I should like first of all to congratulate the
President on his election to his office for this
session of the General Assembly. I am convinced
that, with his wide experience of the United
Nations, he will successfully carry out the
important tasks ahead of him. I should also like
to pay a tribute to the outgoing President of the
General Assembly, Mr. Kittani, who presided over
the previous session with great distinction and
skill. It gives me great pleasure to join the
many preceding speakers who have congratulated
the Secretary-General,
Mr. Perez de Cuellar, on his election to his high
office. In the exercise of his functions he has
already earned a reputation for great dedication
and integrity. I can assure him and his staff of
the Swedish Government's full support for their
endeavours in pursuit of international peace and
co-operation.
The international situation has increasingly
deteriorated since the late 1970s. We are living
in an era of distrust. The policy of detente has
been superseded by a policy of confrontation
between the super-Powers. A dialogue between the
United States and the Soviet Union has, it is
true, been initiated, but there is reason to be
sceptical about the possibility of its yielding
any quick results. We must, by our concerted
efforts, reverse these trends.
My country has chosen to pursue a policy of
neutrality, one of non-participation in alliances
in peace time and neutrality in the event of war.
This policy, supported by a strong defence
relative to our situation, contributes to the
calm and stability in our part of the world. We
shall pursue this policy with firmness and
consistency.
Swedish territory will be protected from
violations with all available means. Such
violations will be treated with equal
determination, no matter whence they emanate.
International law gives us the right and the duty
to safeguard our sovereignty and territorial
integrity. Let no one entertain fears or
expectations that Sweden would, even under strong
external pressure, abandon its policy of
neutrality.
Our policy of neutrality does not, however,
condemn us to silence or passivity. On the
contrary, it challenges us to pursue an active
foreign policy in the cause of peace, freedom and
international co-operation.
Sweden will, in accordance with its traditions,
seek to promote peaceful solutions and to play an
intermediary role in international conflicts. In
common with so many others, we have three
fundamental values to safeguard, namely,
sovereignty, security and solidarity.
All our considerations must start from the right
of peoples to determine their own future.
National sovereignty is the foundation of
political legitimacy in international contexts.
This is self-evident, but not uncontested.
Peoples have had to struggle for their
independence, and that struggle is still going
on. More than 100 States have gained their
independence in recent decades. But they know, as
do all other small and medium-sized States, that
in a world dominated by great Powers and powerful
transnational economic interests, this is a
struggle that must go on for a long time to come.
The real content of sovereignty is largely
conditioned by the ability to pursue an
independent, effective economic policy.
Against that background it is not surprising that
the movement of non-aligned countries has
attracted such a large membership and has shown
such great vitality, despite internal crises and
conflicts of interests. National sovereignty must
always be safeguarded. One recent example of the
violation of this principle is Israel's invasion
of Lebanon. By invading Lebanon, Israel has
demonstrated indifference to the principles of
the Charter and of international law. It is a
tragedy that the State in whose creation the
United Nations played such a decisive role now
acts in a way that counteracts the authority of
the Organization. The international community has
rightly condemned Israel's assault and demanded
the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its
troops.
Sweden has on repeated occasions condemned acts of terrorism perpetrated against
Israel. But in our view these can never justify
what has now taken place in Lebanon.
The massacre of Palestinians in Beirut aroused
feelings of horror and disgust in my country. The
immediate responsibility for these crimes rests
with their perpetrators. But this outrage would
not have been possible had its perpetrators not
been allowed into the camps.
Thirty-five years have now passed and five wars
have been fought in the region since the adoption
of the United Nations partition plan for
Palestine. A just and. realistic solution
presupposes that Israel and the PLO acknowledge
one another as negotiating parties. The PLO must
recognize Israel's right to live within secure
and recognized borders. Israel must, for its
part, recognize the Palestinians' right to
determine their own future, including the right
to establish a State of their own, in the spirit
of the original partition plan.
The borders existing before the 1967 war are more
time-honoured and internationally recognized than
any others. Obviously, the two parties must be at
liberty to agree between themselves on
adjustments of these borders which both can
accept.
The Israeli Government's claim of supremacy over
the occupied areas has no basis in international
law. The settlements policy pursued in these
areas constitutes a serious obstacle to the
efforts to solve the problems of the Middle East.
The acquisition of territory by force cannot be
tolerated. Israel must discontinue its occupation
of the areas it captured in 1967. A solution must
also include arrangements as regards Jerusalem
which guarantee the right of free access to the
Holy Places for all religious worshippers,
regardless of nationality.
The various proposals and plans recently put
forward from different quarters contain many
constructive elements. Together with Security
Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)
they should be able to form the basis of a
lasting peace in the Middle East.
For the United Nations to play a role in solving
the conflict, it is necessary that Israel remain
a Member of the United Nations and that the FLO
continue to be able to present its views before
this forum. My Government disassociates itself
from any attempt to deprive Israel of its
membership or to limit it. To be elective the
United Nations must rest on the principle of
universality.
The Soviet Union has occupied Afghanistan for
nearly three years now. The Assembly has
condemned this brutal assault. But the Soviet
troops are still there, and reports leak out
about continued assaults on the civilian
population. This is all the more serious when we
consider the fact that the Soviet Union is a
permanent member of the Security Council with
special responsibility to uphold the principles
of the Charter relating to peace and security. We
demand that the Soviet troops leave Afghanistan,
and we hope that the talks which have now begun
under the auspices of the United Nations will be
able to create the conditions necessary for a
durable settlement of this issue.
The right to determine their own future without
interference from outside is also the due of the
people in Kampuchea. There, too, a peaceful
solution must be found in accordance with the
principles of the Charter, and the foreign troops
must be withdrawn. In recent months some signs of
an incipient dialogue between the countries in
the region have been evident. We welcome this as
a step in the right direction.
Namibia is still being denied by armed force its
self-evident right to national independence.
South Africa's illegal occupation of the country
is in flagrant defiance of United Nations
resolutions. South Africa continues to delay the
United Nations plan for Namibia. This plan is the
only course for achieving a peaceful and
democratic solution. There is a risk that this
course will be abandoned if elements alien to the
United Nations plan are introduced into the
negotiations on Namibia. The countries in the
contact group bear a special responsibility for
ensuring that the liberation of Namibia is not
further delayed.
South Africa is constantly guilty of subversion
and armed aggression against the States
neighbouring it. It is not enough to condemn
these lawless pursuits. The South African
Government should be subjected to increased and
effective pressure from the United Nations as a
peaceful means for achieving the abolition of the
system. The Security Council should, as
quickly as possible, impose comprehensive
mandatory sanctions against South Africa. We are
surprised to hear from States which have resorted
to sanctions in several other contexts outside
the United Nations framework that sanctions
against South Africa would not be effective.
The international community must give the
afflicted States and liberation movements in
southern Africa all the political, economic and
humanitarian assistance it can mobilize.
The ever-growing use of force in various parts of
the world is a cause of concern. The Charter
contains a clear and unequivocal prohibition of
the use of force in international relations. This
is one of the foundations of international law.
In our time, the issues of national security have
assumed a new dimension. Beyond the question of
who is right or wrong in a conflict, there looms
the greater question of the survival of mankind.
In the world of the super-Powers, one side cannot
achieve security at the expense of the other. We
must, together, try to find common security for
everyone's survival.
Nuclear weapons have changed the rules of the
game. If that ultimate weapon is used, the result
will be collective suicide. We must create the
political conditions which will ensure that
weapons of mass destruction will never be used.
In Europe, considerable headway had been made in
the process of detente at the beginning of the
1970s. The two military pacts were on the way to
finding a new way based on an approximate balance
of military power and on mutual respect.
Relations between the two German States improved.
Willy Brandt's was a pioneer achievement.
Contacts developed across the borders between
individuals and peoples. The increase in economic
exchange was of mutual benefit. Detente between
the super-Powers provided greater scope for small
and medium- sized States in the region to have
their legitimate interests respected. The
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
held at Helsinki laid the foundation for
continued peaceful relations between the States
of Europe.
The process of detente must be resumed and
carried forward. National security is promoted by
extensive exchanges across borders in the
interests of all parties. The common interest in
peaceful development will then grow.
At their meeting in Stockholm in August, the
Foreign Ministers of the neutral and non-aligned
States in Europe declared their intention to play
an active and constructive role in the meeting of
the Conference on Security and Co-operation in
Europe to be resumed at Madrid. Provided the two
super-Powers show a minimum degree of willingness
to compromise, at that meeting the Conference
should be able to achieve a comprehensive and
balanced final document on the basis of the
Helsinki Final Act and also to decide on the
convening of a conference for disarmament in
Europe.
In our part of Europe, close and trustful
cooperation has existed for many years. There are
no nuclear weapons in the Nordic countries. It is
essential that this situation remain unchanged.
Sweden is striving to achieve agreements which,
among other things, will make the Nordic region a
nuclear-weapon- free zone. Agreements of that
kind can ease the tension between the blocs and
reduce the risk of those countries being
subjected to nuclear attack.
In Europe, there is the most horrifying
accumulation of weapons of destruction anywhere
in the world or at any time in history, as well
as the largest standing armies. It is a prepared
battlefield. Nevertheless, we must not in Africa,
Asia and Latin America that the wars have been
fought, ever since the end of the Second World
War. Those wars have already claimed, and are
still claiming, innumerable victims. Starvation,
disease and deprivation follow in their wake.
AH this is very largely due to a colonialism
which is not so far back in the past. The world
is still shaken by the convulsions of liberation,
which are the more violent and the more prolonged
the longer the powers-that-be try to suppress the
peoples' struggle for independence.
In Central America, centuries of oppression have
given rise to a revolutionary situation. It is
absurd to claim that the workers, the farmers,
the students and the middle class have revolted
in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala because
some foreign Power asked them to do so. On the
other hand, it is obvious that a foreign
Power—the United States—plays a crucial role when
it comes to keeping tottering dictatorships on
their feet.
The violence in Central America is provoked by
those who oppose the demands of the people for a
bearable life. Peace in the region also
presupposes respect for the national independence
of all States. It is still possible to achieve
negotiated solutions and put an end to the
bloodbath. More and more Governments, both in
Europe and Latin America, are joining the call
for a political solution in the region.
Fundamental national security may not and cannot
be won at the expense of the freedom and
development possibilities of other nations.
Peaceful development on reasonable terms for
everyone presupposes solidarity. The demand for
solidarity must be equally strong whether it
applies to individuals in the struggle for human
rights or to nations in the struggle for
international justice.
In our neighbouring country Poland, the central
trade union confederation, Solidarity, has bee-a
declared illegal. The military take-over shucked
us deeply. The process of democratization was
interrupted, and fundamental human rights are
still being trampled underfoot, in contravention
of the Helsinki Final Act. And thus, the dream of
genuine reform has been temporarily shattered. If
real dialogue and reconciliation are to be
achieved in Poland, martial law must be lifted,
imprisoned and interned trade union leaders and
other political prisoners must be released and
trade union activities must be allowed to be
carried on freely, in accordance with ILO
Conventions which Poland has undertaken to
resect. The strikes and protests of the last few
days confirm the fact that the Polish workers are
not prepared to accept an imposed model for their
trade union activities.
Our protests also apply to the military
dictatorship in Turkey, where political parties
are banned and trade unions are prevented from
working freely. The regime's opponents are
subjected to mass arrests and mock trials.
Demands for democracy, for social justice, for
human dignity and for national independence are
made with the conviction in the East as in the
West, in the North as in the South. Oppression
may assume different guises and forms, but it
causes its victims the same human suffering, the
same enslavement. Our solidarity must therefore
never be one-sided.
It is obviously in the interest of all to have
rules governing political relations. Presumably
they also wish to have rules governing economic
exchanges. But in the long run, rules of this
kind work only if they can satisfy the legitimate
interests of all parties.
World trade and world production have been
experiencing the deepest crisis of the post-war
period for several years now. The international
system of payments is creaking at the joints. The
world has been confronted by acute and chronic
problems in regard to its supplies of energy. The
North-South dialogue has become a series of
parallel monologues. Small countries have a
particular interest in trying to strengthen
international co-operation. In the prevailing
economic situation, the GATT Ministerial Meeting
and the coming world trade conference will be of
great importance.
For three years we have been trying in vain to
agree on a formula for global economic
negotiations. There is, however, the capacity in
the United Nations system to negotiate the
answers to at least the most urgent questions and
there is, after all, little difference in
positions as regards the initiation of the global
negotiations. A few years ago the Independent
Commission on International Development Issues,
under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt, presented
a report with the challenging title. The members
of the Commission were people of varying
political convictions and geographic origin;
nevertheless they succeeded in arriving at common
conclusions. Their report becomes increasingly
valid.
A common strategy is needed to solve the growing
problems of the international payments system.
More and more countries are staggering under a
debt burden which stifles expansion potential not
only for the countries themselves but also for
their trading partners. Transfer of resources
must be increased and as far as possible reformed
in order to make them more automatic and
predictable. The need for concessional resources
is particularly great for the poorest countries.
A common strategy is necessary also for the
adjustment of world trade to new realities. One
such reality is the industrial development of the
developing countries.
Sweden is among those countries which, as a
result of their own experience, regard free trade
as extremely beneficial. The industrialized
countries must now demonstrate that they are
prepared to allow other countries and peoples to
enjoy the fruits of free trade. An adjustment of
this kind must take place, with account being
taken of two conflicting but equally legitimate
interests: the need of the developing countries
to create sufficient resources so that they can
participate in trade for their own benefit and
the need of the traditionally industrialized
countries to realign their production without
creating even greater unemployment.
The countries producing raw materials must
receive reasonable and foreseeable incomes from
their production and gradually acquire the
capacity to process a much greater proportion of
their own raw materials. No country should be
confined to the role of mere suppliers of raw
materials.
In a world marked by heightened antagonism
between the great Powers it is essential to
emphasize the possibilities which none the less
are available. The Independent Commission on
Disarmament and Security Issues, under the
chairmanship of Olof Palme, consisted, like the
Brandt Commission, of people with varying
backgrounds and political convictions. In spite
of considerable conflict of interests, they also
managed to achieve a measure of mutual
understanding. Allow me to comment briefly on a
few points. The Commission proposes a total ban
on nuclear-weapon tests. This has long been the
central issue in the disarmament negotiations.
Sweden has for its part, by its own proposals and
monitoring efforts, done all it can for the
attainment of this goal. I wish to indicate the
Swedish Government's satisfaction at the fact
that the Soviet Union has submitted to the
Assembly a draft agreement which is largely based
on previous common endeavours. It is our hope
that the other nuclear-weapon Powers will
demonstrate a corresponding will to negotiate, so
that agreement may finally be reached. May I also
emphasize that a test ban is a focal element in
the efforts to freeze the nuclear-weapon capacity
and to proceed to reductions. I am convinced that
the freeze idea will play an important role
during this session. In this context I wish to
express our appreciation of those popular
movements which work independently for
disarmament and peace. The military forces
stationed in Europe today are much larger than
can be justified by the security requirements of
the parties concerned. In fact, large balanced
reductions would increase security.
The vast number of nuclear weapons deployed in
Europe or targeted against that continent are the
source of special problems. Substantial
reductions of these arsenals of nuclear weapons
are necessary; but there is a connection between
nuclear weapons in Europe and balance between
East and West as regards conventional forces. One
condition for getting rid of nuclear weapons in
Europe is that both sides should also agree on a
rough parity in conventional forces. The
smaller—so-called battlefield—nuclear weapons in
Europe constitute a particular danger, as they
could be used at a very early stage of a
conflict. The Commission proposes that these
battlefield weapons be withdrawn from the most
forward positions and that a zone be created in
Europe which is entirely free of these weapons, a
zone which could stretch 150 kilometres on each
side of the East-West border. This idea has our
full support.
The Swedish Government attaches great importance
to all negotiations, such as those on mutual and
balanced force reductions and on theatre nuclear
forces and the planned European disarmament
conference, which aim in this way to reduce or
abolish the role of nuclear weapons in Europe.
The Commission also proposes an international
agreement on the total prohibition of chemical
weapons, as well as a chemical-weapon-free zone
in Europe. In the view of the Swedish Government,
the pre-conditions of implementing such an
arrangement for the purposes of
confidence-building should be examined more
closely. The proposal should also be used in the
extensive efforts being made in the disarmament
negotiations in Geneva to achieve the total
prohibition of all chemical weapons.
The most important instrument we have for
achieving common security is the United Nations.
It is encouraging that during this debate so many
Governments have emphasized that it should be
possible to use this instrument for preserving
peace and security in the world in a more
resolute way.
The Secretary-General has emphasized the
importance of this question by devoting the whole
of his first report on the work of the
Organization to it. His report is a clear-sighted
assessment of the international situation and of
the role of the United Nations in the
international system. By departing from the
standards and duties which we set ourselves in
the Charter of the United Nations we are as the
Secretary-General warns, "perilously near to a
new international anarchy".
No purpose of the United Nations is more
important than the maintenance of international
peace and security. Yet the United Nations has
repeatedly failed to realize that purpose and
never have the failures been more evident than in
the last few years. In the long run no
organization can survive if the members do not
respect its rules. The prohibition in the Charter
of the threat or use of force in relations
between States is absolute; so is the obligation
to use only peaceful means for the settlement of
international disputes.
We need a more active and imaginative approach by
the Security Council to potential conflict
situations. There are many ways of achieving
this. One is improved co-operation with the
Secretary-General, who has already announced his
intention to develop and activate the preventive
role foreseen for him under Article 99 of the
Charter.
A factor which has greatly contributed to the
erosion of the authority of the United Nations is
the repeated failure of the Security Council to
secure the implementation of its own decisions.
These are, according to the Charter, mandatory
for all Member States, and yet we have repeatedly
seen them flouted by those to whom they were
addressed. The Council must not, because of lack
of foresight or for some other reason, place the
Secretary-General in impossible situations but,
on the contrary, must give him all possible
support in the assignments he is given.
Many ideas similar to those tut forward by the
Secretary-General are to be found in the report
of the Palme Commission, to which I have already
referred. The report deals, with the need for
agreement among the permanent members of the
Security Council on early action primarily in
border countries in certain predetermined areas.
This would mean that in case of such conflicts it
would be possible to initiate action by the
United Nations in time to prevent the use of
force. In this way the risk of great-Power
rivalry in areas of conflict would diminish.
It is inevitable that the permanent members of
the Security Council, by virtue of the special
powers and ability to act vested in them by the
Charter, have special reason to reflect seriously
upon the role they play. To put it simply, the
United Nations cannot carry out its functions
without the full co-operation of the great
Powers, among themselves and with the rest of the
world. They should use that power and influence
for the purpose of making the ideals of the
United Nations come true. This session of the
General Assembly has been convened at a time when
many of the world's problems have assumed crisis
proportions. It is therefore only natural to
dwell particularly on the responsibility of the
United Nations for the maintenance of peace and
security, and its ability to contribute to a
solution of the economic crisis. The defence of
the principles of international law is a vital
task for the United Nations. This is a challenge
for the future. With the rapid advances in the
field of technology, more and more issues are of
a kind that cannot be solved by each State on its
own. Here we are faced with the necessity for
common solutions.
We must co-operate. The future always contains
both promise and threat. Let us together ward off
the threat and fulfil the promise.