First of all, I should like to address to you,
Sir, the warm congratulations of the Algerian
delegation on your accession to the important
position of President of the General Assembly. We
are particularly glad to see you assume this
difficult responsibility because you represent a
country, Hungary, with which Algeria has
established excellent relations of friendship and
co-operation. You have succeeded Mr. Kittani, who
for one year placed his great experience and
ability as an accomplished diplomat at the
service of the Organization. I should also like
to congratulate Mr. Perez de Cuellar for the
dynamism he has shown in discharging his mandate
since his election to the high post of
Secretary-General.
The Assembly is faced from one session to another
with the same challenge of how to build a truly
universal peace. The fact that this is almost a
permanent challenge might lead one to believe
that the United Nations can only continue to wish
for beneficial achievements which would give full
significance to the concepts of convergence and
harmonization on which this assembly of nations
is based.
In the statements made since the opening of the
general debate the same concern has emerged over
the crisis in international relations as a whole
and the serious problems facing our world. There
have been two points that we have all been
obliged to make: first, the lucid analyses that
from year to year have highlighted the primary
causes of the critical state of our world and the
dangers for the future of mankind; secondly, the
international community's inability resolutely to
tackle these primary causes and prevent these
dangers.
But promoting true peace requires that we go
beyond simply being aware of the dreadful
realities of international life; nor can it
simply be reduced to diagnosing, however correct
our diagnosis may be. What is certainly needed is
a break, a change, in attitude and conduct which
have broadened tension and insecurity. Unless we
have such a break, such a change, the
international community will not be able to put
an end to systematic violations of the principles
of the Charter.
In these circumstances, we can hardly be
surprised that the picture of our world today is
one of anarchy where the unleashing of unbridled
force crushing the elementary principles and
values of law shows the failure of policies based
only on power plays and relationships of force.
The tragedy of the Palestinian people is the most
dramatic illustration of this. Indeed, the
Palestinian problem, which has dominated
international affairs and the work of the
Organization this entire past year, is the most
significant and disturbing example of the crisis
of the world today. The denial of justice to the
Palestinian people has made this issue a major
crisis of our age, one that leads to the most
serious dangers for international peace and
security.
The crime against humanity which was perpetrated
in Beirut and witnessed by the entire world was
committed when a situation had lasted for too
long, one in which an entire people's right to
live was denied. That crime was perpetrated
because of constant encouragement and unlimited
resources given to the Zionist policy of
aggression. Can we add to that horror by
emphasizing the fact that it was only after the
departure of their defenders that thousands of
women and children were massacred?
Is there any need for me to recall that the
Palestine Liberation Organization decided on
withdrawal of its armed forces, not because it
was reluctant to sacrifice its fighters, but
precisely out of respect for a civilian
population which had paid with its blood a noble
ransom of solidarity. What a contrast, what a
significant contrast, between infamy and respect
for human life. The PLO thus gave us proof of its
ability to use well its considerable political
and military resources to advance its cause. In
leaving that theatre of operation the PLO at the
same time broadened the strategic base of its
action and its hold on the people.
In the resolute struggle waged by the Palestinian
people under the leadership of thePLO, its sole
legitimate representative, the Beirut battle
symbolizes both the stubborn resistance and the
spirit of responsibility which prove the
authenticity of a national liberation war.
Therefore it would be wrong to expect a solution
in the Middle East without the Palestinian people
or against them. More than ever before, the
recognition of the national rights of the
Palestinian people, above all their right to
establish a State in their homeland, is essential
to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
This is moreover, the very substance of the
international community's consensus on a
settlement of the crisis in the Middle East. It
is the duty of the United Nations to fulfil its
responsibilities and make possible the
implementation of this consensus, thereby
ensuring a return to peace in the Middle East. It
must react with specific action and bold
decisions that at last ensure justice for the
Palestinian people.
The plots hatched against the Palestinian
resistance, like, those we see in other parts of
the world, force us to say that there seems to be
a planned policy for destroying solidarity, a
strategy for splitting regional and other
political groups, in order to turn back the tide
of history and re-establish imperial domination
in the third world countries faced with many
problems and trying despite a thousand
difficulties to find solutions in keeping with
the aspirations of their peoples.
Against this background certain actions against
the Organization of African Unity are of
particular concern to us. Its very birth bore
witness to the victories won through the struggle
of the African peoples in the decolonization
process, and OAU was from the outset a means of
completing this liberation of the continent in
all areas and a bulwark of African freedom a has
to its credit constant action in solidarity with
all freedom fighters and determination to go on
until it succeeds, it has inevitably become the
target of attempts to crush it.
Therefore, after all kinds of political, economic
and military pressures have been brought to bear
on it, attacks are now directed, through that
organization, against the very basis of unity and
solidarity in our continent. But the crisis of
OAU, although an African matter, is not
exceptional in nature and must be overcome by the
efforts and the determination of its members.
However, although these difficulties are
transitory, that does not lessen the
responsibility of those that caused them, and
cannot be used as a pretext for considering it
less necessary to search together, as in the
past, for solutions to the problems facing
Africa, the most important of which remains that
of eliminating colonialism and racist domination.
The tragedy being played out in the southern part
of Africa becomes grimmer with each passing day.
The policy of Apartheid universally condemned as
a crime against humanity, is also constantly
being expanded. The illegal occupation of Namibia
continues and is being consolidated, while brutal
aggression against African States in the region
is intensifying. This situation demands that the
international community continue to mobilize in
support of the cause of the South African people,
their emancipation and freedom to determine their
future. It also demands the imposition of a total
embargo and comprehensive sanctions against South
Africa. Only such a response can put an end to
the policy of defiance and aggression of the
Pretoria regime.
As regards Namibia, it is time for the
international consensus on the inalienable right
of the Namibian people to independence and the
legitimacy of its struggle, under the leadership
of its sole representative, SWAPO, to be given
practical effect. It is time for the Western
Powers that have the duty and the means of
influencing the policy of the Pretoria regime to
do what is incumbent on them and to shoulder
their responsibility, because they have a
commitment to the international community
concerning the process of independence for
Namibia.
In north-west Africa the conflict between the
people of Western Sahara and the occupying Power,
the Kingdom of Morocco, has been a matter of
constant concern to the international community
since 1975. It is thus natural that OAU and the
United Nations should have attempted to find a
just and definitive solution to this problem some
of the sidetracking of the process that should
have led to. the decolonization of Western
Sahara. The Organization, aware of the justice
and legitimacy of the struggle waged by the
people of Western Sahara, led by the POLISARIO,
has thus constantly called for the exercise by
the people of Western Sahara of their right
freely to determine their own future, and in
General Assembly resolution 36/46 called for
negotiations between Morocco and POLISARIO.
OAU, for its part, aware of the dangers of the
continuing conflict in the region, has made a
responsible attempt to find ways and means of
moving towards a solution consistent with its
charter and principles. Since OAU It is thus
encouraging to see that one of the two parties to
the conflict, the Sahraoui Arab Democratic
Republic, continues to demonstrate a high sense
of responsibility to the cause of peace and of
Africa by expressing its willingness to seek a
political settlement. It simply remains for us to
hope that the voice of reason, or simply common
sense, will end by triumphing and that there will
be victory for a national liberation cause that
has been recognized as such by the international
community and that this will make it possible to
marshal all enemies and exploit all wealth for
the greater benefit of the fraternal peoples of
the region, united by the same historical
experience and a common future.
Disturbing trends in international affairs, in
the form of hotbeds of tension in the third
world, are also to be found in the serious
barriers to promotion of a true international
dialogue. Whether it be disarmament or
international economic relations, we can see a
paralysis in the channels of negotiation, a
disruption of the machinery of consultations.
Against this background, the recognized failure
of the second special session of the General
Assembly on disarmament reveals the difficulties
and the infernal logic of this kind of
confrontation. While the international community
came to the lofty conclusion that security cannot
be achieved by a build-up of arms, and while
there has been a tenfold increase in destructive
potential of the arsenals of the nuclear Powers
to destroy the entire human species, the
opportunity of moving forward in international
negotiations on disarmament, getting us out of
the rut of the discussions of the past, has not
been seized. However, on this vital issue where
the data is perfectly clearly established, there
was some hope that the rivalry in the unbridled
arms race would eventually yield to rivalry in
announcing concrete and effective measures for
disarmament.
However, it must be recognized that the call to
reason and the expectations and hopes of our
peoples have met no response. Furthermore, the
conceptual edifice patiently built in the Final
Document of the Tenth Special Session of the
General Assembly, of 1978, has on occasion been
challenged in the principles and priorities it
established, and this shows that there has been a
move backwards in political commitment to true
disarmament. This serious regression was
naturally accompanied by increased activity on
the part of imperialism and by geo- strategic
maneuvers in the third world. This activism was
reflected, by obstacles being increasingly
placed in the way of the national liberation
struggle of the peoples, an increase in policies
of intervention and destabilization, the
reactivation and opening of military bases and a
frantic search for military facilities for
interventionist purposes.
The Indian Ocean was proclaimed a zone of peace
by the United Nations, and yet there is military
competition and unequalled rivalry there and also
in the Mediterranean, where we have the same
foreign presence against the wishes of the
non-aligned coastal States. Even Cyprus, a
peaceful island, is living in a situation that is
simply incompatiblewith its own nature as an
open-hearted meeting-place for civilizations and
as an independent and non-aligned country.
Throughout the third world, in Africa, in Asia
and in Latin America, there is an increase in the
number of attempts being made to stifle the
forces of progress by resorting to intimidation
and destabilization techniques, and denying the
peoples' right freely to choose their political
system and their own path of development.
In international economic relations, the present
situation is extremely disturbing. Inseparable
from the deterioration in the international
political environment, the world economic crisis
is deepening and worsening. The international
economic system, a source of inequality and a
privileged area in terms of continuing
relationships of domination, is now prey to major
upheavals. The disruption in the world economy
highlights the intrinsic limits of an order that
is doomed because it has not adapted to the
development needs of two thirds of the human
race. The haphazard measures that have been
advocated by the developed countries simply do
not work, and this is additional proof that the
order is collapsing.
Against this background, it is hardly surprising
that the economic situation of the developing
countries should have continued to deteriorate.
When we look regularly at the balance sheets, we
can see that there has been a continued increase
in poverty and the ravages of hunger. Under
development of two thirds of the human race is
one of the main features of the world ted ay, and
the gloomy prospects in view of continuing trends
over the years and decades to come are indeed
threatening.
This precarious world economic situation
highlights more than ever before the need for a
fair restructuring of this anachronistic
framework and of the unequal rules that currently
govern international relations. In that
connection, the developing countries have spared
no effort to prelaunch the dialogue with the
developed countries—a comprehensive, responsible
dialogue taking account of the realities of the
developing world and of the growing
interdependence of the world economies; a
dialogue covering all the major issues
simultaneously and in a consistent, interrelated
way; a dialogue which, with universal, democratic
participation, would presage our final objective
of democratizing international economic relations.
Those were the bases on which the non-aligned
countries and the Group of 77 conceived the
initiative of global negotiations on
international economic co-operation for
development—an initiative that won the consensus
support of the international community with the
adoption in 1979 of General Assembly resolution
34/138. At a time when the Second United Nations
Development Decade was ending on a strikingly
unproductive note, the adoption of that
resolution sparked hopes that the developed
countries would finally evince the political will
to launch a significant common effort for the
benefit of one and all. Throughout the past three
years the Group of 77 has demonstrated
flexibility and has been open t^ dialogue; it has
played a dynamic and constructive role in the
search for a commonly acceptable basis for the
launching of those global negotiations.
In 1980, at the eleventh special session of the
General Assembly, devoted to economic issues, the
Group of 77 contributed act national community.
Since then several proposals have been made, with
due regard for the requirements of the minority
that did not join the consensus. Thus the Group
of 77 took the initiative of putting forward a
proposal with three options, with a view to
making possible the urgent launching of the
global negotiations. Unfortunately, the three
options were not accepted—although there was no
real negotiation at all. Despite that rejection,
the Group of 77 once again demonstrated a
constructive spirit by taking another initiative
in the hope of removing all doubts weighing on
the launching of global negotiations. The
industrialized countries, however, felt it
necessary to submit four amendments to that
proposal, the productof tremendous compromise.
The Group of 77 carefully and responsibly studied
those amendments, thus demonstrating again its
willingness to co-operate fruitfully, and decided
to accept two of the four amendments proposed.
However, inasmuch as the other two proposed
amendments questioned resolution 34/138 as the
political framework for the global negotiations
and called into question the delicate balance
between the central role of the General Assembly
in the conduct of the global negotiations and the
particular role of the specialized agencies, the
Group of 77 was unable to accept them. Hence we
venture to hope that the compromise proposals of
the Group of 77 will eventually be accepted.
During this period of deteriorating international
economic relations and given the impasse in the
North-South dialogue, South-South co-operation
takes on particular importance. As a parallel and
supplement to the efforts at a North-South
dialogue, South-South co-operation is part of the
major project of establishing the new
international economic order. It is in that
context that the developing countries have traced
a framework and defined the operational
instruments for the constant strengthening of
their individual and collective autonomy. The
Group of 77, aware that its strength lies in
unity among its ranks and in cohesion in its
approach, thus offers a new basis for reinforcing
its solidarity. A year after the adoption of the
Caracas Programme of Action, its implementation
has begun with the faith and determination that
nurture great hopes.
It is in that international atmosphere that
Algeria, having survived more than a hundred
years of darkness, celebrated the twentieth
anniversary of its independence. Having fully
recovered its attributes as a State, Algeria
undertook to consolidate its political
independence by meeting the requirements of
economic independence. Eager to preserve its
dearly reconquered sovereignty and desirous of
mutually beneficial international co-operation,
Algeria opted for a foreign policy governed by
principle and molded in the common destiny which
is based on its belonging to the Arab world, the
African world, the Moslem world and the third
world. At the same time, it codified in its
national charter and Constitution the fundamental
principles of a diplomatic policy which sets
peace and development, so intimately related, as
its objective, and the principles of the United
Nations as the inviolable guide of its conduct.
Having rediscovered the benefits of peace,
Algeria undertook to promote in good faith, at
the sub regional level, a policy of positive
good-neighbor-liness which embodied the principle
of the inviolability of frontiers and called for
political harmonization and broad-ranging
co-operation. This approach was also reflected in
our strong belief in the ideals of Arab unity and
African unity, and all efforts to consolidate the
basis of our effective solidarity and the
harmonious working together of the two groups.
Lending our voice to the community of the
oppressed, within which we forged our deep
beliefs and well-tested friendships, and the
world of the deprived, whose situation and
aspirations we share, Algeria is working to
establish international relations free of any
tinge of domination or exploitation. We are doing
this with perseverance within the United Nations
and within other groups to which we belong.
Algeria is a founding member of the non-aligned
movement, and we have elevated non-alignment to a
clear commitment and a system of values, a
reference system which inspires our conduct and
determines the positions we take. We believe in a
great future for this movement, whose relevance
in today's world confirms its importance and the
correctness of its doctrine. We thus express our
deep belief that the Seventh Conference of Heads
of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries,
to be held at New Delhi, will help to strengthen
the cohesion and capacity for action of this
movement and strengthen its role in the
international arena.
Algeria's assessment of the role of the Organization is based on
that same premise and arises from the same
outlook. It is undeniable that the United Nations
has played a globally positive role, due account
being taken of the limits imposed on it both by
its very nature and by the will of the States of
which it is composed. Its movement towards
universality is proof that it is viewed as a
unique forum for reconciling views in order to
seek solutions to the problems of our world.
However, the many shortcomings that have led to
the paralysis of the Organization call for a
responsible consideration of its future, and
indeed this; something that the Secretary-General
invites us to do in his report on the work of the
Organization. The call for the democratization of
international relations and the legitimate desire
to strengthen the role of the United Nations and
to lift the Organization to the level of its
responsibilities, particularly in the field of
international peace and security, can no longer
be ignored.
The Secretary-General has highlighted the
deficiencies of the Organization, and thereby
emphasized the correctness of the political
position taken by a great majority of Member
States, and of our work on the present
functioning of the United Nations. World public
opinion can be harsh to the United Nations, but
we should think about it carefully, because the
United Nations is in fact based on a profession
of faith of our peoples, which it would be
dangerous to treat lightly.
Foremost among the factors that have immobilized
the Organization, while dangers are mounting and
all eyes of the veto in the Security Council,
which demonstrates the great gap that now exists
between the spirit of the rule of unanimity and
the use made of it are fixed on us, is
undoubtedly the abuse In view of this
development, which is increasingly prejudicial to
the credibility and effectiveness of the United
Nations, it is urgent that the international
community reconsider the way in which the
Security Council functions and subject it to a
strict review in the light of political ethics so
as to restore to that body its original purpose.
The vitality of the United Nations and its
ability to hold high those principles that
establish its moral strength could then be
demonstrated by its ability to establish and
preserve real universal peace.
If this session were to lead to a real
determination on the part of Member States truly
to make the United Nations the center for the
harmonization of the actions of nations in the
attainment of common ends, and if the most
powerful of them were to reflect that
determination in a change of attitude and
conduct, then we would have reason to encourage
our peoples' belief in the great future of the
Organization.