upset the balance of relations in the Arab world, and undermine the unity and solidarity of the developing nations, which are bound by the fundamental issues of a common destiny. Being an Arab Gulf country and a member of the Co-operation Council of Arab Gulf Countries, we believe that the international efforts at mediation, in which our world Organization is supposed to play a decisive role, must continue relentlessly and unceasingly until peace and stability have been restored to the region. In co-operation with its sister member countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council, Kuwait has sought, and still continues to seek, to end this devastating dispute. The international community must also close ranks and work as a whole to bring this conflict to a final and immediate end. We have now come to a crossroads, and should this danger be allowed to persist, the consequences will doubtlessly affect everyone and will extend beyond the regional scope, with the result that no one would stay unscathed from its evil effects.
While blessing every well-intentioned endeavor and every constructive proposal, by whomsoever it is put forward, to end this conflict, Kuwait declares its support for the latest initiative taken by the Government of Iraq because it includes important principles on the validity of which the world community has agreed and which would ensure the achievement of a just and lasting solution to the conflict between the two neighboring countries, a solution that would preserve the legitimate rights of both parties in accordance with international conventions and laws. Kuwait also calls on the Islamic Republic of Iran to respond favorably to this new initiative and to all genuine efforts directed towards putting an end to the bloodshed, saving the resources of the two Muslim peoples and ensuring a safe and honorable life for them.
We must refer in this regard to what the non-aligned countries called for at their eighth summit conference at Harare this month in regard to the Iraq-Iran conflict, both in the commendable statement of the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr. Robert Mugabe, at the opening session, or in the final declaration issued by the conference.
We believe the resources and wealth of Iran and Iraq are being wasted on the wrong front. The right place for those capabilities is the front where the battle is being fought for the region's future against the common foe, whose four-decade occupation of Palestinian lands has unmasked its true aggressive and expansionist intentions towards all countries of the region.
The Zionist entity, which was created on the basis of false historical premises and by virtue of absolute support from well-known Western quarters, is the entity that was based en the policy of aggression and expansion at the expense of Arab countries, the entity that continues to occupy Palestinian and Arab territories, the entity whose activities of State-terror ism have branched out to various areas inside and outside our region.
Israel does not declare publicly its rejection of peace: rather it would have peace on no other basis than the recognition of the fait accompli, namely its seizure and control of the Arab-occupied territories, those of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Syrian Golan Heights and South Lebanon. Not content with this it blatantly interferes and undermines the security and stability of Lebanon through a series of brutal raids and barbaric military operations. Clearly, had it not been for this continued aggression and blatant intervention, Lebanon would not have remained in the morass of its crisis and internal turmoil.
Israel is required to submit to the will of the international community which calls for the withdrawal of its troops from South Lebanon. These troops have persistently maintained their illegitimate presence since 1978, either directly or by proxy. The members of the Security Council have the undoubted duty of making a concerted and determined effort towards achieving this withdrawal. We concur with the Secretary-General's recent call for them to take immediate action, individually and collectively, to implement Security Council resolution 425 (1978).
W>at we have affirmed in the past, and what we continue to affirm, is that peace, as we Arabs perceive it, does not mean Israel's mere pledge not to expand its fait accompli policy, namely not to occupy and annex more Arab territories, but rather, in essence and inevitably, the restoration of the lands that were usurped and the re-establishment of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, especially their right to self-determination, in order to enable them to create their independent State on their own soil under the leadership of their sole legitimate representative, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PIO).
In spite of Israel's barefaced persistence in committing acts of systematic State-terrorism, namely murder, detention without trial, plunder of lands, Judaization, colonization and other well known Zionist actions, we still hear some Western voices making cries for help on behalf of the party their propaganda portrays as the tame Israeli lamb, while hurling accusations of terrorism and barbarism at those who have inalienable rights and become targets of aggression when they defend themselves against that aggression and try to repulse the weapon of tyranny and brutality away from their women, children and the elderly.
Israel has been, and continues to be* the first to ignore and bring disgrace upon the Charter of the United Nations and the will and the resolutions of the international community, including the resolution on the convening of an international conference on peace in the Middle East, which represents a focal point for any movement towards a peaceful settlement. Should the aggression-oriented and peace-rejecting entity persist in this course and continue to make futile attempts to impose the fait accompli policy, under the spell of the illusions of separate and partial solutions, the consequences will dangerously exacerbate the situation with regard to security, regionally and internationally.t)
This forty-first session is convened at a time when this year, 1986, has witnessed an intensified escalation both on the level of the national struggle waged by the oppressed majority in South Africa and by the Namibian people, and that of the heroic resistance by the front-line States in southern Africa as well as in the international support and sympathy accorded to that legitimate struggle and honourable resistance. In 1986 two international conferences have been convened under the auspices of the United Nations cn Namibia and sanctions against South Africa, followed by a special session of the General Assembly on Namibia, which was concluded only a week ago, not to mention various other meetings conducted within the multilateral context and devoted to the just causes of southern Africa.
We have also seen the leaders of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, a movement which represents the majority of the members of our international community, meeting at the beginning of this month in Harare under the chairmanship of one of the leaders of the struggle against apartheid and racial discrimination. That successful summit meeting was conclusive evidence of the ultimate and firm solidarity of the broad majority of the international community with the peoples of southern Africa.
There is no need for us to draw the attention of the world community, whose representatives are gathered here today, to the crimes the racist Pretoria regime is perpetrating against the indigenous majority in South Africa, its continued occupation of Namibia and evasion of the implementation of the provisions of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), and its unjustified acts of aggression and the blackmail policies it pursues against the front-line States. However, we wish to assert anew from this rostrum that the arrogance and insistence on eschewing the logic of justice, right and peace exhibited by the racist Pretoria regime and its supporters is tantamount to the pursuing of a misleading mirage, from which nothing will be reaped but defeat and loss and which will lead nowhere but to the acceleration of the downfall of such artificial entities that are a legacy of the colonial past. The independence-loving and freedom-loving peoples of the world will not rest until apartheid and racial discrimination a re eliminated and majority rule instituted in South Africa, and until colonialism in the territory of Namibia is uprooted and its people have regained their national legitimate rights under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), their sole legitimate representative.
The problem of Afghanistan lingers on despite the lapse of seven years since the foreign military intervention began in the territories of that peaceful Islamic nation. In spite of all the continuous international efforts and resolutions that advocate allowing the Afghan people to choose their own polity and determine their own future without foreign interference, Afghanistan continues to suffer under the burden of the illegitimate foreign military presence. Kuwait urges the international community and its organizations to continue their endeavors towards settling the Afghan problem and solving it peacefully through the withdrawal of the foreign forces from the Afghan territories, non-intervention in the country's internal affairs, respect for its sovereignty and repatriation of Afghan refugees. We hope that the progress towards settling the problem we have noticed during this year will lead to the achievement of those goals.
Our position with regard to foreign intervention also applies to the Kampuchean question. We are firmly convince J that both covert and overt forms of intervention pose a grave threat to international peace and security and to the peoples of the regions afflicted by them.
The Latin American States and the region of Central America have not been immune from painful regional disputes. That region is still turbulent and tense as a result of the extension of the great Powers' sphere of rivalry there, and innocent lives nave thus become hostages of an ideological and political conflict extraneous to the region and incompatible with all its interests. The major Powers must respect the national choices of the people of the region and refrain from interfering in their domestic affairs, while all parties concerned must abide by the norms of international legality and the noble principles of the United Nations Charter. Kuwait supports all peaceful efforts aimed at settling the region's problems, primarily those of the Ccntadora Group and its Support Group.
For some time new a perilous phenomenon has been becoming more and more noteworthy in the arena of international relations, namely, terror ism in its various forms. This phenomenon has begun to undermine the stability and security of peoples and States and to expose innocent lives to devastation, outrage, terror and dismay. It erodes the fabric of international relations and destroys bridges of coexistence among countries and peoples. The phenomenon has, regrettably, taken on many forms and has become a bane to which nobody is immune.
While vehemently and firmly condemning this dangerous phenomenon, Kuwait believes that countering it is a collective international responsibility that must be shouldered with full determination and loyalty. The historic resolution on terrorism adopted by the General Assembly at its fortieth session should rally international action against this phenomenon. In our view, that resolution is a beginning for steps that must be expeditiously taken to eliminate the evils of this bane and its tragic human consequences.
While adopting this basic position towards terrorism, Kuwait emphasizes once again the necessity for distinguishing and drawing no parallels between terrorism and the sacred right to legitimate struggle of national liberation movements, especially those in Palestine, Namibia and South Africa.
If we cast a general look at the world economic situation we find that the aspects of disequilibrium and inequality in international economic relations have intensified and that growth rates in most developing nations are either at a standstill or declining. We find that the limited economic recovery experienced by some industrial countries was of no benefit to developing nations and soon began to fissile out again, since it was based on the narrow interests of the major industrial countries, their economic parochialism and their growing tendency towards unilateral action, away from the framework of collective action and the mechanisms of joint international activity.
We find that instead of providing for a flow of financial resources from industrial to developing countries to support the latter in their difficult development efforts, and instead of seeking to stimulate exports between the two regions of the world, the policies of some Western com tries have produced a reverse flow of capital, a negative trend that strengthens the dynamism of disintegration in regard to exchange rates, the imbalance of monetary systems and the rising of interest rates in the industrial nations, which serves to exacerbate the world debt crisis and has proved to be a heavy burden for developing countries.
The world economic situation has deteriorated to a degree that is reflected particularly in the economic crisis of the African continent, which we are called upon to deal with diligently and' in detail through the implementation of the United Nations plan for reviving and developing the African economy adopted by the special General Assembly session earlier this year. The gravity of the world economic situation is also reflected in the severity of the debt crisis in many of the developing countries, and it is therefore imperative, in the light of these alarming conditions, to seek to establish without delay a comprehensive economic system that depends on the palpable reality of the international economic situation.
The requirements of development are among the paramount priorities of the developing countries, and the call to end the global arms race undoubtedly constitutes a crucial element in this regard, for the link between development and disarmament is one of the axioms of today's world.
In conclusion, I wish to appeal on behalf of Kuwait to all Members of our international community to renew their pledge and commitment to the lofty principles and goals of our Organization, and to devote genuine and self-denying efforts to the achievement of advancement for the international community and for mankind. Let us work together to ensure the success of this session, so that it can provide a new brick in the edifice of constructive international action in the interests and future of our peoples.


We should like to express our warmest heartfelt congratulations to the President on his election to his high office for this session of the General Assembly, we should also like to express our confidence in his wisdom and great skill, which will ensure the success of the session and lead to the fruitful results which our peoples all desire.
We should also like to express our appreciation too Mr. Jaime de Pinies for the able manner in which he discharged his duties during his term as President of the United Nations General Assembly at its last session. We would indeed be remiss were we not to express our pleasure at seeing the Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, fully recovered. At the same time, we wish to express our appreciation to him for his unremitting efforts to promote the role of the United Nations.
A full year has passed since we celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations. It provided us with a significant opportunity to review the Organization's work, to imbue it with new vigor aid to draw hope from it. Today, we cannot fail to reaffirm our support for any action likely to promote the role of the international Organization and increase its effectiveness in achieving peace, security, justice and development.
We are aware of the importance of the proposed administrative reforms aimed at improving the Organization's performance. However, we believe that the real crisis facing the United Nations stems from the weakness or total lack of political will on the part of some Member States who put their own selfish interests above those of the international community, who circumvent United Nations resolutions and obstruct their implementation in their drive to settle international problems outside the United Nations.
Democratic Yemen's activities within the United Nations and our keen interest in the creative implementation of its principles and purposes are constants of our foreign policy, which is based on the principles of good-neighborliness, mutual respect for national sovereignty, independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, co-operation and mutual benefit.
We are also very desirous to establish the best possible relations with our friends and brothers in neighboring States in a manner that can serve the interests of our peoples and ensure their well-being. The foreign policy of Democratic Yemen is aimed at serving the cause of peace and stability in our region and in the world. It is in this context that we broaden our relations with the other States of the world.
As for our fraternal relations with our brothers in the northern part of our country, we continue our sincere efforts toward the reunification of our country, Yemen, through democratic and peaceful means, in an attempt to reach that goal we promote co-operation and co-ordination between the two parts of our country in every domain at all levels, in order best to serve the interests of our Yemeni people, realize their hopes and achieve their aspirations for stability, security and development.
The United Nations bears a great responsibility and is called upon to play a greater role in confronting the many dangerous and complicated challenges in the international arena caused by the racist, Zionist and imperialist policies that are aimed at fomenting disputes, increasing international tension and hampering the struggle of peoples to achieve freedom, peace and development.
In the Middle East, Israel continues to pursue its aggressive expansionist policy, in defiance of international unanimity and in contravention of the United Nations resolutions that have stressed that a comprehensive and just peace cannot be achieved without Israel's full and unconditional withdrawal from all the occupied Arab territories, including Jerusalem, and the exercise by the Palestinian people, under the leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), their sole legitimate representative, of their inalienable national rights, including their right to return to their homeland, their right to self-determination and to the establishment of their own independent national State on their own national soil. Israel, however, persists in flouting the international will by denying the national rights of the Palestinian people, perpetuating its illegal occupation and annexation by force of Arab lands and the building of settlements thereon while practicing a policy of oppression and terrorism against the Palestinian and other Arab peoples and countries.
Israel is encouraged to do just that by the unlimited support it receives from the United States of America which readied its zenith in the strategic alliance between the two countries which has shown the American position to be one of total
bias in favor of Israel and total enmity towards our Arab peoples and their aspirations for peace and stability.
While we reiterate our condemnation and rejection of any attempt to impose partial and definitive settlements aimed essentially at burying the Palestinian question and abolishing the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, we once again reaffirm that the framework for a just and lasting solution to the problem in our region cannot be readied other than through implementation of United Nations resolutions on the convening of an international conference for peace in the Middle East and the elimination of all the obstacles set up by Israel and the United States of America aimed at wrecking such a conference.
In Lebanon, Israel is perpetuating its occupation and pursuing its acts of aggression. We call for the implementation of Security Council resolutions 508 (1982) and 509 (1982), which demand that Israel withdraw all its military forces forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized boundaries of Lebanon, and for an end to Israeli aggression against Lebanese sovereignty. We wish to see a united Lebanon, enjoying peace, security and stability.
The continuing war between Iraq and Iran is a source of the deepest concern and grief for us. That war is now entering its seventh year; it is again intensifying and bringing ever greater destruction to the two neighboring countries and peoples. From its outset we have stressed that war does not serve the interests of either of the two fraternal countries. Indeed, war only opens the way for imperialism and Zionism. Once again, we reaffirm our position and call for an end to that war and the settlement of all disputes by peaceful means so as to achieve security and stability in the region.
The grave and tragic situation prevailing in the southern African region makes it necessary for the international community to redouble its efforts to eradicate the policy of apartheid, achieve independence for Namibia under the leadership of the South West Africa People's Organization (SWAPO) and enable the oppressed majority of the people of South Africa to exercise their right to freedom and sovereignty.
While saluting the heroic struggle of the South African and Namibian peoples against the racist, oppressive Pretoria regime and their resistance to its barbaric acts of assassination, carnage, repression, detention and dispersion, we call on the international community to increase its assistance and support for the just struggle of the peoples of southern Africa for liberation and freedom. Further, we call for an end to the continuing support provided by some Western States to the racist Pretoria regime. Such assistance ensures the survival of that regime and indeed encourages it to persist in its racist policies, which the entire international community has condemned as a crime against humanity, and its occupation of Namibia and acts of aggression against the front-line States of southern Africa.

We call for the imposition of comprehensive mandatory sanctions against that racist regime and for its Isolation, in accordance with Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. We call for the immediate adoption of treasures to fulfill the aspirations and hopes of millions of people who continue to languish under the yoke and the oppressive policies of the racist South African regime.
The situation in Central America is becoming increasingly serious owing to the policies of aggression and the frustration of the aspirations and hopes of the peoples of the region. Imperialist plots are being escalated against those peoples, particularly the Nicaraguan people and their nationalist Government. More acts of intervention in the affairs of the States of the region are taking place. Suffice it to recall the decision of the United States Congress to grant $100 million to the contra mercenaries with the aim of destabilizing Nicaragua - a decision taken after a series of acts of sabotage, economic siege and embargo by the United States Administration against Nicaragua and its people's right to make their own national choices and decide on the means of their future independent economic and social progress. In this context, we appeal for further solidarity with Nicaragua in facing this aggression.
In the context of support for the peoples' struggles for liberation and freedom, my country calls for further solidarity with and support for the Saharan people, under POLISARIO's leadership, for self-determination, in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and the Organization of African Unity (QAU).
Furthermore, we reaffirm our support for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus, as for the proposals of the Democratic Republic of Korea aimed at the reunification of Korea by peaceful means.
The international situation is becoming highly complex and international conflict more pronounced, while the gap in international economic relations
continues to widen and deepen so that international peace and security are threatened. The situation is aggravated by aggressive imperialist policies in many regions of the world which constitute a blatant example of State terrorism on an international scale. Those imperialist forces are intent on distorting the legitimate struggle of the peoples for self-determination and independence. They commit overt acts of aggression against States that have chosen their own independent way, so as to strike at their independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The act of armed aggression by the United States against the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and the attempts to destabilize Angola, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, the People's Republic of Kampuchea and other countries are the worst examples of this.
The prospects for disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament, seem grim indeed. Despite the many appeals and international resolutions aimed at halting the arms race and achieving general and complete disarmament, we are witnessing the continued escalation of the arms race and its extension to outer space. This carries the threat of a universal nuclear conflagration and the annihilation of mankind and its civilization It is indeed paradoxical that this escalation leads to severe wasting and draining of material and human resources and capabilities at a time when they are desperately needed to solve development issues and problems, particularly in the developing countries. This grave situation calls for the redoubling of our efforts to bring an end to the arms race and achieve general and complete disarmament, thus discharging our responsibility to present and future generations.
At the regional level, as a littoral State of the Indian Ocean desirous of achieving and maintaining security and stability in our region, we call for the removal of the obstacles which the Western States are putting in the way of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean and the convening of the Conference on the Indian Ocean at the scheduled time, as a necessary first step towards implementation o£ the General Assembly Declaration on the creation of a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean region.
We wish to express our deepest appreciation of the positive positions and initiatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics aimed at ending the arms race and promoting international peace and security. We hope that those positions and initiatives will be met by similar practical steps by the United States of America and other nuclear-weapon States so as to put an end to the worrying upward spiral in the stockpiling of nuclear arsenals and rid the world of the arms race. We trust that the summit meeting soon to be held between the leaders of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the united States of America will result in a situation of reduced international tension.
Economic development is one of the most serious challenges facing us in the context of the current international economic crisis, which has adverse effects on our national economies. The persistence of the capitalist States in imposing inequitable and unjust monetary and financial relations and their resort to economic and commercial siege are designed to subject the developing countries to political blackmail and hamper their independent economic development. This grave situation means that we must redouble our efforts and struggle for the establishment of new international economic relations based on justice and equality. We must also unite our forces to overcome the prevailing international economic crisis by restructuring the present edifice of international economic relations and setting up the new international economic order.
He wish especially to reaffirm the need to review the foreign debts of developing countries, the need to reform the present inappropriate international economic and monetary system and the need to put an end to exploitation and pressures in international economic relations. We believe that all the forms of protectionist barriers imposed on developing countries' exports should be eliminated and that those countries should obtain fair prices for their products.
At the same time, we stress the need for concrete action in order to promote and develop bilateral and multilateral co-operation between States with a view to reducing the intensity of the developing countries' economic problems and helping them in their developmental efforts.
In this respect, we reaffirm the need to hold the seventh session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development next year and we hope that the Conference will achieve the desired results so that it may serve the interests of both the developing countries and the international community as a whole.
We very much hope that this forty-first session will be an occasion to take stock of the activities of the United Nations. We hope to see a new momentum in the promotion of the Organization's role in international relations and its effectiveness in achieving the goals of international peace and security.


I have great pleasure in extending to Mr. Choudhury of Bangladesh our congratulations on his well-merited election as President of the General Assembly. I am confident that his wise guidance, as well as his cultural and intellectual experience, will enable this Assembly to become an initiator of decisions significant for the human community, decisions leading mankind to worship and obey one God and to prevent aggression and the domination of some by others.
The intergovernmental and international infrastructure has undergone dramatic transformations, thanks to the development of modern communications. We are new faced with a new phenomenon, namely, the international community, or international family. Complicated links are formed among the members of this family, and the clash of their interests and motives has led to further sophistication. Meanwhile the United Nations is the only organ which can make a substantial contribution to the establishment of a wise and just order for this troubled international family. The crucial and heavy responsibility of this Organization, therefore, should not be undermined. In order to have a clear view of the path we must take in future and to correct our mistakes, we are obliged to consider the achievements of the United Nations in the past four decades in the light of the realities prevailing in the world today.
Now, many people in the world pose the questions, "what has the United Nations done so far?" and "what services has this Organization, with great publicity,
expenditure and structural changes, offered for the benefit of the international community?" We are of the opinion that certain achievements have been made by this Organization.
First, favorable ground has been established for international communications in all fields, from the political and economic to the cultural, scientific and technical. This has in turn helped to form the view of a unified international family for the whole of humanity regardless of differences in race, color, culture or language.
Secondly, success has been achieved in combating colonialism. Resolution 1514 (XV) was a loud outcry by man against colonialism. Today colonialism no longer exists in most of the countries which have gained independence. This is a praiseworthy and valuable contribution.
However, it is unfortunate that the old colonialism has been replaced by a more dangerous one, namely, neo-colonialism, which has forced many newly independent countries into yielding to the multi-faceted domination of powerful countries. It is of paramount importance that we go to the root causes of this problem and see why neo-colonialism has been so effective. There is no doubt that technical and industrial backwardness, coupled with economic underdevelopment, have been decisive in paving the way for the establishment of a new system of domination and neo-colonialism. The efforts made by the United Nations in this respect have been substantial, although unsuccessfully in many cases. The creation of specialized agencies, the initiation of South-South co-operation and the adoption
of the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order have been among the most important and comprehensive of these initiatives.
Although more than 12 years have passed since the adoption of the Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order, it has not met with any success owing to the staunch opposition of the industrially developed countries. Under-development has paved the way for neo-colonialism. At the same time, the success of the big Powers in enslaving other nations has been due mainly to the fact that within the international community no just order prevails in relations to guarantee the national security, independence and territorial integrity of Member States. Today, the logic of force and the order of domination govern international relations, and it is for that reason that we should be concerned about international peace and security. The United Nations has not only been inactive in the face of such a threat, but it has even in many instances acquiesced in them.
Today, the balance of power rather than the rule of law has been accepted as the basis and only possible method of safeguarding security, not only nationally, but regionally and globally as well. The recourse to the threat or use of force, aggression, the occupation of the lands of others by force and the infringement of sovereignty are all being utilized without being met by any serious opposition on the part of the United Nations and other international forums. We must acknowledge that in many instances the United Nations has even gone so far as to contribute to the legitimization of such methods. Is it not true that, in practice, the maintenance of the status quo and even submission to changed situations created by acts of aggression have become the general rule in international relations? Law based on human values and justice should play the determining role in relations among members of the international community.
In this connection, the world arms race makes sense: it is a race to reach military superiority - qualitatively and quantitatively - in order to establish favorable situations through the use or threat of force.
Another example of submission by the United Nations to the logic of force is inherent in its Charter and in the procedural mechanism of the Security Council. The Charter has an unjust tendency to preserve the interests of big Powers. A clear example is the notion that international peace and security should be safeguarded by the former Allied forces. Ironically, world peace is today imperiled by those very same Powers.
The right to the veto is no more than a mockery of the international community
and has cast a shadow upon all the other gains and achievements of the Organization, which cannot take any practical and concrete step against oppression as long as the policy of submission to force is embodier in the Charter. The Council's bitter experience in recent years proves our claim. The United Nations has not taken any outstanding and effective action with regard to infringements of national sovereignty and independence in many countries, from Latin America to Africa, in the Middle East, Iran, Libya and Afghanistan. In some instances, we have even witnessed the Security Council openly seeking to save a defeated aggressor and have watched it go so far as to issue a communique in defense of that aggressor and against the victim.
The situation that prevails is such that the existence of this mentality in the Security Council has led some of those with veto rights to attempt to employ financial leverage to carry the same rights over into the Assembly. What else can be the meaning of the American blackmail now being exerted? Is the Organization a corporation in which voting rights are determined in accordance with the national
income of each state Member, or is it a forum with the weighty responsibility of making decisions about international issues, a forum in which all Members enjoy equal voting rights? I hope the present session of the Assembly will give a clear and decisive answer to that question.

If the United Nations is unable to fulfill its main objective - the preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of all Members and the maintenance of international peace and security - it should at least support those nations determined to resist aggression of any kind. That is the least we are entitled to expect from this international forum. Backing liberation movements and lending support to those countries that have gained independence through long years of struggle and popular revolutionary uprisings should constitute fundamental duties of the Organization. Should we not expect the United Nations to take up the crucial job of defending such young revolutionary States?
One of the most vivid illustrations of my point is provided by the Islamic Revolution in Iran, which was subjected to various forms of pressure from the very beginning of its entering onto the path to victory. I do not intend to delve deeply into history at this juncture. The last disgraceful chapter of foreign domination in our country was opened by the coup engineered by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 1953 and the return to power of the puppet re'gime of Pahlavi. The Iranian nation never submitted to that oppression, and it initiated a resistance that bore fruit in 1979.
There is no need to mention here the fact that during the course of those two and a half decades of struggle thousands of the best of our country's sons sacrificed their lives for the sake of their lofty goals and nothing was immune from the clutches of the oppressors. Our natural resources were plundered*, our language and culture were metamorphosed and our economy grew ill and parasitic. The Islamic Revolution inspired a new movement within the Islamic world and among the down-trodden, with its message of resistance to any manifestation of domination. The lesson was a lesson of sacrifice in the cause of independence, justice and truth.
This aroused concern among the Powers seeking domination, which began to engineer and foment plots and conspiracies. Various foreign-sponsored attempts at coups were foiled by the unified defense of the Muslim people and with Divine blessing. We even faced direct American military intervention in Tabas, followed by sanctions and a full-fledged propaganda war.
All those conspiracies were nipped in the bud, but the United Nations took no effective and positive action. Does none of those crimes have anything to do with the fundamental duties of the Organization? Sometimes some event of limited magnitude gives risk to a great hue and cry in the Organization, which calls for a special session of the the General Assembly, an extraordinary meeting of the Security Council, giving rise to the adoption of resolutions, one after another, and to expressions of condemnation, regret and the like. But if Iran is subjected to foreign intervention, to naked aggression or to an economic blockade, nothing seems to take place. The long series of conspiracies finally led to an all-out Iraqi military aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and it has now been six years since its inception.
There is no doubt that one of the most dastardly plots carried out against the Islamic Revolution is the full-fledged, premeditated Iraqi aggression against Iran. Since the Second World War, this is unprecedented in magnitude and in the military force employed. On 22 September 1980 over 12 Iraqi divisions and several independent brigades opened a blitzkrieg against Iran from land, sea and air. Civilians were taken prisoner by the invading forces. Tens of thousands of square kilometers of our land were occupied during the first days of the invasion. Several thousand cities and villages, large and small, were razed to the ground and some cities like Qasr-e-Shirin and Naft-e Shah are still occupied by Baathist troops.
It is not hard to realize what are the main motives and purposes behind the invasion by the Iraqi regime. There is no need for complicated theories. It is sufficient to review the aggressor's attitude in the military, political and propaganda fields. The fact that the enemy troops advanced into the heart of our country as far as they could clearly shows that Iraq was not merely going to solve a border dispute unilaterally. The statements of the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, left no doubt that the Iraqi regime was seeking to overthrow the Islamic Republic of Iran. Maps published in Iraq, some of which are included in academic books, showing the annexation of parts of Iran are clear proof that the ruling regime in Iraq was determined to occupy a large part of our homeland. In other words, the Iran-Iraq war has been nothing but naked aggression to trample underfoot the independence, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of our country, in addition, it has been an invasion against a revolution.
The timing of the aggression also deserves due attention. Iraq, in a simple and naive calculation, thought that Iran was shaky following its revolution, that the army had been dismantled because of revolutionary transformations, that the situation was unstable, and that therefore there was a golden opportunity for the regime in Iraq to take advantage of all those elements and invade Iran. The Iraqi regime then committed the crime with full confidence in victory and without the slightest fear of international forums. It was completely sure that the logic ruling in international relations would favor the aggression and make the new situation acceptable.
Faced with such aggression, our nation had only two options*, either yielding to force and abandoning its revolution, dignity, independence and sovereignty or resisting the aggression. We did not receive our revolution as a gift from any of the Powers, it was, rather, the result of self-sacrifice and long years of
struggle by thousands of men and women. Aggression against the revolution was tantamount to violating the very existence of every individual in our nation.
From the first day of the invasion, when the enemy was at the peak of its feeling of superiority, to this day, when it is regretful and frustrated, we have kept saying one thing and have sought to translate it into action: the aggressor must be condemned and punished, and peace should be established between the two countries and in the region on the basis of justice.
In the course of our sacred defense we have relied upon God Almighty and ourselves, and we shall continue to stand on our own feet. In conveying the result of this success to other nations facing aggression I say that the peoples of the world should rest assured that if they are determined to fight any aggression against their homeland, independence and national sovereignty they will secure victory, even if they are alone. Every aggressor, whether it be Hitler or Saddam, is doomed to the same destiny.
The Iraqi regime not only has committed a crime against humanity and international peace by its military aggression, but also during the past six years has committed numerous war crimes, in defiance of all the norms of international law. It is regrettable that although a United Nations report explicitly referred to the physical abuse of Iranian prisoners-of-war in Iraqi camps and made recommendations, no change has occurred in that regard. Attacks on civilian quarters and the war on cities, resulting in the martyrdom of thousands of men, women and children, constitute another war crime in Iraq's long list of violations of international law. The agreement of 12 June 1984 did not last long and the Iraqi regime again resumed attacks on residential areas, as stated in United Nations documents. That crime is continuing today.
Attacks on civilian airliners are rare. The international community has seen a Government openly and officially issue a note of 17 March 1985 and in practice resort to that notorious crime. The latest incident was the shooting down of a civilian airliner of Asseman Airlines over the southern Iran city of Ahwaz, when 40 passengers were brutally murdered.
Another inhuman crime committed by Iraq is the repeated use of chemical weapons. Following the distribution of the united Nations reports of 1984 and 1985 in which the use of chemical weapons was confirmed, it was openly stated in document S/17911, which reflected the observations of the Secretary-General's team in Khuzestan Province, that Iraq had used chemical weapons repeatedly and extensively. The report constitutes an important international document, and this is the first recorded case since the creation of the United Nations of a report on violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 in which the violating country is clearly named. Unfortunately, due attention has not been paid to that important document. Although some Western countries and a group of their allies, as well as some non-aligned and Islamic countries, such as Pakistan, have adopted positions in the face of that Iraqi crime, and although the Security Council, in its statement of 21 March 1986, condemned the Iraqi regime, no position comparable to the dimensions of the inhuman acts committed by Iraq has yet been adopted. Consequently, since the Security Council statement was issued, Iraq has on five occasions - on 22 and 23 March and in April and May 1986 - deployed chemical weapons both on the battlefield and against civilian areas.
The Security Council has a heavy responsibility vis-a-vis the problem. If a small country such as Iraq can permit itself heedlessly to violate one of the most important international conventions, now again before the Conference on Disarmament, what is to guarantee other existing or future conventions? The international community expects the Security Council to adopt a resolution once again condemning the Iraqi regime's continued use of chemical weapons and openly urging the regime to pay due attention to the matter. The Council should also call on all countries strictly to refrain from the export to Iraq of such chemicals and know-how as can be used for the manufacture of chemical weapons.
It should also apply strict regulations in the case of anyone who refuses to comply with such universal demands. In addition, taking into account the impact of Iraq's repeated use of chemical weapons and the consequent weakening of the 1925 Protocol, all countries should be urged to call for the implementation of the provisions of that Protocol.
Another especially important task that should be carried out by the United Nations is the conduct of the necessary investigations to determine the source of the supplies of chemical weapons to Iraq. There is, of course, a slight probability that mustard gas is produced in Iraq with imported substances, but nerve gas, use of which was confirmed in the United Nations report of 1984, is a complicated chemical weapon and is most definitely supplied to Iran by those countries that possess the technology. We have evidence enough to prove that.
Let me take this opportunity to touch upon one of the main shortcomings of the present international order. The Charter of the United Nations entrusts the Security Council, within the framework of political regulations and relations, with the responsibility of dealing with violations of international laws and regulations that endanger world peace and security. Unfortunately the international community lacks an independent and strong judicial body, and the International Court of Justice does not have a well calibrated and automatic duty in this regard. In any country, as soon as a crime is committed the judicial body goes after the perpetrator, whether a personal complaint is lodged or not. But on the international scene, the way of dealing with violations or crimes against peace and humanity is at best limited to political condemnation. Which judicial organ is responsible for the investigation of the Iraqi violation of international law? We are of the opinion that the International Court of Justice seated in The Hague, for instance, should deal independently with Iraqi infringement of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, no matter whether Iran files a complaint or not. We sincerely hope that those who wish international relations well will seriously seek to overcome this shortcoming and present practical proposals in this connection.
There is no doubt that the naked aggression carried out by the regime ruling over Iraq against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has entered its seventh year, and the repercussions of that aggression have imperiled regional security and presented a serious threat to international peace. Today the war is one of the gravest issues facing the international community, and the attitudes of States with regard to it can be divided into three categories.
The first category comprises those countries that have extended their utmost support to Iraq by providing lethal weapons and economic and financial help as well as political assistance. They include primarily the super-Powers and their cronies, which resort to deceitful rhetoric and slogans, saying "Bloodshed is abhorred by mankind; you should seek to solve your problems through negotiated peaceful means." In practice they themselves give unabated and relentless support to the aggressor, thus contributing to the prolongation of the war. Had our disputes been territorial or financial, negotiations would have made sense. But Iraq initiated the war to topple the legitimate Government, which came to power through a popular uprising. They did whatever they could. Nobody would be so naive as to sit at the same table with such aggressors. The only thing that concerns those Powers, it seems, is to find a way to save the defeated enemy. In the meantime, none of these recommendations forced the occupation forces out of our territories. Our people had to assume the task themselves. I sincerely ask the Secretary-General, the President and all the representatives to show us even one instance in which the Iraqis withdrew from even one part of the occupied lands through a unilateral initiative. We recovered our lost territory inch by inch at
the cost of the blood of our loved ones. In this context, not even the most naive of simpletons could say that Iraq had peaceful aspirations. Allow me to be more direct here. The Islamic Revolution established in Iran a system free of domination by the super-Powers after Iran had been turned into a stronghold of American domination in the region. The policy of non-alignment is being carried out and experienced in the true sense of the word in the Islamic Republic, and other countries are gradually coming to understand this situation better and are becoming more sympathetic towards it. Those who support the Iraqi regime are motivated by their desire to counter such a trend.
The second category comprises those countries that have adopted a neutral stance towards the two countries by expressing abhorrence of the war and the bloodshed. Our question to those countries is this: If their own lands had been trampled by foreign invaders, what position would they have expected others to take? Would they not at the very least expect condemnation of the aggressor and a call for its punishment? Moreover they should not make a distinction between themselves and other members of the international community. These friends should know that if aggression is legitimized and the aggressors come to realize there is always a way to escape the consequences of their crime, we should expect further invasions. Those countries, then, increase their own chances of becoming prey to aggression. On the other hand, it is not possible to live in an international community without accepting responsibility, and all members are in duty bound to contribute to the preservation of international peace and security. As aggression poses the most dangerous threat to peace and security, it is the part of wisdom to condemn and punish the aggressor in order to save world peace.
The third category includes those countries that have during the course of the imposed war gradually moved towards a position of justice. That is praiseworthy, but more effective momentum is needed. At the same time, since this represents a
movement towards justice, it should not be manifested solely in bilateral relations. We place greater priority on adherence to international principles based on justice than on the strengthening of bilateral relations. Condemnation of the initiator of aggression responds to the expectations of a nation that has been victimized; but, more than that, it will respond to the conscience of human society.
We believe that the war is drawing towards an end with the punishment of the aggressor regime of Iraq. This will be a positive step for peace in the region and ultimately in the entire international community. For those countries and organizations that have failed to fulfill their obligations in regard to the Iraqi aggression there is little time left to make up for the past. We declare here that according to all international law and regulations, responsibility for the war cannot be divided. To refer to the initiation of the war and its continuation as two independent responsibilities and a legal situation is contradictory to the most fundamental of international principles. Iraq is responsible for the war - both for its initiation and for its continuation: and, of course, those who have continued to support Iraq are also accomplices of the Iraqi regime.
More time would be needed to go into the details of the chronicle of the imposed war and the crimes committed during the course of it. In addition, we believe that the important point, which deserves due attention by this forum, is the future of the sensitive, important and strategic Persian Gulf region. Our region is in no way able to tolerate another devastating war. The Iraqi-imposed war destroyed vast, valuable resources in our region. All the countries in the area must be able to mobilize the possibilities available to make arrangements for the establishment of a durable and permanent peace that guarantees regional security, as well as the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of each individual State. There are encouraging signs now that reflect the possibility of establishing strong friendly relations among the countries of the region. We should strengthen these hopes and contribute to their fulfillment. We are fully prepared to make our contribution now in the interests of the long-run strategic security of the region.
There is no doubt that this end cannot be achieved unilaterally, but if those States prefer to continue to support the doomed regime of Saddam Hussein, rather than consider such arrangements, they are putting their own national interests in jeopardy. With the elimination of the roots of aggression, our nation and region will possess all the factors and elements needed for the establishment of lasting peace. One of the most crucial tasks of our countries is to achieve this position and as soon as we have we shall be able to eradicate the sources of foreign intervention.
Planning for future security is not merely confined to the Persian Gulf. It is also necessary in connection with the continued occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops, which has unfortunately created a climate of rising tension in the
region, endangering its peace and security. As stated by the Islamic Republic of Iran at the outset, the Geneva talks not only failed to break this impasse, but provided a pretext for the presence of the occupation forces and deception of international public opinion, and this has had adverse effects on the Afghan situation. It is now more clear than ever that the occupation of Afghanistan, which took place under the pretext of solving the problem of the Afghan people caused by foreign threats, has itself imposed a greater burden on the downtrodden people of that land. To make the situation even worse, it has provided suitable grounds for the Western Powers' strengthening their presence in the region.
Our regional security can no longer be held hostage to super-Power rivalry. The Afghan issue cannot be solved in the context of the interests of a super-Power. The just conditions set forth by the Islamic Republic of Iran are more valid than ever. The unconditional and immediate withdrawal of the occupation forces, recognition of the Afghan people's right to self-determination, voluntary repatriation of Afghan refugees and non-intervention by foreigners in the internal affairs of Afghanistan must constitute the essence of any solution to that country's problems. Afghanistan is in dire need of stability, which can be achieved only through the establishment of an independent, non-aligned Government, that enjoys the support of the majority of the population. It is natural that the foreign policy of such a Government would require friendly relations with all regional countries and good-neighborliness.
Because of the direct impact of the situation in Afghanistan on our national security and the practical problems it causes for our country, such as the continuing influx of Afghan refugees, we follow the situation carefully and with great concern. Our country, in spite of the Herculean problems it faces emanating from the sensitive and historical situation, is sheltering nearly 2 million Afghan
refugees. At the same time, it is the international duty of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to deal with this matter more seriously, it is evident that any success in this field will be possible only through the more active participation of all countries.
If Afghan refugees still nourish in their hearts the hope of one day returning to their homeland, for Palestinians such a hope is gradually fading. In 1967 and 1973 attempts were made to strengthen the idea of an all-out struggle against the occupation regime in Palestine, but today, with the divisions among Arabs and within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), one hardly hears about such struggles, even in slogans. The treacherous Camp David Accord has unfortunately left its impact on some Arab and Palestinian leaders and, except in a few countries in the front line of the struggle against Israel, the policy of appeasement has become the dominant policy in our region. The appeal of certain independent countries, and some from the United Nations who formally claimed to be part of the anti-Zionist struggle, for Israel to recognize the PLO as a party to talks constitutes an insult to 40 years of struggle by the people of Palestine.
The treacherous act of the King of Morocco, who issued an invitation to the Prime Minister of the regime occupying Palestine, greatly contributed to the advancement of the compromise process. The Fez plan is based on a position that can lead only to the further entrenchment of Israel in occupied territories. The visit of Peres to Morocco, which took place under the pretext of the Fez plan, could be the beginning of a sad end to the Palestinian destiny if there is not firm resistance by the people of Palestine and non-aligned Arab and Muslim countries. In the present circumstances, in which the whole of Palestine and major parts of Arab countries are under Israeli occupation, any compromise move which increases hope of the continued existence of a Zionist regime will cause immense increases in
United States economic aid to, and political, military and arms support for, Israel, in accordance with their strategic alliance. Thus, Israel continues to exist not as a State but as the greatest United States political, economic, military and even nuclear base in the Middle East. This will certainly constitute an ever increasing threat to peace, security and stability in the sensitive Middle East region.
For this very reason, we cannot accept any peace plan that includes direct or indirect recognition of the Zionist entity.
To those who believe that the establishment of an international conference advocating recognition of the PLO by Israel and the United States will secure the political interests of Palestine, I wish to say that only through the struggle against the occupying regime in Palestine can Palestine regain its freedom. A conference between the aggressor and the victim is another way of compromising with Zionism.
The question of Palestine is at the root of the Middle East crises. Therefore, a short-term settlement could only aggravate the situation. A just and comprehensive peace can be realized in this region only after the expulsion of Israel from Palestine and all Arab lands and the return of Palestinians to their homeland to establish an independent State therein.
The heroic experience of the Muslim people of Lebanon in struggling against the Israeli occupiers and expelling them from the major part of their homeland should be a good lesson for those who consider compromise to be the only option for the Middle East. In conditions that enabled Israel to entertain the thought that it had finished Lebanon and could include it in the list of its occupied and annexed territories, the people of Lebanon started a great mass movement that
forced Israel and its supporters to withdraw. It is true that Lebanon, owing to certain internal differences and disruptions caused by the war, has not yet been able to establish comprehensive, strongly based security, but the Zionist regime will never again dare to encroach upon that land.
We declare our full support for the security and territorial integrity of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders, and we uphold the right of its people to exercise full sovereignty over the whole country. We are confident that the people of Lebanon will be able to expel the remaining occupation forces from their homeland. Moreover, we call on the United Nations, in keeping with the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, to protect the civilian population of this country from the barbarous and inhuman acts of the occupation forces.
Special attention should also be paid to the efforts made by the Zionist regime that threaten the security of African countries and are aimed at expanding its influence in this tyrannized continent. Israel's co-operation with the racist regime of South Africa is rapidly expanding in the economic, military and nuclear fields. We strongly caution that the establishment of relations between some African countries and the Zionist regime will strengthen the foundations of the apartheid regime. We propose that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) take urgent measures to uproot this cancerous tumor from their continent.
Unlike the question of Palestine that is suffering from division, difference of opinion and compromising policies, a consensus exists among all countries - with few exceptions - on the question of South Africa. This consensus, which is accompanied by extensive movements especially at the international level, has laid the groundwork for the intensification of the pressures being exerted on the racist regime of South Africa.
The various gatherings that have been convened throughout the world - such as the meetings in London recommending military sanctions and in Oslo recommending oil sanctions, as well as the international conference in Paris on sanctions against the racist regime of South Africa, followed by the OAU summit in Addis Ababa and the Non-Aligned Conference in Harare, Zimbabwe - all have contributed to the
implementation of the resolutions on South Africa adopted by the United Nations and other international organizations.
The Non-Aligned Conference in Harare adopted certain practical and concrete proposals. The proposal made by the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the establishment of a fund to help the combatants inside South Africa, the fund for the front-line States and other similar proposals should receive the prompt support of the United Nations and of all Member States. The present session of the General Assembly should enhance such activities. The intensification of the struggle of the people of South Africa is promising serious changes in Pretoria.
The racist regime of South Africa is indisputably the root cause of all the tensions in South Africa. So long as apartheid is not totally eliminated peace, stability and security cannot be established in this region. People in South Africa should enjoy the right to a system composed of all races, with equal voting rights for everyone regardless of race and color of skin. The very idea of apartheid constitutes a crime against humankind and an insult to the world's conscience. With such a definition of apartheid in mind, one ask why the countries that fought during the Second World War against a similar notion, are not now ready to cease supporting the apartheid regime. Is there any justification for the United States policy of "constructive engagement" - a policy aimed at protecting the racist regime of South Africa and safeguarding United States national interests?
In addition to crimes committed within its own borders, the apartheid regime is spreading its crimes to other States in southern Africa through subversive and terrorist acts, and the dispatch of paid agents to those countries. During the past year, these acts were intensified especially against Mozambique and Angola. The regime of South Africa is still encroaching upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lesotho and Botswana. Air raids and economic pressure, as
well as subversive acts carried out against Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Swaziland are all indicative of the fact that the regime in South Africa will never voluntarily submit to international decisions.
The illegal, colonial occupation of Namibia by the South African regime, which is recognized as aggression against the people of Namibia, is continuing. Bight years after the adoption of Security Council resolution 435 (1978), calling for the independence of Namibia, there has been no practical progress for its implementation. Once again we voice our condemnation of the racist regime of South Africa, and reaffirm the inalienable right of the people of Namibia to national independence, self-determination, and the territorial integrity of their homeland. On the other hand, we believe that the Namibian people's armed struggle, led by the South west Africa People's Organization (SWAPO), should continue and be strengthened. The decision adopted at the Vienna International Conference for the Immediate Independence of Namibia, and the recent special session of the General Assembly on Namibia, should be given due attention by all countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran has encouraged the opening of a SWAPO representation office in Tehran. Similarly, political support for SWAPO should be continued at the international level.
We believe that the internal struggle in South Africa should be strengthened and that more pressure should be applied on the regime there through invoking Chapter VII of the Charter and implementing Security Council resolution 283 (1970), calling for the imposition of political, economic, military, nuclear, cultural and sport sanctions on the South African regime. Unfortunately, the uncooperative approach of certain Western countries is the principal cause for the continuation of apartheid and the regime's occupation of Namibia and acts of sabotage and conspiracies against its, neighbors.
There is no doubt that despite such manipulation, the racist regime of South Africa cannot be kept in power for long, disregarding the desire of the whole people of south Africa and Namibia. Those who sacrifice humanitarian principles for the sake of their personal financial interests will finally end up in disgrace.
Latin America and the Caribbean region are still suffering from the vestiges of dependent military governments, huge economic difficulties and encroachment upon their sovereignty, in the past year, the danger of United States direct military intervention and aggressive acts against these countries has intensified.
In spite of the efforts of the Contadora and Lima Support Groups and their proposals for the settlement of Latin American problems, there has been no progress. However, these efforts have had a positive impact elsewhere. The fact that members of the Contadora and Lima Support Groups have been able to organize themselves and adopt a common stand on the most sensitive issues of their region, despite their existing political and ideological differences, is a promising movement towards true independence for Latin America as a whole. I hope such common measures will gradually lead to a comprehensive organization of Latin American countries.
Unfortunately, owing to certain complexities in the Asian continent, there still seems to be no possibility for the creation of a comprehensive organization representing all countries of the continent. But if existing regional organizations are strengthened, we may one day be able to create a unique organization by integrating them.
We also hope that the crises in Asia will end in desirable and just solutions, so that the foundation is laid for relaxing tension and expanding co-operation and unity among the countries in this continent.
On the question of Cambodia, we believe that the presence of foreign troops in that South-East Asian country undermines its peace and stability. At the same time, however, we share the concerns of the people of Cambodia about the inhuman and barbarous acts of the previous regime, especially when viewed in their true historical context.
On the Korean problem, we still believe that the two Koreas should try to work out a formula for their reconciliation and eventual unity, so that peace, security and stability may be enhanced in that region.
Through the expansion of the existing bases and the creation of new ones, the military presence of super-Powers in the Indian Ocean increases the probability of the recrudescence of tensions and clashes among super-Powers. Fifteen years after the adoption of General Assembly resolution 2832 (XXVI), declaring the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace, certain countries still insist on the preservation and expansion of their bases and on their continued military presence. That has frustrated the efforts of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Indian Ocean. We support the convening of the Conference on the Indian Ocean at the earliest possible time. To that end, we hope that the Indian Ocean littoral States, especially the South-East Asian ones, will overcome their minor differences of opinion and work for the establishment of peace in the Indian Ocean through co-operation and co-ordination.
On the other hand, the Persian Gulf, as the natural arm of the Indian Ocean, is also exposed to the permanent rivalries of the two super-Powers. Tension in the Persian Gulf has been constantly escalating because of, on the one hand, the Iraqi aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran and, on the other, the intensification of the United States military presence in the countries of the region; the presence of the United States fleet in the Sea of Oman as part of the destructive and aggressive structure of the "Rapid Deployment Force" - which, under
a new development, is to be called the "Central Command"*, and the creation of new military bases in Persian Gulf littoral States. This important and strategic waterway, so vital for the stability of the economy of the world, should become a non-military and non-nuclear region and a zone of peace free of chemical weapons. We are working for long-term security in the Persian Gulf. We hope that by putting an end to Iraqi aggression we shall be able to achieve that objective, in close co-operation with other countries in our region.
During the last year, we have witnessed a tragic recrudescence of tension in the Mediterranean region. Continued military rivalries between the two blocs, the intensification of military presence, expansion of military bases for use by foreign fleets, at a time when countries in the Mediterranean region have been trying to transform that region into a zone of peace*, all that is indicative of the fact that the intention is for aggression to move from pluvial borders to the hinterland of littoral States.
Aggression against Libya started with a series of provocative acts and military exercises in the Gulf of Sidra, and culminated in an extensive air raid upon Libya, including the bombardment of cities and residential areas - and thus turned into outright military aggression. In spite of efforts made by the United States illogically to invoke Article 51 of the Charter, the overwhelming majority of countries in the international community deemed the United States aggression to be a flagrant violation of Libyan sovereignty and territorial integrity and expressed their solidarity with Libya in its defense of its independence and sovereignty. Thus, the statement of the seven industrialized countries and the European Economic Community which used allegations of terrorism as a pretext to justify their actions, reflected in fact a position adopted by a small minority of countries, a position contrary to that declared by the rest of the countries of the
world. The decision in question is devoid of any value and credibility. Hence, Libya emerged from this aggression more determined than ever before to continue its
revolutionary policy against Israel and the United States.
In view of the numerous acts of aggression that have taken place during the past year, the present session of the General Assembly should include in its agenda an item on the important principle of the non-use of force and aggression, and should devote some time to investigating its various dimensions, preparation of a convention on the non-use of force and aggression has been pending in the General Assembly since 1974 because of obstacles created by certain Western countries. The adoption of a resolution containing the necessary recommendations to prevent the continuation of aggression should be seriously considered in the General Assembly. The Political Declaration of the Summit Conference of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries officially calls on the General Assembly to take up measures to ensure the adoption of a universal declaration in this regard. A more thorough study by this body of the issue of terrorism is necessary.
Resolution 40/61 was adopted with certain modification that were made in order to bring the United States to accept a legal framework. The United States did officially accept that framework. Nevertheless, it resorted to the chimerical pretext of terrorism in order to embark on unprecedented aggression. But we believe that the present session of the General Assembly should look deeply into the question of terrorism, and particularly state terrorism and its causes. The Islamic Republic of Iran considers that the third-world countries are the main victims of terrorism acts, either sponsored by Governments or carried out by individuals or groups. But since those countries do not have access to the international mass media, including the press, the many cases of terrorism there do not receive the attention they deserve. On the other hand, sporadic cases in Western countries are given ample space in international news reports.
For many long years the people of Iran have been the victims of Government-sponsored terrorism carried out by the imposed former puppet and dependent regime. In the aftermath of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the people of Iran have again been the target of terrorists, who have been provided with all facilities by Western countries and the United States. The Islamic Republic of Iran condemns all forms and dimensions of terrorism, including Government-sponsored terrorism, and reserves the right to struggle for the liberation movements. It also calls on all countries, especially the Western ones, not to give any help to terrorist groups and to do their best to strengthen the existing conventions.
We believe that in the present international situation the economic crises have a greater link than at any time before to the mad arms race. No substantive solution has been found to economic problems, particularly those pertaining to the third-world countries in regard to debt, falling prices of raw materials and underdevelopment*, yet the arms race has gained momentum. The aim of the arms race is to increase spheres of influence and further polarize international relations and exacerbate groupings. That fact is the root cause of most of the problems of our time. In many fields, the speed of proliferation is so great that talks on disarmament cannot even cover them. International conventions relating to a cessation of the arms race and the production and use of weapons are increasingly being violated. The increased use of chemical weapons is an example. Not only are the expenses for the arms race imposed directly or indirectly upon the third-world countries, but these nations are dragged into internationally fabricated tensions and consequently become the main markets of the merchants of death. This dual plundering of economic resources has in turn exacerbated the trend of the underdevelopment and economic dependence of the third-world countries. The
continuation of this vicious circle is extremely detrimental to mankind. I hope that the General Assembly will be able to take serious steps to prevent the continuation of this trend, which could be fatal.