Colombia

I should like first to congratulate Mr. Hollai on his election to the important post of President and at the same time to express the hope that, under his able leadership, this session of the General Assembly will achieve positive results. I should also like to express to his eminent predecessor, Mr. Kittani, our gratitude for the effectiveness with which he presided over the thirty-sixth session. I wish to assure the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, a seasoned diplomat of whom Latin America is proud, of our support in any action that he takes in the interest of the international community. I take this opportunity to commend the sincerity, the vigour and the vision shown in his report to the General Assembly on the role of the Organization in these times of crisis. On behalf of our President, Belisario Betancur, and the people of Colombia, I should like to greet the representatives of States Members of the United Nations and to express our confidence that at this thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly we shall be able to work effectively in the search for solutions to the disputes that disturb the peace and threaten the security of our peoples. I represent a country with a population of 30 million-the fourth largest in population in the western hemisphere-situated at the heart of the Americas and sharing land and sea boundaries with 13 Latin American and Caribbean nations. Our unique geographical position ties us irrevocably to the fate of a large part of the continent and obliges us to work in an open and constructive spirit. Colombia is also a country of laws and an unsullied democratic tradition, where political differences are resolved through elections and authority emanates from the popular will. Our newly elected Government has devoted its efforts to the country's economic and social recovery and to a major peace initiative which will surely enable those groups which had resorted to armed rebellion to be reincorporated into civilian life. I have been so bold as to mention these positive attributes of my country, but I shall not dwell further on a point which hold little interest for the news agencies, whose preferred subject-matter is scandals and disasters. My country believes in the possibility and the desirability of peaceful solutions. It defends the application of the principles and norms of international law in the settlement of disputes and advocates nonintervention, self-determination and strict observance of treaties. It none the less believes that justice complements law and it is therefore prepared to consider with an open mind all those intrinsically just causes that, for this very reason, warrant the attention of the international community. The United Nations, created under the noblest of auspices to save the world from the scourge of war, to promote more equitable conditions and standards of living for the peoples and to ensure a stable economic order and harmonious development, has all too often been prevented from fulfilling its noble mission. In the view of many it has even become ineffectual. To a large extent this view is correct: purely political controversy has invaded all United Nations forums. Agencies designed to promote social progress, economic recovery and technological progress have become arenas of bitter polemics. The spirit of co-operation is gradually disappearing; selfish interests predominate and the policy of blocs is expanding. Against the backdrop of this kind of Tower of Babel, the imminent danger of universal cataclysm emerges as the only reality. It is not surprising that, in this atmosphere, the arms race should have intensified. What until recently was a phenomenon exclusive to the great Powers has spread like a malignant growth to moderately developed States and even to poor countries. Often it is the industrialized nations themselves that encourage this trade in death. Military and economic might create conditions of dependence. The world's backward countries must sacrifice their dignity to necessity and their conceptual independence in the face of threats. The will to survive leads to a servile pragmatism which destroys ideals and fosters resentment. This concentration of the factors of power explains the formation of the major blocs and the humiliating situation of those nations that have been forced to submit to one or another sphere of influence. It would be unfair to overlook the ideological motivation surrounding some of the decisions of the great Powers. This ideological confrontation is becoming increasingly rare, however. Above all, what we have is a power struggle which threatens to engulf the entire world community. As long as the system of major blocs persists, peace will be impossible. Colombia is profoundly concerned about this state of affairs. In the past year, far from decreasing, the causes for concern have actually increased. The number of situations which disrupt world peace is growing, the economic crisis's becoming increasingly complex and the imbalance among nations is becoming increasingly marked Colombia is concerned by the constant violations of the principles and norms of international law. We cannot countenance the illegal occupation and annexation of territories by force or other forms of intervention that perpetuate a state of permanent anxiety. Like most countries, Colombia has condemned Israel's military action in Lebanon. It advocates withdrawal from the Arab territories now under military occupation and recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to a sovereign State. Colombia believes that the various formulas now under consideration with regard to the Palestinian problem must be reconciled as soon as possible. New negotiating machinery which is binding on the parties to the conflict and on the third countries involved is probably needed. We believe that this vital step does not conflict with recognition of the State of Israel and the latter's right to live in peace within its own borders. We note with interest and satisfaction all efforts, such as those undertaken by the Korean people, tending to re-establish national unity. We have voiced our opposition to the possible exclusion of any Member State from the various organs of the United Nations. Despite all the risks, we believe that the principle of universality, which is fundamental to the survival and historical impact of the Organization, must be maintained. Unfortunately, the latest acts of aggression and violence in the Middle East are not the only ones suffered and repudiated by the international community. We have also condemned the military occupation of Afghanistan and Kampuchea and the persecution of the trade union movement in Poland. In all these cases clear-cut norms of international law have been violated, resulting in the irreparable loss of human life and considerable material damage. We are deeply concerned at the situation in Central America and at the risk that this region so near to us geographically and so dear to our hearts might become a new arena of international confrontation. The nations of Central America are struggling, each in its own way, to strengthen democracy and promote social change. In that process, which should occur peacefully as a result of self-determination, there has in recent times been resort to the perilous course of ideological extremism, arms buildup and foreign interference. We cannot stand by and let the countries of Central America become a prey to international ambitions and their weak political and economic structures be suddenly threatened by violence and civil war. It is essential to restore peace and, by means of a constructive dialogue, to create the conditions for' peaceful coexistence and development. In achieving these objectives, it would be most useful to eliminate the pernicious influence of the military apparatus that in one way or another has become involved in Central American politics. At the beginning of October, Colombia participated in a meeting of Foreign Ministers organized by the Government of Costa Rica with the aim of finding common ground and discussing specific actions which would permit a return to normalcy. As a result of that important meeting, it was agreed to create a body which would work for peace and democracy: a peace based on mutual respect and a democracy which would guarantee free political expression in each country. At Colombia's request, the Foreign Ministers meeting in San Jose proposed the removal of all military and security advisers from the area, in particular from El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. We hope that the goodwill mission entrusted to the Foreign Minister of Costa Rica will help to broaden the regional dialogue and will be well received in those countries which for various reasons did not participate in the first round of talks. My country will co-operate fully in achieving the objectives set. Colombia does not advocate and has never advocated the use of force to resolve conflicts. It therefore deplores the fact that, in the case of the Malvinas Islands, the protracted absence of a peaceful solution and the persistence of colonialist practices let to the de facto situations and that all efforts at conciliation to avoid an armed conflict failed. We are now faced with the consequences: the loss of 3,000 human lives and damage estimated at over $1 billion. But this tragic outcome is not the only cause for concern. The truth is that as a result of the armed conflict the possibility of a stable solution for the islands now appears more remote than ever. The United Kingdom, having gained a military victory, refuses to discuss the question of sovereignty over the islands. Although explicable in the light of recent events, this position will prove untenable in the long run. The anti-colonialist determination of the vast majority of countries, Colombia among them, will finally prevail. In order to obviate the risk of further conflict and avoid a prolongation of the harmful consequences of this confrontation, Colombia proposes that the Malvinas should immediately be made neutral and their administration entrusted to a multinational authority until a way is found of reconciling Argentina's rights with the legitimate interests of the islands' inhabitants. The conduct of the United States in this unfortunate incident warrants special comment. That country's decision to abandon its initial neutral position and to afford economic, political and military support to the United Kingdom aroused justified indignation in Latin America. That episode has given rise to the feeling throughout the continent that the United States cares little of the fate of its neighbours. The United States attitude none the less had the salutary effect of uniting the peoples of Latin America for the first time in their entire history. We must seize this opportunity to create effective machinery which will make possible a joint response in moments of crisis. The impact of this conflict on the continent's political future cannot be ignored. Europeans and North Americans will in the short term be able to correct many of the decisions taken during the war, but it will take a long time for the wounds to heal. Clearly, Latin America is not a priority on the great Powers' list. At the centre of the armed confrontation in the South Atlantic the question of colonialism appears as a last remnant of a world which has faded into history but the vestiges of which will continue to cause constant irritation and potential conflicts for years* to come. Practical problems arise in this decolonization process, including that of how to ensure that newly independent territorial entities, many of them small, avoid the dependence forced on them by their limited economic resources. Faced with the danger of new forms of domination, these young nations will have to seek, with the support of the international community, systems of association that enable them to defend their own independence successfully. In analysing the factors which contribute to disturbances of the peace we are also concerned at the discouraging results of the second special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. We see the problem as one not only of nuclear weapons butalso of conventional weapons. It is not enough for the great Powers to declare their willingness to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons. A decision must also be taken drastically to reduce conventional weapons and to agree to absolutely trustworthy verification procedures. In Colombia's view peace is not and cannot be a precarious balance between heavily armed nations but rather the result of a just international order. Pope Paul VI made this abundantly clear when he stated in his encyclical Populorium Progressio many years ago that development was the new name for peace. The Pontiffs historic maxim becomes dramatically relevant in a world where opportunities are dangerously concentrated in the hands of a few and three quarters of mankind continues to be excluded from a development which would make justice feasible and freedom attainable. It was this time bomb which prompted the international community a decade ago to seek a new international economic order which would make it possible to correct imbalances and bridge the gap between rich and poor. Without wishing to belittle the initial efforts that were made, we must agree that the situation is not encouraging and the prospects of establishing such an order are increasingly remote, above all in the midst of one of the worst economic crises to face the international community in three generations. This crisis, which is probably both the cause and the effect of the chaotic situation in which mankind is living, is the result of numerous factors, including theoretical dependence on rigid models which for a long time now have failed to take into account the whole purpose of economic management for the advancement of man and have become worn-out concepts which, at the political level, point the way to failure. The peripheral countries that traditionally revolve around these systems are often used as testing grounds. The all-out free enterprise of the so-called Chicago school on the one hand and the rigid self- management and planning, with total State intervention, advocated by the current Marxist school, on the other, are the most recent examples of how blind adherence to economic theories whose origins are purely political is doomed to failure. Another no less important, cause of this far- reaching crisis is the rapidly growing indebtedness of the developing countries and of those countries with a so-called centrally planned economy. Between them, these countries are fast approaching a foreign debt amounting to the extraordinary sum of $800 billion. Two circumstances aggravate this phenomenon: on the one hand, the growing involvement of private lenders-calculated at 50 per cent-to the detriment of financing through international development agencies which are finding it increasingly difficult to open the coffers of their rich members; on the other hand, the all too frequent use of foreign loans for sectors other than infrastructure or social welfare. In practice, those resources have become volatile material and there are difficulties in repaying loans because production has not increased in proportion to indebtedness. There are, of course, exceptions but in the end only those countries that have exchanged foreign currency for progress will be successful and it will be difficult to find a remedy for those which exchanged loans for prestige or used them for ill-planned investments to find a way out of their difficulties. The external debt problem has reached such insane proportions that what formerly generated dependence today engenders mutual fear between debtors and creditors. The entire financial problem must be approached in new terms before this fear degenerates into political confrontation. Colombia is not subject at present to the pressures of a disproportionate foreign debt. Its foreign debt amounts to over $7 billion, but to a large extent this figure represents development loans whose short- term impact is manageable. The annual debt service takes up barely 15 per cent of our foreign trade earnings. International reserves stand at over $5 billion. We are not,therefore, pleading our own cause but rather speaking, out of an elementary sense of solidarity, as advocates of those countries which need rapid and effective support. To this end we support the preparation and implementation of a short- term emergency plan as a first step in the process of global negotiations. The economic crisis also has its mots in the policies of the industrialized countries. The restriction of demand in order to control inflation has caused a drop in the growth of price indices and more recently in that of interest rates, but at the high social cost of slowing down growth and increasing unemployment. This affects international trade, which is the basis for the growth of most of the developing economies, and thus exports unemployment, the social and political consequences of which are felt far more acutely in the third world than in the industrialized world. Protectionism has taken hold of the major markets, with obvious consequences for trade but also with the distressing result that the developing countries, seeing the deterioration in their trade balances and balances of payments, try to save themselves and are in turn accused of protectionism, of violating free trade agreements or simply of being trade terrorists who, by stimulating exports, attack the world economy. Another aspect that we must mention here is the deterioration of the situation with regard to commodities. Producer countries were used to products enjoying good seasons bad seasons, and one usually cancelled out the other. Now there are only bad periods because of the recession affecting the main purchasers, and especially because of the irresponsible, selfish and disastrous policies of groups of developed countries which, as in the case of sugar, have brought prices down to absolutely ludicrous levels. The countries that uphold this sugar policy of subsidies, increased production and the imposition of quotas cannot expect us to be grateful, to cooperate and to let them participate in our development plans. In my country the sugar sector generates considerable employment and foreign currency, and it would be inconsistent of us not to respond forcefully to seeing our international earnings reduced as a result of unilateral policies. Almost all the Powers could be accused of this kind of policy with regard to other commodities. The sale of strategic reserves, the stockpiling of others by mining multinationals, the unilateral fixing of quotas for access to markets and the use of foodstuffs as a political weapon are only some of the many aberrations against which the international community as a whole will have to fight. We should, however, also mention, within this bleak commodity situation, the success just achieved in London in connection with the International Coffee Agreement, of which my country has always been and will continue to be an ardent supporter. This agreement to protect the market reached between producers and consumers in the same forum is an example which I should like to mention here and which would not have been possible without solidarity between the two interest groups. This already long list also includes the affront constituted by military spending. According to United Nations calculations, at 1978 prices the world spends $1.2 billion a day on armaments, $900 million of which represents the combined military budgets of the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and the United Kingdom. This daily arms expenditure is equal to the sum total of the annual budgets of UNDP, the World Food Programme, UNICEF, UNRWA and UNFPA. And, one further comment, compared with the over $380 billion spent each year on military budgets, the $21 billion in direct aid, the $80 million from the World Bank, the $24 million from the Inter-American Development Bank and the $67 million from the International Monetary Fund seem paltry amounts. The $825 million of United States financial assistance to the Caribbean and the Soviet Union's $1,856 million to Cuba, North Korea and Viet Nam are even more insignificant. These figures speak for themselves. The subject of the North-South dialogue is perhaps one of the few on which we all agree: we have failed miserably. Since 1973, the year of the oil embargo and the floating of the principal currencies, the United Nations as an institution, its Members and the decade's most eminent personalities have reiterated the need to restructure fundamentally the economic relationship between those that are the most prosperous and those that are still the poorest. Then came the General Assembly resolutions on the new international economic order and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. The latter could figure in the book of world records as the instrument most frequently violated. The same happened with the 1974 Paris Conference, which throughout its three long years brought nothing new to the solution of world problems; with the various meetings of UNCTAD; the ministerial meeting of GATT; the Conference of Science and Technology for Development; the Tokyo Round; the annual rite of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and FAO; the proposal of the non-aligned countries on global negotiations; the Brandt report; the Cancun summit and the New Delhi and Oslo meetings. These comings and goings of officials, diplomats, economists and politicians have achieved little. Generosity has run out; these are difficult times; such are the phrases we read in foreign ministry reports. We of the South say that the North lacks the necessary political will; those of the North say that we of the South do not know what we want. There is nothing new; every possibility, including hope, has vanished. The argument that we must wait for the world economy to return to normal and regain its health is not convincing enough for us to postpone indefinitely the initiatives with regard to the North-South dialogue and the global negotiations. The illness has to be treated; the solution is in the hands of those present here-developed or underdeveloped, with or without a colonial past. It is a question of political will and of clearly identifying our goals and procedures. There is light in all this darkness: co-operation among developing countries. This South-South relationship is one of the few multilateral successes of recent years and must therefore maintain its momentum and continue its identification of areas in which co-operation is possible and fruitful. It is true that the developing countries enjoy only 28 per cent of the wealth of our planet, but it is no less true that they represent 80 per cent of the world's population. This tremendous sociological reality will make itself felt in the end and the developed countries realize this. Unfortunately, they neither act nor allow others to act. Years ago there was a proposal, which was never put into practice, that the rich countries should earmark a minimum percentage of their gross national product for programmes of international co-operation. The proposal never got off the ground. The only alternative is to strengthen the South- South relationship. It is a question of seeking and offering support, encouraging exchanges, pooling experiences and developing new technologies. These are some of the goals. Although Colombia is not an economic Power, much less a military one, it understands and accepts its obligation to contribute to those goals and has tried to do so in its own area. One result of my country's decision is the Andean Pact or Cartagena Agreement, an interesting experiment in sub-regional integration that has managed to survive for over 10 years. Another example is the plan for economic, trade and financial cooperation which Colombia is promoting with the countries of Central America and the Caribbean. These are specific examples which prove that a stable and fruitful relationship is possible among developing countries. If it is not possible, as we have seen, to institutionalize the North-South dialogue and render it operational, then let the General Assembly at least offer effective backing to the agencies that promote South-South co-operation. In the midst of so many disappointments, there is another very important and positive element in the work of the United Nations which shows that it is possible to find universally acceptable solutions to problems affecting the international community when the spirit of consensus prevails and multilateral negotiating machinery is properly used. I am referring to the adoption on 30 April last of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the culmination of nine years of difficult negotiations and six years of careful preparation. The new regime for the sea recognizes and develops for the sea-bed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction a principle already formulated 150 years ago by the great Latin American legal expert Andres Bello, according to which there are assets which can remain common property for the benefit of all and belong to the indivisible heritage of mankind and cannot be marked with the seal of ownership. With regard to maritime spaces under State jurisdiction, the Convention represents not only a complete legal framework, but also an instrument for the economic and social development of our peoples. Colombia was one of the 130 countries to vote in favour of the Convention and hopes that at this session the General Assembly will provide the Secretary-General with the necessary means to take on the responsibilities assigned to him. The Second United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which was held at Vienna in August, enabled the United Nations to review the conquest of space, and the developing countries to call the attention of the technological Powers to the need for more effective and systematic international co-operation. For Colombia, an equatorial country, it was significant that several of the recommendations of the Conference stressed the urgent need to plan and regulate the use of the geostationary orbit, a limited natural resource which can be over-exploited by its appropriation by the technological monopolies. Since 1975, my country and nine other equatorial States have been demanding a special regime for the geostationary orbit. In Vienna, all the developing countries, within the framework of the Group of 77, turned our demands into a dire necessity. We reiterate to the Assembly today that technological development must be regulated by international law and that consequently the free consent of countries below the orbital arc must be a prerequisite of any such regulation. We really believe that the prior consent of receiving and monitored countries must be obtained before direct television broadcasting by satellite or remote-sensing activities are carried out. I could go on at length on many other topics of concern to my country, but I see no practical usefulness in doing so. Each country must act within the limits of its possibilities and in relation to the questions which concern it directly. I should like, however, to share a number of closing observations with the members of the Assembly. These refer to the search for a lasting peace which would guarantee the survival of our species. If we are to achieve such a peace, we must replace confrontation by balance. This balance does not arise from the strategic parity of the super-Powers, however, but is born of the tactical unity of medium-sized and small nations in seeking to dismantle the whole threatening apparatus of war. It has been proved time and again that the United States and the Soviet Union are not in a position to offer mankind the good news of effective disarmament and that they will probably pursue their intensive political, economic and military rivalry. Colombia has thought carefully about these and other facts in relation to its own international position. For years, influenced by our dedication to a set of principles and consistent with a tradition, we have on occasion been regarded as a dependent country. We believe that the time has come to clarify our position. Not so that we might disown an honourable past, much less abjure principles that are deeply rooted in our people, but simply so that we might better serve the cause of mankind. We believe that the prospects for peace will be improved if countries able to do so adopt more independent positions. This is also valid in view of the aspirations to establish a new, more just and equitable economic order. These are the main reasons for Colombia's decision to apply for admission to the non-aligned movement. We are well aware that this movement was, at the outset, made up principally of countries from other continents. We believe that the time has come for the countries of Latin America also to join in a process which, if well directed, can make a decisive contribution to the cause of peace. Some have already done so and others, like Colombia, hope to do so in the near future.