My first and pleasant duty is to extend warm
felicitations and congratulations to the
President, a distinguished son of Hungary, upon
his unanimous election. I and the other members
of my delegation pledge our full cooperation with
him in his efforts to make this session of the
Assembly a successful one. May I at the same time
pay a tribute to Mr. Kittani of Iraq who, with
patience, tact and wisdom, guided the Assembly
through the various and bewildering demands of
the last year? We owe him a debt of gratitude.
May I also reiterate my congratulations to the
Secretary General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar of
Peru, on his election to this most important
office at this most critical period? I have
personally had the pleasure and good fortune of
working with him in earlier years when he gave
dedicated and unstinting service to his country
and to the Organization. The seriousness and
forthrightness which characterize the approach of
the Secretary General to the challenges facing
the Organization and its Member States have won
praise and well deserved recognition within the
Organization as well as outside it. We wish him
every success.
The Secretary General aptly observed in his frank
and perceptive report on the work of the
Organization we are perilously near to a new
international anarchy. Guyana shares that
assessment. The world economic crisis deepens
even as political relations are beset by tension
and turbulence. Within recent years there has
been an intensification of global crises,
political and economic, and a manifest trend
towards the exacerbation of existing situations
and the creation of new ones, of so called local
and regional conflicts, some of them with
devastating effect. Turbulence is pervasive. No
region, indeed no country, has escaped unscathed.
More than ever before States need in their
bilateral relations to be conscious of the impact
of their national policies on others and to take
the appropriate and necessary steps to avoid
conflict preserve pluralism and promote security
mid the economic and social development of
peoples throughout the world.
Underlying current global tensions is the
heightening of the contestation between social
systems. Nowhere is that more clearly reflected
than in the increase in expenditure on, and the
sophistication of, armaments and weapons systems,
fuelling the movement towards conflict and global
conflagration. The language of cooperation has
been superseded by that of confrontation and the
relations among the great Powers are now
dangerously adversarial. Thus military and
political rivalries have reached a new level,
creating in their wake deep fissures in
international relations and the frustration of
the process of democratization of those relations.
Our global political preoccupations are matched
by economic preoccupations; equitable
international economic relations are necessary
prerequisites to political stability. The present
international economic system is undoubtedly in
disarray and its debilitating effect on all
States, especially on the small and the weak, is
manifest.
The solution to that state of affairs demands
collective, reasoned efforts But the global
community has not responded in that manner often
enough. Instead of a greater surge towards
multilateralism in international economic
relations, there is today a retreat from it,
resulting in frustration and impasse. Meanwhile,
efforts to fashion solutions upon partisan,
bilateral criteria are being renewed. Indeed, the
retreat from multilateralism that threatens
economic relations among States has been finding
expression in a reassertion of the dominance of
single minded ideological approaches to economic
development, in essence a return to economic
determinism. In the retreat from multilateralism,
in this return to economic determinism, we are
faced today with a dual tragedy. There is a
steadfast refusal to remodel existing
international institutions in a way that would
render them more responsive to the serious
problems which imperil us all and, more
particularly, the developing countries.
Simultaneously, we witness a tendency to deny
those multilateral institutions the resources
required for their normal operations. In that
regard the position of UNDP demands our special
attention and we must urge a genuine commitment
to meaningful resource allocation to allow that
agency to continue its useful work in an
effective manner.
The disturbing trend towards a bilateral
resolution of global economic woes is
demonstrated in other ways. We cannot ignore the
evidence of three years of continued stalemate in
the effort to launch the global round of
negotiations. There have been periodic signs
during the process which indicated movement but,
just as rapidly, there has been another impasse.
The failure to agree on that launching has
seriously weakened the much needed to undertake
collective solutions. The consequence is a
growing indication that the global manifestation
of the economic woes can be set aside until the
national endeavors at a solution have been
pursued. Thus the absence of global negotiations
to help to resolve global problems of a
structural nature has resulted in almost a total
dearth of measures to address the immediate
issues which beset the global community. The
individual, partisan adjustment measures are
being forged with an increasing incidence of the
attendant burdens, costs and pains of that
adjustment being borne by the developing
countries.
183. The problems of depressed prices for
commodities, the prevalence of inflation and high
interest rates, the barriers to trade expansion
and the chaos that characterizes the
international financial system have been
repeatedly assessed, examined and analyzed from
this rostrum over the last few days. Those
analyses notwithstanding, we in the developing
countries are acutely aware of the limits to
growth we now face as a result of those problems.
Nowhere are those limits more manifest than in
our efforts at debt management. The problems
posed by cur spiraling debt burdens present us
with tremendous difficulty. Efforts at adjustment
to inflation in the developed world have had a
very grave effect on its economies. All of these
problems high rates of interest, mounting debt
burdens and the very nature of the international
financial system demand that we seek collective
redress. It is our most compelling concern and
one that necessitates urgent and immediate
consideration. For our part, we in the developing
world have been willing to seek ways and means to
contribute collectively to the solution of the
global problems, as evidenced in the Caracas
Programme of Action on economic cooperation among
developing countries. Our attempts to pool our
individual strengths and resource bases and thus
promote our collective self reliance are
noteworthy and offer promise for the future. But,
as has been noted on repeated occasions, economic
cooperation among developing countries, South
South cooperation, is but one part of the whole.
It is not a substitute for genuine progress in
North South relations. The quest for solutions
based, on multilateral and collective methods
should be pursued unceasingly.
Guyana notes with satisfaction the successful
conclusion of the negotiating sessions of the
Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea and the emergence of a final text which truly
reflects the concerns of many who have labored
long and hard establish an international legal
regime for the ocean space. It is Guyana's hope
that when we meet in Jamaica to sign the Final
Act and Convention, the number signatories to the
Convention will be a source of great satisfaction
to those whose primary motivation over the past
several years has been the promulgation of just
and equitable arrangements for the most effective
use of the sea and the utilization of its
resources for the benefit of all mankind, without
discrimination.
It is, not unnaturally, a source of profound
concern that some States should have seen fit to
stand aside from this historic effort. It is also
a matter for regret that a few developed States
have moreover chosen instead to conclude between
them a mini multilateral treaty in defiance of
the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the
world's States.
If I now tum to international political
relations, it is to say that these have
deteriorated markedly over the past few years.
The diagnoses of the malaise afflicting
international relations are many and varied. They
range from the crisis in the multilateral
approach in international affairs to the
proliferation of armaments with the concomitant
incentive and urge to utilize them; the collapse
of cooperative endeavors evolved in the aftermath
of the Second World War so called; an increasing
disregard for the fundamental norms and
principles of international law; and a widespread
tendency too widespread to resort to lawless
conduct based on confrontation, threats and
violence and, unhappily, intervention.
These negative manifestations have both
encouraged and facilitated behavior antagonistic
to full respect for the sovereignty and
independence of States small States in particular.
Interventionist behavior is undoubtedly on the
increase. It is at once cause and effect of the
crisis in international relations, a
distinguishing feature of many conflicts. The
extant cases are numerous in the Middle East, in
Europe, in Africa and in Latin America.
Nonintervention in the affairs of other States
has served as one of the main pillars and guiding
principles of a system of stable international
relations. The proscribing of intervention is at
the core of several international instruments
adopted by this world body over the years. The
most recent of these is the Declaration on the
Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference
in the Internal Affairs of States, adopted at the
thirty sixth session. This Declaration represents
a comprehensive instrument codifying the rights
and duties of States that inhere in the principle
of nonintervention.
Yet, despite its existence as a well established
and fundamental principle of international
relations, nonintervention has increasingly been
respected more in the breach. The whole gamut of
interventionist techniques, ranging from overt
military action to the more insidious and subtle
forms of indirect pressures and destabilization
tactics, has been brought into play in recent
years.
The motivation for intervention varies from case
to case. Yet certain broad patterns are clearly
discernible. Some manipulate local situations of
controversy and exploit international conflicts
to, serve perceived broader geo strategic
interests. Further, intervention is of times
designed to frustrate national liberation and the
struggle against colonialism. No less problematic
is interventionist behavior undertaken in pursuit
of expansionist ambitions territorial,
ideological and economic.
Some of our countries possess enough human and
material resources to ensure for their people an
adequate and satisfying standard of living. Yet
some of these very countries, in what can only be
seen as a fit of greed, seek to covet the
territory and resources of their neighbors. In
pursuit of their expansionist claims, such
countries disregard hallowed principles of an
international legal edifice painstakingly
constructed over the years.
But even as we resolve to banish intervention as
an instrument of policy in relations among
States, it becomes imperative to strengthen and
advance the process of collective security and
disarmament. The second special session devoted
to disarmament, held here last June, did not
realize the high hopes of our peoples for a world
free from the specter of the catastrophic uses of
the destructive weapons at man's disposal. This
happens at a time in which we witness the
proliferation and perfection of a plethora of
weapons systems possessing mass destructive
capability.
It is indeed a sad commentary on the position of
some major Powers that in the face of a clear
demonstration of the public throughout the world
in favor of disarmament, these Powers have not
exercised the necessary political judgment to
facilitate agreement on the various disarmament
issues and the preparation of a comprehensive
programme on disarmament.
The recent horrors which accompanied the ruthless
Israeli invasion of Lebanon and senseless
slaughter of innocent men, women and children in
west Beirut heighten the necessity for a
comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the
Middle East situation and the Palestinian
question. There has undeniably been a quickening
of the conscience of peoples to the urgent need
to terminate the Palestinian diaspora and to
bring about the creation of a homeland for the
Palestinians in Palestine, as envisaged by early
resolutions of the Assembly.
Let me repeat the position of Guyana: the
acquisition of territory by force cannot be
condoned; the Palestinian people, led by their
authentic representative, the PLC, must have
their national rights restored; and all States in
the region should be enabled to live in peace and
security.
We must be equally firm in dealing with the
racist entity in Pretoria. The independence of
Namibia must be achieved in conformity with
Security Council resolution 435 and there must be
no question of further conditionality’s. South
Africa must be made to vacate Namibia and to do
so quickly. At the same time, South Africa must
show full respect for the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of neighboring independent
African States. Within South Africa itself, the
system of apartheid must be condemned. The
members of the international community
individually and collectively must desist from
giving the racists in South Africa support to
maintain their oppressive policies.
Unhappily, the tragedy of a divided Cyprus
remains, despite the fact that the Assembly in
its resolution 3212 set an adequate framework for
the withdrawal of foreign troops and the
reconciliation of the communities in the
territory. Guyana gives every encouragement to
the Secretary General to continue unceasingly in
his search for an urgent solution. We also
support the proposals made by the President of
Cyprus before the Assembly.
Likewise the people of Korea deserve our support
for the peaceful reunification of their territory
without outside interference. Guyana continues to
urge the implementation of the provisions of the
4 July 1972 joint communique? And the more recent
constructive proposals advanced by the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea.
We are particularly concerned about the
continuing war between Iraq and the Islamic
Republic of Iran. We call for strict
implementation of the relevant resolutions of the
Security Council relating to this matter, in
particular resolutions 514 and 522.
Central America and the Caribbean indeed, Latin
America is a state of ferment. Threats of
destabilization and armed intervention are mad in
relation to Central America and the Caribbean.
Indigenous impulses for change are being
violently confronted by a tandem force of local
interests and their external supporters.
Deliberate policies of pressure and intimidation
are implemented, policies aiming at ideological
conformity. Guyana firmly believes that a system
of peaceful and stable relations in the Latin
American and Caribbean region must of necessity
be premised or? an end to all types of economic
pressures and political interference and on
respect for ideological pluralism. The Caribbean
must be made a zone of peace.
In his statement to the Assembly at the 5th
meeting, the Foreign Minister of Venezuela
adverted at length to the relations between our
two countries. Unfortunately that presentation
contained egregious distortions; it was
contumacious, and it bordered on calumny. It was
tendentious and selective in its account of
history.
Last year, in addressing the Assembly my Prime
Minister, Mr. Ptolemy A. Reid, laid bare the
history of our relations with Venezuela. The
nature of those relations has been profoundly
affected by a Venezuelan desire to redraw the
boundary between our two countries, a boundary
which was settled by Treaty in 1899 and
demarcated on the ground between 1901 and 1905.
The Foreign Minister of Venezuela stated that
Venezuela's claim is based neither on territorial
ambition nor on covetousness of the wealth of
others but on the need to correct an historical
wrong perpetrated against it. And this Venezuela
asserts as the successor to Spanish colonial
imperialism. He also asserted that Guyana refuses
to understand the need for this correction
because it wishes to enjoy the fruits of British
colonial imperialism.
Guyana hardly needs to reject these pejorative
Venezuelan asseverations. Moreover, our
reputation as an anti imperialist nation is well
known. The anti imperialist policies my country
pursues are in accordance with the tenets of the
nonaligned movement, of which it is a full member
The Foreign Minister of Venezuela, in disavowing
any motive of covetousness and expansionism, and
in persisting in his country's territorial claim,
asserts that no exploitable mineral resources
have been discovered in the Essequibo region,
which Venezuela claims. On the contrary, to give
but a few examples, oil has recently been
discovered there; our long established gold and
diamond mines are developing as centers of
economic activity; and there has been an
intensification in the evaluation of our uranium
potential. And Venezuela knows this.
With these activities and the potential which
exists, can we accept Venezuela's portrayal of
the Essequibo as a land without exploitable
mineral resources. And are we to understand that
its claim to this land, whose people are moreover
of a different culture, is motivated simply by a
desire to redress an historical wrong. We are
convinced that the Venezuelan territorial claim
is an unjustified attempt to satiate a thirst for
the land and resources of ethers.
The Venezuelan Foreign Minister also asserted
that there has been no aggression by Venezuela
against Guyana. I cannot permit that statement to
go unchallenged. Indeed it must be categorically
rejected. Let the record speak.
Can Venezuela deny that its troops are still in
occupation of Guyanese territory that it
violently seized in 1966? Can Venezuela honestly
and I stress the word honestly deny that there
have been numerous violations of our air and land
space by Venezuelan aircraft and armed forces?
And what of Venezuela's actions against us in the
economic field. Can Venezuela deny that it has
been endeavoring to dissuade Governments and
organizations both in the developed and in the
developing world from participating in Guyana's
economic development, especially in that part of
our territory that it claims'? Does Venezuela
deny that in June last year, as we were preparing
for a global conference on new and renewable
sources of energy, its Foreign Minister wrote to
the President of the World Bank opposing the
construction of a hydroelectric facility in the
Upper Mazuruni region of Guyana on the political
ground that the proposed dam was to be located in
the area claimed by Venezuela and that it was not
economically important to Guyana? And can it deny
that such action was after the World Bank had
itself assessed the project as being economically
and technically feasible? Is that not economic
aggression?
There are several international treaties and
legal instruments that relate to the border
between Guyana and Venezuela. The most important
one is the Arbitral Award of 1899, which all
parties, in ' eluding Venezuela, had by an
earlier treaty agreed to accept as a full, final
and perfect settlement. Pursuant to that Award,
as I stated earlier, the boundary was demarcated
on the ground and registered in a separate
Agreement in 1903. There is also the Geneva
Agreement of 1966, which has as its purpose the
solution of the controversy which has arisen as a
result of the Venezuelan contention that the
Arbitral Award of 1899 is null and void.
Under the Agreement Guyana and Venezuela were
required to choose one of the means provided in
Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations
for the settlement of the controversy. Venezuela
proposed negotiation; we proposed judicial
settlement, and recommended the International
Court of Justice. Unfortunately, Venezuela not
only challenged our competence to suggest the
International Court of Justice but persistently
refused to consider our proposal for a judicial
settlement. As a consequence our two countries
are now, in strict accordance with the provisions
of the Geneva Agreement, required to consider the
selection of an appropriate international organ
to choose the means of settlement.
From the inception of the Geneva Agreement in
1966 there have been repeated violations of it by
Venezuela. I have already alluded to some of
them. Notwithstanding those provocations, Guyana
remains willing, in keeping with its policy of
respect for legally binding treaties and peace
and good neighborliness, to continue to honor the
Geneva Agreement and to fulfil its obligations
under it. On Friday last Guyana proposed to
Venezuela that our two countries, in fulfilment
of that Agreement, seek to agree on an
appropriate international organ to choose a means
of pacific settlement.
There are a number of organs of a regional
nature, some of which may not be acceptable to
Venezuela and others which may not be acceptable
to us. However, there are three organs of such a
wide international character that in our opinion
any of them should be acceptable to both parties.
These organs are: the International Court of
Justice the Security Council and the General
Assembly of the United Nations.
We are therefore now suggesting for the
consideration of the Government of Venezuela
recourse to one of those organs. It is Guyana's
belief that their international character
recommends them as suitable. We put our
confidence in them. We trust that Venezuela would
be prepared to do likewise.
Let me repeat what my Prime Minister said at the
thirty sixth session of the Assembly: We have no
other wish than that of establishing a regime of
peace, harmony and friendship with the people of
Venezuela, with whom we share aspirations for a
just and satisfying life and with whom we can
together make a contribution to our development
and that of our region and our continent.
To that goal Guyana remains committed.
In the complexities which beset the international
community the nonaligned movement continues to
play an influential and beneficial role. As we
speak out against intervention and interference,
the nonaligned are aware that external efforts to
divide and subvert us will continue. But we must
stick resolutely and uncompromisingly to our
principles and our policies.
Despite its imperfections, the United Nations
system still offers mankind the best hope for
international relations based on the rule of law.
In his courageous report on the work of the
Organization the Secretary General not only has
analyzed the weaknesses of that system but has
also made constructive proposals for the
improvement of its vitality and the enhancement
of its effectiveness. The decline in its
authority and the credibility dilemma facing the
United Nations are as much functions and
consequences of certain deficiencies of the
system as of the growing propensity of an
increasing number of nations to marginalize the
Organization or to ignore its decisions.
We owe it to ourselves and to the Secretary
General to ponder seriously his assessment of the
international situation, his views on the crisis
of confidence facing the United Nations and the
various ideas he has submitted for reinvigorating
the process of multilateral diplomacy. We believe
that the opportunity to do so which this session
provides should be fully utilized. Guyana
supports his proposals. We are particularly
interested in his argument for a role for the
Security Council which emphasizes a preventive,
rather than a reactive, orientation.
As my President said in a statement on 5 October 1982 in Brasilia:
I believe the time is ripe for us to examine once
again the possibility of establishing a United
Nations security force with sufficient authority
and strength to forestall aggression and prevent
disputes from degenerating into armed conflicts.
Man's impulse is to survive and to live in peace
with his fellow man. Our task as representatives
of Governments is to give effect to this impulse.
The pursuit of this task requires us to undertake
serious dialogue, to act in concert, to adhere to
the norms of international law and to make a
reality of peaceful coexistence. History, I
suggest, would indeed be unkind to us if we did
not seek to build a world that is safer and in
which justice prevails.