First of all, Mr. President, I wish to convey to you my most sincere
congratulations on your assumption of your office at this thirty-
seventh session of the General Assembly. I also wish to express my
Government's and my own pleasure at the good work done so tirelessly
by the Secretary- General since the day he assumed the lofty and
important responsibilities of his office. We are certain that his
sound knowledge, his broad judgement, his sensitivity and his
experience are and will continue to be positive factors that,
together with his realistic outlook, will lead to the accomplishment
of the mission entrusted to the Organization by the peoples of the
world.
I should now like to present the general foreign policy views of the
Government of National Unity, which I represent. Beginning in 1979,
El Salvador took the first steps towards the establishment of
appropriate and effective mechanisms to make the frequently postponed
process of social, economic and political change a reality; to enable
the great majority of the population to enjoy better living
conditions, democracy and social justice; to bring about effective
enjoyment of human rights by the exercise of self- determination; in
short, to enable Salvadorian society to improve its overall way of
life. Now, as then, my Government is engaged in a hard struggle to
reduce the numbers of people living in or on the borderline of
poverty, while also attempting to establish new structures with the
sole purpose of fostering the development of the human person.
The entire world already clearly recognizes the scope of the
structural reforms my Government has undertaken, particularly
agrarian reform, which has been termed the most thorough ever
undertaken in the Americas, and the nationalization of banking and
foreign trade. At the same time, we are undergoing a political,
democratic, participatory and pluralistic process the legitimacy of
which was confirmed when, on 28 March this year, our country entered
into history through the open door of elections held under the
scrutiny of observers from more than 50 countries, recognized
international organizations and institutions and some 300 foreign
journalists. On that day, before the eyes of a world that was half
indifferent and half amazed, the people of El Salvador rejected
violence, totalitarianism and terrorism and opted for the exercise of
self-determination by peaceful and rational means as a solution to
our many problems. The country chose the formula of pluralism and a
multi-party system. The present Government thus joined the political
forces that represent 92 per cent of the electorate and, acting in
keeping with the aspirations of the people, adopted the basic
platform of government known as the Pact of Apaneca, which emerged
from the common objectives of the various political parties as
expressed in the electoral campaign. Those basic objectives are
peace, democratization, human rights, the consolidation of social
reforms, the establishment of a climate of institutional and
juridical confidence, the strengthening of international relations
and economic recovery.
Naturally, since we are aware that good declarations are the
framework of great actions, and that at the present time pragmatic
steps that can achieve visible results are called for, my Government
has set up three commissions: a political commission, a peace
commission and a human rights commission. The Political Commission,
which is made up, infer of the forces that were proved most
representative by the elections, is designed to bring a greater
dynamism to the democratic process, to ensure its effective
implementation and to adopt the necessary measures for the
implementation of the Government's basic platform. The Peace
Commission seeks the attainment of peace in a social climate that
will enable all Salvadorians to live, work and fulfil themselves as
human beings through national reconciliation, the abandonment of
sectarian attitudes and the channeling of political interests along
an institutional path. It also proposes the solutions necessary to
bring about lasting harmony and social stability. The Human Rights
Commission serves as an instrument for the protection, promotion and
maintenance of human rights in the broadest sense and recommends
appropriate measures for the effective attainment of human rights.
To give an example of the way in which these commissions operate, I
am able to announce that the Political Commission has prepared a
timetable which includes deadlines for important political events,
among them the holding of presidential and municipal elections on 28
March 1984 at the latest. We hope that in these elections all
political sectors will be represented, without distinction as to
ideological or political views. It is clear that we are moving
forward along the path leading to peace, harmony, justice and
national unity.
A/37/PV.28
We must emphasize that the overall solution to the problem in El
Salvador is not to be found in El Salvador alone, since everybody
knows that there is a general situation of conflict in Central
America which gives rise to fresh tension and fosters old tension,
making it difficult for any political project to be viable and
stable. In this connection, the existence of various political
projects designed to meet and overcome the conditions resulting from
underdevelopment at the social, political and economic levels gives
rise to tension and conflict when there is an attempt to give one
priority over the other, and in certain sectors this nurtures the
illusion that the concepts are mutually exclusive. Thus, when there
is interventionist behaviour, regional peace is endangered in Central
America.
On the other hand, the situation in the region is not isolated from
the serious disorders in the international monetary system, the high
rates of unemployment, excessive protectionism and the many other
negative symptoms, all of which the Central American subregion is
encountering in its own social and political crisis.
Thus it is that there will be no peace in Central America if the arms
race continues; there will be no peace if the traffic in arms
continues; there will be no peace as long as people continue , to
support armed groups which seek to overthrow established Governments;
there will be no peace if there is no respect for the right of
peoples to self-determination; there will be no peace if people do
not reject overt or covert foreign intervention; there will be no
peace if there is no respect for ideological pluralism; there will be
no peace if unfair social and economic structures are not eliminated;
there will be no peace if democratic institutions are not
strengthened and if human rights are not fully exercised. In sum,
there will be no peace if people do not have faith and work for peace.
Through the introduction of political interests alien to Central
America, which derive from confrontations on a larger scale,
countries of the region tend to perpetuate our problems and to play
the game of the merchants of war. If we do not begin to formulate
ideas which lead to harmony based on trust, cooperation, our common
origin, our common geography and our common destiny, our peoples can
begin to write their own obituary-unless men of good will devote
themselves with great enthusiasm to the quest for peace. As long as
there is no peaceful coexistence, as long as there is no respect for
the principles of the self-determination of peoples and
non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, as long as
base foreign interests influence the behavior of some countries in
the region, stability, peace, democracy, development and social
justice will be beyond our reach.
That is why I pledge the good will of my Government in the efforts to
achieve that peace, which is the first and the essential factor in
the attainment of the other conditions in which the well-being of the
peoples can increase. For the same reason, it is essential that
Central American countries adopt consistent policies to limit
armament and military equipment; that end all traffic in arms; that
we neither accept provocation nor harass a neighbor; for we are all
entitledto organize ourselves at the social, economic and political
levels in the manner determined by the sovereign will of our peoples.
My appeal, the appeal of my people and of my Government, is for the
establishment of democracy, the full enjoyment of human rights, the
rule of social justice and peace, tolerance and brotherhood among the
peoples of Central America.
Aware of the fact that ideological pluralism must be the philosophy
which inspires our Government so as to make possible the free
interplay of ideas and thus the promotion of democracy, our domestic
position can be reflected at the international level only by an
attitude of respect for the struggles of the third world countries,
which find expression in political forums such as those of the Group
of 77 and the non-aligned movement. In the latter, El Salvador
retains its observer status, bearing in mind the origin and the true
doctrine which led to its foundation. Thus we wish to stand aloof
from East-West confrontations so as to facilitate progress along our
true path to development, while we strengthen our freedom, our
independence and our sovereignty.
There is no doubt that so far in 1982 situations of conflict have
arisen which have led to serious breaches of world peace. Some of
those conflicts started a long time ago; others have emerged in more
recent times and situations.
Certainly the behavior of the super-Powers in their mutual relations
as well as with regard to countries that are within their respective
spheres of influence has left much to be desired when it comes to the
quest for peace. Such situations lead only to greater conflict,
increasing suspicion and the stepping up of the arms race.
Historical experience of relations between nations convinces us that
no country remains indifferent to a disproportionate increase in a
neighbor's arsenal, although the latter may claim threats to its
territorial integrity as an excuse. Even an endless arms buildup
cannot alter the absurdity of that argument. That is why, in
principle, the technological and economic gap between the developed
and the developing countries must be closed, especially when
developing countries are poor in financial and investment resources.
The question arises as to whether this might be a legitimate need in
terms of security, and the answer is obviously that it is not. The
pretense of absolute security when dealing with a super-Power is
either an absurdity in itself or a pretext for extending hegemonistic
designs. The irrational arms buildup is offensive in its internal
effects on the poor countries, a source of concern for the wiser and
more prudent statesmen of the peoples living in the relevant region
and sows the seed of discord. National situations which are
exacerbated demagogically from outside and international tension
provoked by the extremist policies of ideological unilateralism which
denies pluralism constitute an explosive mixture which, unless action
is taken, could set the region ablaze.
We recognize that the process of change in societies becomes
irreversible both nationally and internationally and that the
strategy to be followed is not to fight against the march of history
but rather to adapt existing institutions to the necessary and
inevitable change. But, if we have firm conviction and faith in the
destiny of Central America, we can overcome our differences with a
view to adopting, by mutual agreement, methods which, without
sacrificing our vital interests, would allow harmonious coexistence
in the region, bearing in mind that the peoples are those who, in the
final analysis, will define and determine their own destiny.
In this sensitive and complicated context, the Governments of Costa
Rica, Honduras and El Salvador established in San Jose, Costa Rica,
on 19 January 1982, the Central American Democratic Community, a
noble integration initiative based on the common historical destiny
resulting from an identity of ideals, unswerving devotion to
democracy, recognition of the economic and social interdependence of
our peoples and the firm will to resolve, in a coordinated manner and
on a basis of solidarity, the social, political and economic problems
which beset Central America.
We wish to express cur disappointment at the results of the second
special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, which
dealt particularly with the problems of nuclear armament and the
dangers this poses at the present stage of history. Peoples all over
the world, although they have certainly been more vocal in certain
regions than in others, have clearly expressed their commitment to
peace and their rejection of any atomic confrontation, however
limited.
Recent events in Lebanon, including the reprehensible massacre in the
refugee camps, constitute a clear call to seek, by means of new
political formulas, a lasting and just agreement in regard to the
Palestinian problem, which continues to be at the heart of the
Arab-Israeli conflict. The absence of an overall solution in the
Middle East constitutes a permanent threat to world peace. We believe
that President Reagan's proposal, which was made known on 1
September, is truly intended to lead to a viable and just formula.
There is no doubt that, because of the influence the United States
has on events relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the initiative
of the United States President represents a step towards the solution
of the problem and therefore towards the achievement of peace in the
Middle East. This initiative is also in keeping with the letter and
the spirit of Camp David. In the circumstances we cannot but applaud
such a praiseworthy proposal, which points in the right direction.
I need not repeat that my country condemns the acquisition of
territories by force regardless of the method used to that end but we
also believe that the formal existence of the State of Israel must be
recognized and also its right to live, free from all threats or
pressures, within its own boundaries. This is a legitimate
aspiration, and equally legitimate is the aspiration of the
Palestinian people to establish its own State.
We must also refer to the question of Lebanon. After the trials that
this nation has experienced, the international community must see to
it that Lebanon enjoys full sovereignty, eliminating from its
territory all foreign military forces regardless of the pretext that
may be used for remaining there, and restoring to it, as an
independent country, complete control and jurisdiction over its
territory. In other words, Lebanon should be allowed to exercise all
the attributes of a sovereign State, capable of rejecting foreign
intervention or occupation. El Salvador, which does not and never
will permit interference by foreign troops in its territory, supports
any international initiative designed to enable Lebanon, as a free
and independent State, to achieve its political unity and territorial
integrity.
The agenda of this session of the General Assembly again includes the
question of Cyprus, which has been debated for many years. Thus the
international community is justly concerned over reaching a
definitive agreement. We have taken note with satisfaction of the
continued efforts of the Secretary-General and his missions of good
offices with a view to promoting talks between the two communities, a
mechanism which so far has proved the best vehicle for solving the
problem in a concerted manner. We must recognize in this case that
UNFICYP has fully carried out its basic mission of maintaining and
preserving the necessary climate of political tranquility to enable
the talks between the Turkish and Cypriot communities to be
successful.
We also wish to express our concern over the continued war between
the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq. This international conflict
has demonstrated the impotence of the United Nations. Had we not
known that the Security Council had discussed the matter and that the
Secretariat had made renewed efforts to resolve the dispute by
peaceful means, we would say that the entire machinery set up by the
Charter to end international disputes was a dead letter. How much
longer will war between those two nations continue without the
international community stopping it? The conduct of those two
countries has undoubtedly increased scepticism about the Organization.
Afghanistan continues to be a source of tension for the international
community. So long as the Afghan people is unable to determine its
own future, free from the flagrant intervention represented by the
presence of almost 100,000 Soviet soldiers, in violation of the most
basic principles of the Charter, there will be no just political
solution.
That situation has its counterpart in the occupation of Kampuchea by
Vietnamese troops, which has harmed the peace efforts in the entire
region of South-east Asia. An agreement to end this abnormal state of
affairs should be sought in the light of the tenets of the Charter.
The withdrawal of foreign troops is a prerequisite, because the
United Nations was created precisely to prevent such gross violations
of international peace and security.
El Salvador condemns in the strongest terms racial discrimination,
which has become the normal practice in the Government of South
Africa. The world's conscience has condemned apartheid which is the
antithesis of humanism. Therefore, cannot be reconciled with the
values of equity and harmonious coexistence. It is a link in the
chain of causes of the intermittent outbursts of violence which have
been manifestations of protest and rebelliousness against a clearly
unjust state of affairs. That is why we shall continue to co-operate
in the United Nations efforts to bring South Africa to respect the
universally accepted standards of the Charter.
The other question affecting southern Africa is related to South
Africa's behavior in Namibia. Through the United Nations, the
international community has promoted a framework for a solution by
which Namibia may attain its independence. To date South Africa has
been able, through subterfuge, to undermine a political settlement,
thus continuing its illegal occupation of the territory. What is
more, the territory has been used to launch continuous acts of
aggression. Therefore, efforts should be redoubled to remove
obstacles and bring about the prompt liberation of the people of
Namibia, thus eliminating another source of tension which is
poisoning international, including East-West, relations.
At the global level, the United Nations will continue to be an
appropriate instrument for dealing with crises and ending conflicts,
if we collectively renew our faith in it. But its institutional
machinery should not be .abused by diverting it towards propaganda,
for the benefit of sectarian interests, in the knowledge that such
action would be aimed not at the solution of problems but, rather, at
a temporary effect on public opinion.
Nevertheless, the threat to the United Nations as an institution is
even greater when it is given competence in the domestic affairs of
States, simply because these issues are linked with ideological
trends. In that case, the possible influence of the Organization
would be an obstacle to overcoming problems whose only solution
should lie, because of its character and nature, in the hands of the
people of the country, which knows its own situation better than
anyone. The artificiality of giving an international character to
national situations clashes with the essential principle of the
self-determination of peoples. I do not need to say that in giving
such situations that artificial character the interventionist
interests at work violate the principle of non-intervention in the
internal or external affairs of other States.
I turn to another matter-the Third United Nations Conference on the
Law of the Sea. It has been an exercise in patient negotiation in an
attempt to reconcile very varied interests. For that reason alone, it
is logical to say that no State could be completely satisfied. How
far have legitimate expectations been expressed in the final text
which has now been adopted? In our view that is the question which
all States are asking themselves. On their answer will depend the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, an international
instrument governing the norms and laws of the seas, including the
sea-bed. The vote on 30 April this year shows that this international
instrument commands wide acceptance.
Peace and development: these are two key words. Economic conflicts,
such as the North-South confrontation affect international relations
just as the hotbeds of political tension do. In that context, we all
know that the question of global negotiations was reexamined by the
General Assembly at its eleventh special session, just as it was at
the thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth sessions, without progress being
made. ' I do not believe that we should waste time by futilely
apportioning blame for the lack of progress. Rather, we must
emphasize the need to break out of this impasse, which has hurt
economic relations between developed and developing countries so much.
The great family of the Americas has so far this year given two
exceptional examples of solidarity, to which I wish to refer because
of the great significance of joint, simultaneous action which
presages the better days of which the Liberator Simon Bolivar dreamt.
I refer, in chronological order, to the valuable and emotional-but
none the less objective-backing which El Salvador's process of
democratization received from the overwhelming majority of brother
countries of Latin America, gathered at a meeting of the Organization
of American States in Castries, Saint Lucia. Thanks largely to that
support, the elections of 28 March this year were transformed from
ideals into reality.
The other demonstration of hemispheric solidarity was on behalf of
the sister Republic of Argentina, arising out of the stubborn
persistence of an obsolete colonialism. I am referring to the
Malvinas Islands. My Government supports Argentina's aspirations to
achieve full exercise of its sovereignty over the islands, on the
basis not only of hemispheric solidarity and of law, but also on the
basis of the principles contained in General Assembly resolution 1514
(XV). In keeping with these principles, El Salvador has supported,
still supports and will continue to support the process of
decolonization everywhere in the world. In reaffirming its commitment
to peace, El Salvador urges the parties involved to seek the means
available through international law to put an end to the dispute, in
particular by recourse to negotiation.
Today we celebrate the discovery of America. Irrespective of
polemics, legends or the myths of "popular history" concerning who
was the first navigator to sight American coasts and where he came
from, what is certain is that Columbus and Spain represent a symbol:
the symbol of the faith and the value of a man, the symbol of the
faith and the value of a kingdom.
Like the peoples of bygone days, the peoples of today are witness to
incredible feats, which are not unworthy of the great epics recorded
and transmitted by history.
However, to our shame, the peoples today, just as those of bygone
days, continue to witness remnants of colonialism that defy the trend
of history, provocations, hegemonism, aggression and exploitation.
While it is true that mankind has made prodigious technological
advances in its organization, procedures, aspirations and psychology,
there yet remains something akin to that mankind which once lived in
caves.
It is imperative for us to bring technological development into line
with social development, and vice versa. It is imperative for us to
break away from that absurd contradiction of a human race that has
not changed much since the Stone Age, with a technology that takes
the elements of war into outer space. It is imperative for us, for
mankind, to recognize the false steps that are taking us to the edge
of the abyss. It is imperative for us all to remember that the
victories of peace are nobler and more desirable than the victories
of war.