I wish to join with the leaders of other delegations in paying a
tribute to the outgoing President, Mr. Kittani, who distinguished
himself throughout last year in his efforts on behalf of the
Assembly. I am also honoured to be accorded the privilege on behalf
of my country to congratulate Mr. Hollai on his election to the
presidency of the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly. I
offer him my delegation's fullest support in the tasks which lie
ahead of him.
Never in the history of its existence has the Assembly convened
against such a background of pervading universal gloom. Unemployment
figures I the industrialized countries are assuming proportions
traditionally associated with developing countries: 10.1 per cent in
the United States and a similar figure in the European Economic
Community. Every month that passes witnesses thousands more people
being cast on to the heap of the unemployed with no prospect of jobs,
no means of maintaining their standard of living and little means of
ensuring the well-being of their families. Many marvel every day that
there have not been widespread violent reactions in the streets;
others expect those reactions to erupt at any time if this
all-consuming recession continues unabated.
And while unemployment in industrialized countries reaches the level
normally linked with developing countries, the ranks of the
unemployed in poor States are swelling to record volumes. Only an
immunity to suffering born of generations of deprivation keeps some
developing States from explosion.
A blanket of misery has been cast upon the world: it has spared no
country and it has brought many to the brink of disaster. This misery
can only be measured in human terms-for it knows nor colour, nor
religion, nor nationality. It grips many millions in developed
countries who must struggle to survive on State support and many more
millions in poor countries who must suffer with no support at all.
In the 1930s, when mankind experienced a global economic recession
such as the one we now face, the economists called it "the Great
Depression". It was the forerunner of a terrible war which brought
even greater human suffering than had obtained before it. As
conditions currently exist in the world, it would not be too
far-fetched for some to contemplate wars, however limited, as a
solution to the current economic crisis. Indeed some are already
advocating the Keynesian theory that military spending will create
jobs, increase public demand and stimulate economic growth.
In these troubled times, the global community should be able to spam
the irrationality of the warmongers and turn instead to the United
Nations for a sane and sensible direction. The words spoken in the
Assembly by the world's leading personalities should invoke in
mankind a spirit of hope and a sense of optimism for the future. But
we are yet to hear those words. We are yet to hear an attempt at
dialogue between the two super-Powers; we are yet to hear an attempt
at peace between warring neighbours in the Middle East; we are yet to
hear nations climb down from their nationalistic pedestals to the
table of peaceful discussion for the benefit of all mankind. What we
have heard is a discourse of the deaf; a mouthing of prearranged
statements with no interest in response or reply. Statements have not
been made for the benefit of other nations, let alone the world; they
have been made for political mileage in national capitals.
In that context the report of the Secretary- General on the work of
the Organization is both important and timely, for its summons us to
recall the principles of the Charter and to review the Mechanisms of
the Organization in order to make this body strong, not sterile;
decisive, not dilatory; functional, not ornamental. It warns us that
in a world fraught with tension and peril the United Nations is
indispensable. The Secretary-General's report has identified a number
of important ways in which the effectiveness of the United Nations
could be improved and enhanced, particularly in regard to collective
international security. Therecommendations, especially the call for a
meeting of the Security Council at the highest possible level to
discuss the problems of the United Nations, should be given the
support of all Member States. In my view, part of the agenda of that
meeting should be consideration of how much more effective the United
Nations might be if we ended the veto system provided for the
permanent membership of the Security Council. The concept of a veto
was developed at the end of the Second World War when a few nations
held dominion over many. But surely the results of a war, in whose
creation the majority of the world's people played no part, should
not continue to advise the procedures of the Security Council on an
everlasting basis.
In his report the Secretary-General has himself said that
"allegations of partisanship" have been used by some Member States to
justify side-tracking the Security Council. He has called on us to
"take such matters with the utmost seriousness and ask ourselves what
justifications, if any, there are for them and what can be done to
restore the Council to the position of influence it was given in the
Charter".
There is no doubt that there exists among Member States a genuine
fear that in certain circumstances members of the Security Council
could act in a partisan manner. In fact recent history has shown that
the veto has been used to safeguard narrow national interests in
defiance of world opinion and the decisions of the Assembly. The use
of the veto in such a manner does not inspire confidence in the
Security Council.
In this context my delegation contends that the most effective action
that can be taken to restore the Council to the position of influence
which the Charter intended for it is to end the veto system and to
democratize the process of decision-making.
Even as I state my delegation's position I am sadly aware that it has
little chance of becoming a reality, for those that hold power seldom
relinquish it willingly. None the less that is precisely why I state
it, for the attention of the Organization and other international
organizations must be focused on their collective impotence to
meaningfully address the problems of the world while the will of s
few dominates the aspirations of the many.
As we consider the issues about which the many in the Organization
have been concerned, we are struck by the dismal record of failure
which confronts us. Let us first examine efforts in the Assembly to
bring about change in the global economic arrangements. Although 1981
was the date set for the completion of global negotiations on trade,
energy, raw materials, development finance and monetary issues, the
few have ensured that this body has failed to produce agreement even
on the procedures for such negotiations. Discussion on the global
negotiations has been shunted from the thirty-sixth to the
thirty-seventh session of the Assembly. While this delaying game has
been played in the United Nations the prospects for growth and
development in poor countries have been diminished by similar actions
in other international organizations. At the recent joint meeting of
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group in Toronto
the few ensured that an urgent call by the Group of 24 for an
increase in the Fund's quotas of not less than 100 per cent would be
ignored. Equally, efforts to persuade donors to the International
Development Association to improve their contributions in view of the
Association's vital importance to poor countries met with only
partial success.
Developing countries have not only been denied the opportunity to
discuss a framework for an international economic system based on the
fundamentals of social justice and equality; they have also
experienced a reduction in the quantum of badly needed assistance.
Official development assistance from the Western industrialized
nations decreased by 4 per cent in real terms in 1981. Official
development assistance from the Eastern European countries, including
the Soviet Union, is of course selective, and these countries have
yet to show any interest in the international dialogue on aid, though
they are active participants, to their own benefit, in the process of
trade.
Only a few nations provided more than 0.7 per cent of their gross
domestic product, which this body established as a desirable minimum,
in the form of assistance. Those countries have the gratitude of the
developing world; they deserve the respect of the international
community as a whole. They are Denmark, France, the Netherlands,
Norway and Sweden, from Europe, and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates, three major donor countries that are members of
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which gave 3.02
per cent of their gross national product in 1980.
It is true that by providing aid in the volume that they have those
donors have greatly assisted poor third-world States which are the
worst victims of the current recession. But those donors have also
rendered a service to the global community, especially the rich, for
the third world countries are now the biggest market for the goods of
the industrialized nations. For instance, one in every 18 jobs in the
United States is in manufacturing for the third world. In such
circumstances it is in the interests of all, including the
industrialized nations, for third world States to survive. For if we
are unable to purchase goods produced by the developed States they
will lose many more millions of jobs, and that may be the trigger for
those violent reactions which have not yet erupted in the streets.
I have already mentioned our failure to advance the global
negotiations and the reduction of aid to developing countries as
setbacks to a prosperous global economy. Let me now add
protectionism. The protectionism practiced by some developed States
is the short-term answer to the problems of adjustment raised by the
current recession. It is believed in some capitals that by shutting
out the goods of developing countries local production will be
stimulated to the benefit of the national economy.
The evidence against that argument is now well known. Indeed recent
studies have shown that between
and 1977 protectionist measures imposed by the United States on goods
imported from Latin America and the Caribbean resulted in a loss to
consumers of $1,250 million for carbon steel, $1,200 million for
footwear, $660 million for sugar, $400 million to $800 million for
meat, and $500 million for television sets-a total of $4 billion for
these five items. The cost to the consumer for every job protected
was more than $50,000 per year. I submit that the national economy
did not benefit in the long run.
In this time of disarray in the world economy it is crucially
important to establish an international trading system in which the
developing countries are accorded a fair and equitable place.
Therefore we call on Governments represented in the Assembly to
approach the GATT Ministerial Meeting in November with the will to
return to a set of agreed principles and rules applying to all
international trade and providing a recognizable and ordered
framework within which it can grow. Therein, we believe, lies the
basis for promoting a sound world economy.
Failure to achieve change in global economic arrangements is not the
only example of the -Assembly's resolve to right wrongs being
thwarted. South Africa is yet another burning example.
South Africa continues to be a running sore upon the face of this
earth. The inhuman system of apartheid has gone beyond excess in its
brutality against the black majority. The iniquities of its regime
continue to mock the authority of this body. And what is
reprehensible about the success of the South African regime is that
Pretoria has received tacit support from many large transnational and
some of the very Governments which sit in this Hall.
Many will plead that, although they have a connection with South
Africa, they decry and bemoan the system is simply an excuse, for
they are as aware as we are, though perhaps not as painfully, that
any support given to Pretoria serves only to strengthen the regime
and intensify its atrocities.
Those atrocities are now legion: the permanent imprisonment of South
African blacks for the crime of believing that they have a right to
be free; the sentencing to death of young men because they fought to
wrest their country from minority control; the dumping of hundreds of
thousands of black South Africans in hastily created Bantustans in
order to deprive them of citizenship in the land of their birth.
We do not appear to have much chance of addressing the problem of
South Africa in the comprehensive manner which it demands if we are
unable to compel Member States to comply with our resolutions. We do
not appear to have much chance of isolating the virus of South
Africa, when a Committee established by the General Assembly in to
draft an international convention against in sports is unable to
present an agreed convention six years later.
But we must continue to try, for what is happening in South Africa is
a mark against all mankind, an assault on our decency, violence to
our world as human beings. It requires every Government represented
in the Assembly to support efforts to uphold creative ways in which
the wrongs in South Africa can be put right. Not least amongst our
efforts must be the full implementation of Security Council
resolution 435 (1978), which establishes the framework for the
independence of Namibia. The freedom of the people of Namibia must no
longer be blocked by the perpetrators in Pretoria of the wicked
system of apartheid must it be delayed by any attempt to link it with
the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. The independence of the
Namibian people is just, justified and justifiable; it should not be
used to serve the national interests of other countries. I wish I
could point to the Middle East as an area where the United Nations
has been effective, for if this were true thousands of lives would
have been spared, cities would have been saved from ruin, and
millions of dollars would have been channelled into improving rather
than destroying societies. Unfortunately, the principles of the
Charter have been flagrantly disregarded and resolutions of the
Security Council have been wilfully ignored. Consequently, the people
of the Middle East, who have suffered so agonizingly long, have found
no respite from the pain of war.
The recent massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut was a
cold-blooded and brutal act of barbarism. It goes beyond merely
epitomizing the tragedy of the Middle East; it adds a new dimension
to the horrors of the confrontation. Lebanon has become the bleeding
heart of the world. Its anguish is shared in every man's conscience.
This country deserves the urgent support of the international
community to bind its wounds, restore its national pride and
reconstruct its economy. The Israeli forces could now be helpful to
that process if they were to withdraw immediately from Lebanese
territory.
The tragedy of Lebanon points once again to the manner in which some
nations are willing to bypass the United Nations and to disregard its
peacekeeping roles. The fact that a search for a solution to the
Middle East problems is going on and that a peace-keeping force is in
Lebanon without the involvement of the Security Council considerably
dilutes the worth of the Organization. It makes small countries like
mine wonder about the purpose of coming here at a cost we cannot
afford, when the United Nations is dismissed by those who are its
greatest power- brokers.
Central to the issue which has wrought such catastrophe in the Middle
East is the Fight of the Palestinian people to self-determination and
their further right to a land of their own in the West Bank and Gaza.
These legitimate rights of the Palestinian people must be satisfied,
and my Government will steadfastly support every initiative to secure
those rights for the Palestinian people, while recognizing that
Israel also has a right to exist securely within agreed and
recognized boundaries. In any event, as my country has opposed
acquisition of territory by force in our own Latin America and
recently in the South Atlantic, so we oppose similar acts of
aggression in the Middle East. The conflict between Iraq and the
Islamic Republic of Iran is another instance of the United Nations
being ignored. This two-year military engagement has also cost many
thousands of lives. It has been particularly savage, with
prisoners-of-war on one side being slaughtered in contravention of
their rights as prisoners. We appeal to both countries to renew their
commitment to the Charter and to end this bloody conflict, by
complying with Security Council resolutions 514 (1982) and 522
(1982). In doing so, they would ease the suffering of both their
peoples, who have been the greatest losers in the confrontation.
One cannot help but wonder how many thousands of lives would have
been saved, how much destruction averted and how much real
development achieved had the Assembly's work on disarmament positive
results rather than unmitigated failure. Much was expected from the
second special session devoted to disarmament held earlier this year,
particularly as tension heightened in so many parts of the world. Not
least among those who had high expectations of the disarmament
session were hundreds of thousands of young people all over the
world. This summer they openly demonstrated in major cities,
including here in New York, the seat of the United Nations. The
protests of this generation against the continuous, unrelenting
stockpiling of weapons have broken out like a rash. It is a rash of
resistance, an epidemic of health in an otherwise unhealthy world.
Many of those young people associate the failure to halt the arms
race with the ineffectiveness of the Assembly, for in the creation of
the United Nations did not Governments enshrine in the Charter a role
for collective security? Did they not promise mankind to make the
world a safe place in which to live? Did they not extend the hope of
an enduring respite from the horrors of war?
A generation has come to maturity with conventional wars and the
threat of nuclear war still menacing their lives. They are not
content that it should remain so. They want a broader, more
comprehensive response from Governments, and it is obvious that such
a response must be practical steps to arrest the arms race and to
devise a system of collective security which demands of each nation a
commitment to the protection of mankind as a whole.
The arms race competes with development objectives. It not only robs
the productive process of resources, it also deprives humanity of the
funds needed to improve the quality of life. It not only creates
international tension, it stagnates national economies.
There are shocking statistics available to all who would pay
attention. Funds allocated for technical assistance to all developing
countries for the next five years are less than will be spent on
weapons in the next five days. Developing countries received
approximately $20 billion in assistance from industrialized nations
last year; this year the United States alone will spend $18 billion
on exploring the military uses of outer space. Total military
spending' last year was $700 billion. That sum totals more than the
entire income of 1,500 million people living in the 50 poorest
countries.
We should all consider what those funds would mean to the quality of
life in developing countries if a portion were released for
development assistance. Moreover, the rich nations should consider
what effect the release of such funds would have on the productive
sectors of their own economies, on jobs for their own young people
and on health care for their old.
My delegation was pleased to see a report this week that the chairmen
of the biggest corporations in the United States, including many of
those that count on the Pentagon for their business, have called for
a cut in military spending. Although their objective may be confined
to narrow national concerns in the United States, it is at least an
acknowledgement by a powerful group that military spending is not
sacrosanct.
A halt to the arms race has become a matter for urgent global action in the cause
of mankind's survival. The Assembly would fail to satisfy the noble
ideals for which the United Nations was established if we turn a deaf
ear to the eloquent calls for peace and a halt to the arms race that
have echoed so profoundly across so many continents.
The depression of the 1930s and the Second World War were followed by
unprecedented international co-operative efforts to reconstruct the
world economy. The international economic order, which was
established as a result of those efforts, can no longer cope with the
realities of the 1980s, but the efforts which attended its creation
are worthy of emulation. For it is a similar kind of international
effort which our global community requires today, one which includes
countries of the North and South, the East and West.
Such an effort must have as its goal a vision of how the world could
be if there were a will by Governments to make it so. It should be a
vision which acknowledges the pluralistic nature of our societies,
accepts the inevitability of our economic interdependence and
resolves that our children should inherit a peaceful and prosperous
planet.
The Assembly is in a unique position to help mankind establish that
vision, for the conditions outside this building-in the cities and
rural dwellings of our many countries-demand urgent change. It is a
task which should be embraced with alacrity, for future generations
will judge us harshly if, despite our recognition of a need to act,
we sacrifice long- term global well-being for short-term national
gains. Antigua and Barbuda stands committed to help make such a
vision a reality.