It is with a deep sense of pleasure that I
venture to associate myself with the many
well-merited complimentary statements, as my
sources have indicated, made to Mr. Hollai on his
election to this most important office of
President of the General Assembly. I am sure
that, as his predecessor and others before did,
he will conduct the affairs of that office so as
to enhance its authority and add greater lustre,
meaning and dimension to the office itself and
the Organization which its serves. I should like
also to extend to the Secretary-General my
warmest congratulations on his appointment as
administrative head of this world body. He has
assumed the reins of office during a year of
varied far-reaching problems in different parts
of the world. I wish to assure him that Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines will give full support
to his endeavours to bring this troubled world by
patient diplomacy to confront, face and resolve
its problems, and so wish him a pleasant and
rewarding term in office during which he will
draw increasingly the respect of all inside and
outside the Organization.
The election of Mr. Hollai at this thirty-seventh
session comes at a time of unprecedented
conflicts and tension in the world. It was the
ambitious hope of the founders of this United
Nations that such problems as obtain today should
not be the lot of the world. That these conflicts
and tension exist and have persisted over the
years is a serious continuing reflection on
national attitudes: ambition, aggressiveness,
duplicity, pride and honour.
Thirty-seven years after the founding of the
Organization, the only real change has come from
expanded membership. Many former subject peoples
are now free and independent, though not all are
equal. National attitudes are following, in most
cases, the same consistent pattern. We refuse to
learn from the experiences of the past.
Consequently, people are dying, combatants as
well as non-combatants in Lebanon, Afghanistan,
Kampuchea, Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Namibia and elsewhere, all in the name of
furthering national ambition and objectives.
For yet another year I urge again that the time
has come for all Member States to condemn, and to
continue to do so in the strongest possible
terms, acts which clearly violate the Charter,
resolutions and principles of this important
world body. It must be realized that the Charter
is not an instrument to be accepted when it is a
convenient adjunct to national policy and
abrogated when it is not. The Charter must be
accepted as establishing an international code of
conduct between nations. A code it is. By
membership of the Organization we have all agreed
to conform to its spirit and intent. It
recognizes that disputes are often unavoidable
given the present emotional level of the
development of man. He may perhaps evolve into a
different creature in another half million years,
but for now he is Homo Homini Lupus. It was
recognized that for our generation a mechanism
was necessary, hence a machinery for the
resolution of disputes was established. If the
Charter is to be respected and if the authority
of this body is not to be eroded, it must be
respected, the machinery for resolving disputes
must be rigidly adhered to, however painfully
slow and frustrating may be the negotiations.
Parties once at a negotiating table must show a
willingness and desire to reach a consensus. This
is the sane way, the humane way, the wisest and
most resource-conserving way. Is it so difficult
for leaders to accept this?
I know there are those who would frown and say
that this is Utopian and an unrealistic diatribe,
for to accept this is to contemplate the
remodelling of the innate conflicting attitudes
of man. Yet, whatever may be said, it is always
better for both sides to avoid confrontation and
to settle a dispute at the conference table than
on the battlefield. Even for the apparent victor,
there are often more hydra heads springing from
unexpected quarters than the one which the
attempt was made to cut off by force of arms, by
military surgery.
Since 1947 there have been continuous problems
between Israel, the Palestinian people and the
Arab nations. For 35 years this problem has
preoccupied the attention of the Assembly and of
the Security Council and has not been resolved
because of the two genuine but conflicting claims
by the protagonists of both camps. Israel demands
the right to exist within secure borders. The
authentic voice of the Palestinian people, the
Palestine Liberation Organization, demands a free
and autonomous State in an area that is not
exclusive of Israel.
Recent events in Lebanon have compelled my
country to look at this issue in greater depth
and to speak out about the wanton destruction and
carnage that have taken place, particularly in
west Beirut. The death and destruction wrought
before the massacre were inexcusable and
indefensible by any norm of international law;
but that a massacre that should have been
foreseen or guarded against should have been
committed while aid and assistance were given by
Israel to the Christian militia deserves strong
censure from the Assembly. A dark deed has drawn
sharp and bitter protest and is viewed,
justifiably so, with horror by civilized and
rational people everywhere. That that act should
have been committed on the soil of one Member
State by another and that the army of the country
ravaged is not at war or even in a state of
preparedness for war makes it all the more
reprehensible.
Whatever allegations Israel may make to justify
its conduct and action, the scale of the Israeli
response was totally unwarranted and
unjustifiable and cannot with good conscience be
supported even by their most ardent admirers. The
Old Testament advocated an eye for an eye; but
Israel has taken 100 eyes for one eye. It is a
most callous, inhuman display of brute military
might which, while it may have achieved its
political and military objectives, has released
other possible adverse international forces which
may be contained only if Israel withdraws its
troops immediately and without pre-conditions
from Lebanon and thereafter shows a willingness
to accept that if it is to live within secure
boundaries, as Security Council resolution 242
(1967) of 22 November 1967 stipulates, there must
be an accepted corollary that it is the
inalienable right of the Palestinian people to
have a homeland. The recent massacre now brings
this need into sharper focus.
Countries have to be careful that they do not,
even by winning a war, lose the respect and
goodwill of the international community as Israel
has now done so successfully. No country, however
large can allow itself to become an international
outcast; still less one that is small, even
though it is in possession of a powerful military
machine. We all need the goodwill, friendship and
support of each other. Total isolation must be
the worst tragedy with which any country can be
beset. Israel must in its own interest cease
actions which suggest that it has a total
disregard for international opinion.
If we, inside and outside the Assembly, accept
facts, however unpalatable they may be, apparent
problems may become soluble and inexcusable and
unpardonable Christian barbarities such as
occurred in west Beirut may not recur. The fact
is that Israel exists in the hearts of all
Israelis and as a State. The fact is that the PLO
exists in the hearts of all Palestinian people,
wherever they reside. It is therefore ridiculous
for either side to refuse to accept the existence
of the other.
For either side to continue to take firm and
unyielding positions on this issue could lead to
other even more tragic events which, while they
must redound to the shame of the perpetrators and
be to the utter disgust and anger of civilized
people must not occasion guilt among us for any
failure on our part to put an end to this impasse.
There are now three options to be examined in the
search for a peaceful solution to this Middle
East crisis: first, the much-criticized and by
some rejected Camp David accords; secondly,
President Reagan's initiative; and, thirdly, the
plan adopted at the Twelfth Arab Summit
Conference, at Fez.The opposing leaders should
now come together and, with assistance, so
orchestrate their actions that an effective and
lasting peace can come to the area. Those who can
encourage this process must do so, so that peace
can come to a troubled and tortured land,
Lebanon; so that peace can come to a strife-prone
and strife- torn region, the Middle East; so that
peace can exist between the Israelis and the
Arabs, based on a just settlement of the
Palestinian problem: a homeland.
Lebanon should now be given the opportunity to
become a unified country and to live and trade in
peace. Its new President and Government must be
given the support of the international community
to make this possible. It is for the President
and his Government to decide when all
non-Lebanese troops should leave their country.
When it is clear that the Lebanese army, with
international financial support, is firmly in
control, they should, on request, all immediately
depart.
The international community must not appear to be
indifferent to the fate of Afghanistan, a
relatively small country of 15.5 million people.
Foreign troops are in that country. The presence
of those troops is being contested by the
inhabitants of that country—the Afghans. Whatever
may be the stated reason for the presence of
those foreign troops—whether in support and at
the request of the present Government or
otherwise—it is evident that a significant
segment of the population, indeed a majority, is
opposed to the Government and to the presence of
those foreign troops. The fact is not
contestable, since poorly equipped Afghans at
great expense, in terms of loss of life and
property, and at great suffering—both to
combatants and to non-combatants—continue to wage
resistance to an occupation of their country
which they consider to be undesirable.
Neighbouring States have over 3 million—or about
one fifth—of the Afghans as refugees, placing
great strain on the resources of those countries.
Pakistan alone has over 2.7 million. Providing
for these refugees is utilizing a substantial
portion of the resources of international relief
organizations. AH this must make one wonder what
purpose is served by a continuing stalemate with
blood, death and suffering as the end-product.
The image of the occupying Power internationally
is being affected, and the validity and wisdom of
its political and military objectives must be
questioned. Without asking for a response, I am
sure that Afghanistan is an embarrassment to that
occupying Power. It has touched a lever which it
now wishes, quite likely, it had never touched,
yet still somehow refuses to release.
I appeal to the occupying Power to show that
great courage which I know it possesses, and of
which it is capable, and set a small country free
to determine its own future as it wishes. Let it
hold discussions with the Afghan nationalist
fighters with a view to ending the conflict; let
it agree to the holding of elections under United
Nations supervision and secure observer status
for such a team; let it negotiate, if possible, a
neutral Afghanistan, but this should not be a
pre-condition for the holding of free and fair
elections. I appeal further to the occupying
Power to start the process now and show the
greatness and compassion of which it is capable.
We of the Assembly must all work unceasingly to
bring to an end the cycle of suffering, death and
destruction occurring in that once quiet and
peaceful country, now turned into a divided,
suffering and unhappy land.
The Kampuchean question is another very sad
continuing episode. It is wrong for any outside
Power to impose itself by force of arms on
another country or by direct intervention decide
who should administer a country. It is all the
more heinous when to achieve that result it
occasions untold human suffering. Those foreign
troops now in occupation of Kampuchea should be
removed. Our national concern is that we cannot
be indifferent to human suffering, regardless of
when or where it may occur but especially when it
occurs under the domination of a foreign Power
determined to demonstratethat might is right. Let
the people decide whether they wish the new
Coalition or the present Phnom Penh Government.
The foreign troops occupying Kampuchea have
caused, in addition to the loss of lives and
property, severe refugee problems in neighbouring
countries. Will this unremitting foreign
intervention never cease? It should and must. The
Kampucheans should be left in peace to determine
their future by dialogue and through a freely
supervised electoral process.
The Iraqi-Iran war, although not one in which
foreign troops are the interventionists or the
protectors of their perceived but often misjudged
interests, is nevertheless a terrible war, being
fought with the most sophisticated types of
conventional weapons in an important and
sensitive part of the world. It is not for Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines, at this stage, to
attempt to apportion blame before being fully
apprised of all the facts; it is enough to
recognize that this senseless slaughter of the
flower and youth of both countries is a reckless
squandering of an important national resource.
The armies of the contending forces should agree
to withdraw, at all points, within their
respective borders and begin negotiations with a
view to concluding a peace treaty. If there are
any Member States which can in some measure
exercise influence on one side or the other, or
both, they should do so before this dread
malignancy takes on incurable proportions—before
it spreads even further, with dire consequences
for peace in that region and for world peace. One
cannot permit reason to be blind or deaf in a
dispute. It is like searching for a tiger while
blind and deaf, only to be destroyed by it.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines urges the
representatives of Iraq and the Islamic Republic
of Iran to give support to the resolution of the
Security Council and the sentiments of the
General Assembly and, within the limits
permitted, persuade their Governments to take
such differences as exist to the conference table
and endeavour to resolve them within the terms of
the Charter of the United Nations and resolutions
of the Security Council and the Assembly.
Yet another year approaches without the
inhabitants of Namibia having the right to
determine their future as a free and independent
people. For yet another year a regime in South
Africa which refuses to recognize racial equality
and which has institutionalized the dehumanizing
system of apartheid against the black majority
within its borders persists by every ruse and
various stratagems to frustrate the aspirations
of a people that wishes to be no longer a ward
but a proud people in a free and equal country.
The question of independence for Namibia should
not be linked to any pre-condition, particularly
when it is an issue not related to Namibia
itself, but of a third State. Understandable,
from a South African point of view, as that
concern may be, no one should allow a direct and
separate issue to be beclouded by what is, in our
view, an extraneous consideration. The question
for the General Assembly is no longer
independence itself but where do we go from here
to bring about independence for Namibia. The
question of what progress is being made by the
contact group on the implementation of the United
Nations plan is speculative but this is still
probably an area where results could be achieved.
Let us intensify our actions to ensure that this
issue is resolved before the Assembly meets for
its thirty-eighth session.
As a Member State, we shall continue to state
that the greatest challenge to the effectiveness
of the Assembly lies in the deliberate erosion of
its authority by its members. Perhaps Saint
Vincent and the Grenadines may have unwittingly
been an offender already. Nevertheless, we should
not ignore the Charter or resolutions of the
United Nations without at the same time
appreciating the adverse effect this must have on
its total responsiveness. For small States such
as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, it should be
obvious that it is necessary to ensure at all
times that the United Nations is strong and responsive
to problems, with the ability, through the
collective will of the Assembly, to enforce its
authority with regard to regional and world peace
for the good of all mankind, since it is the best
guarantor of the protection and independence of
such States.
Too often nations avoid the peaceful path and
resort to arms, with unforeseen results. In a
world replete with border disputes, civil
terrorism and guerrilla unrest, and territorial
claims, especially in this hemisphere, prudence
and caution should make the negotiating table
attractive. The path to a negotiated settlement
or the resolution of disputes by discussion can
at times be slow; yet this in itself should in no
way frustrate the process. The results of quiet,
painstaking diplomacy, even if the disputes are
ultimately resolved through the process of
arbitration, have always so far been more
beneficial than the results of war.
I spoke at length at the 23rd meeting of the
twelfth special session on disarmament, and I do
not propose to add anything further to what I
said then except to welcome the start of
discussions between the super-Powers on nuclear
disarmament in the hope that it will be treated
in as serious and urgent a manner as the gravity
of the situation warrants. However, I would like
to read out one portion of that statement: "Given
the suspicion and distrust that exist between
countries, it can be appreciated that there are
tremendous obstacles to be overcome in bringing
about real and lasting disarmament. "Countries
that have been suspicious of each other for
years, and still are, will not suddenly believe
each other's words. Therefore, in order to
eliminate this element of fear and doubt, which
is the result of suspicion and mistrust,
inspection and verification must be accepted as
an inescapable provision of any such treaty. Any
genuine desire to achieve disarmament must
realistically accept that States have to move in
the direction of an open-door policy rather than
a closed-door policy. The prerequisite for
reaching agreement on disarmament seems to be the
ability of the parties to convince each other
that no advantage is sought over the other and
that there is nothing to hide by thereby
guaranteeing the right of access to each other's
territory for inspection. What should then be
decided will be who would do the inspection and
how such inspection should be carried out—whether
by a team selected and controlled by this world
body and answerable only to this world body or
otherwise. This would actually mean that there
would have to be a re-examination of the national
concept of sovereignty and territorial
jurisdiction. There can be no diminution or
compromise of authority in giving to another an
entitlement that would be reciprocal. This is the
whole concept of ambassadorial and consular
representation which specifically limits national
jurisdiction on national soil and which
encroaches upon national sovereignty in certain
cases. This is now an internationally accepted
principle set forth in a Convention. There are
very rare occasions when this Convention is
violated and, when it is, it is as a result of
traumatic shocks within a national society.
Similarly, what has been achieved in the area of
diplomatic reciprocity should prove to be no more
difficult in verifiable inspection to achieve
disarmament. Willingness to agree to inspection
is an indication of acceptance of how crucial
inspection must be in reaching agreement on
disarmament."
It must not be thought that it is only the United
States of America and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics that are concerned, for all
mankind is concerned. We, the others, the silent
spectators, are all deeply concerned. There
should and must be an end to nuclear
proliferation, through a balanced reduction of
the existing terror. Ultimately there should be
an end to the international arms race in general,
for which a few countries are responsible. It is
they that possess the real capacity to fuel the
arms race; and once they show the will it can and
will cease.
One of the continuing, lingering problems with
which the Assembly is confronted is the creation
of conditions conducive to the reunification of
countries divided because of political and
ideological differences or differences of
language or religion. It must be a source of
great hardship when the fabric of life in the
parts of a divided country is torn. When there is
little or no contact and when it is difficult for
friends or families to be reunited, there is the
temptation to want to resolve the problem by
other than peaceful means. Consequently, in
divided countries, when restraint has been shown
it deserves praise, and the Governments must be
further encouraged to seek the negotiating table
as the best and most practical way to a solution.
They should renounce the resolution of any
dispute by means other than those the Charter
envisages, even though they may not be Members.
Not all these divided countries seek or can seek
admission to the United Nations, but those that
can and do seek admission should be admitted,
either together or individually, without the
possibility for any of the five permanent members
of the Security Council exercising a veto against
such admission. Such admission, in the view of my
country, would assist in the promotion of peace
and might well contribute to the realization of
the national aspiration for the reunification of
the divided countries. Although past experience
has in no way suggested that there is reason for
optimism, it has shown that admission has lowered
the threshold of tension between divided
countries, increased contacts in different areas
and permitted a greater degree of dialogue.
There is a place for both the Republic of Korea
and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in
the Assembly. It is time the wounds of division
were healed. The process of healing can begin
here. Friends of both the South and the North
should make this process possible.
We in the Assembly must address once again the
very grave danger to world security posed by
international terrorism, which now appears to
make a target of a diplomat for no reason other
than that in the discharge of the functions of
his office he speaks for his country and thereby
personifies his country. We must bring our minds
to bear on this problem so that those who perform
duties similar to our own work can do so in
greater safety. No self-respecting nation can
permit itself to be blackmailed by the dark deeds
of the terrorist. No self-respecting nation can
submit to the will of terror. In such a situation
selective terror could be applied against a
country extraterritorially to achieve the
objective, and unless and until all the countries
of the world community take firm and serious
collective responsibility for discouraging the
commission of such acts on their soil by
inflicting for such offences the severest
penalties permitted under their legislation, when
the perpetrators of the offences are apprehended,
the trend is not likely to be contained.
While man continues to demonstrate his inhumanity
on the field of conflict and by oppression in
other forms, there still remains a vast gap
between the rich and the poor countries of the
North and the South. Prodigious sums are budgeted
and spent on the production, stockpiling and
deployment of weapons of mass destruction, both
nuclear and conventional. While the budgeted cost
of defence increases, in most cases
substantially, only a few nations have yet been
able to achieve the United Nations target figure
of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product, in
aid to developing countries, to be attained by
1985.
The International Development Strategy for the
Third United Nations Development Decade,
certainly recognized the urgent need for aid
flows to the developing world. Such payments
include contributions made via multilateral
institutions. Countries of the Development
Assistance Committee are among those that have
made the highest contribution of resources on
liberal terms to developing countries as a whole
as a percentage of their gross national product.
In fact, four countries in the Committee exceeded
the targeted amountin 1979 and 1980. According to
1980 figures, and based on information from the
UNCTAD secretariat, the Kingdom of the
Netherlands contribute gross national product
with 0.99 per cent, and the lowest contribution
from the countries in the Committee was 0.17 per
cent. On average, the Development Assistance
Committee countries gave just 0.57 per cent of
gross national product in 1980—that is, just over
half of the targeted amount. Only members of the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries
exceeded 1 per cent, with an average of 1.51 per
cent in 1979 and 1.45 per cent in 1980.
While this terrible world recession has with
high, though now falling, interest rates caused
rising unemployment everywhere from the
industrialized North to the impoverished South,
with only a few exceptions, and has contributed
to budgetary strains, balance-of- payment
problems and liquidity squeezes within the
economies of the developed and the developing
countries, and may well tend to cause the
development of an inward-looking attitude,
nevertheless, even though it is natural for all
Governments to be preoccupied with national
concerns, introspection should not blind
Governments to the realities of the world around
them. Although the reality may be that some
countries are facing severe financial and other
problems, those small island States with highly
vulnerable economies often based solely on
primary products are in a still more perilous
state and in need of greater official development
assistance than ever before.
In his address to the Commonwealth Finance
Ministers at a meeting held at Marlborough House,
in London, on 30 August last, the Commonwealth
Secretary-General had this to say: "... the
tightening of lending because of the danger of
default can precipitate the very danger it seeks
to avert and quicken economic collapse. Joint
action by private banks alone cannot provide an
adequate, reliable basis for handling problems of
today's dimensions. The liquidity squeeze is
superimposed on a contraction of resource flows
to developing countries. Aid flows from the
Development Aid Committee and OPEC as a
proportion of gross national product are
declining, and the growth in World Bank lending,
including from the International Development
Association, is already projected at much lower
levels than in the past." This prognosis is
gloomy for the developing countries. However,
because the economies of the world are
interdependent, it is also gloomy for the rich
industrialized world. Of sheer necessity the weak
must and will, through trade, directly promote
the economic well-being of the rich. The rich
should therefore continue to be generous in their
aid to the poor, for a better world, such help is
a necessary priority. As we all now stand
watching a world writhing in financial and
economic agony, we should not allow our national
concerns to override all other interests and so
shelve the need to renew the North-South dialogue
in an effort to deepen our understanding of the
institutional mechanism required to promote the
introduction of a new economic order.
There can be no doubt that there is a need for
the restructuring of the world's economies.
Neither the old nor the new economic theories
seem capable of energizing the developed or
developing economies upon which the economies of
the poor and the underdeveloped countries are so
dependent, whether for the sale of their primary
products or in the area of tourism. There are too
many external factors that seem to interplay and
impinge upon national planning over which
national planners have no control. It is the
unpredictability of the multinational interplay
of forces and factors with which small
underdeveloped countries must contend and over
which they have far less control than the
developing or the developed countries.
When the higher-priced production of beet sugar
is subsidized within the European Economic
Community, causing large surpluses in production
and competition, the world demand for cane sugar
falls, creating huge surpluses in developing
countries, thereby sending prices down drastically,
with the result that economies dependent on that
crop are utterly destroyed, causing serious
balance-of-payments problems. These are some of
the difficulties which are beyond the control of
national planners. There is therefore a need for
the Economic and Social Council to look
critically at this problem to persuade States
which have been subsidizing the overproduction of
beet to recognize the harm they are doing and to
correct this injury.
There are some programmes which in my country's
view are having an impact. One such is UNDP.
Since just before our independence, it has been
having quite a significant impact on our
developmental efforts in the area of statistics
and economic advisory services. Since it appears
that programmes of the Organization are in all
probability going to be affected by the
inadequate contributions of Members, it is our
hope that this useful Programme will continue to
receive the support of the international
community. For our part, we are prepared to try
to make our own modest contribution to this
worthwhile Programme. As we demonstrate our faith
in it, my country expects donors to keep faith
with us and support it—not less generously, but
rather more generously, than previously.
In my country's policy statement on admission, at
the thirty-fifth session, I said that our
position on issues would be made quite clear. Our
intention would always be to assist this world
body in achieving and maintaining world peace as
well as economic and social justice. We meant it
then, and we still mean it. I wish to conclude as
I did then: "The Assembly can be a most effective
instrument; but it cannot be and will not be
greater than all of us collectively have the will
to make it. Each of us representatives possesses
the perception by conscience to know right from
wrong. Nevertheless, we are all subject to the
policies of our Governments and must represent
them or resign. But can we not in the light of
our thinking strive to influence those decisions,
if-by so doing we would enhance respect for the
integrity and credibility of this world
Organization? To fail in this endeavour is not
the problem; only to fail to try."
"General Assembly" is a mere name. We are all
gathered here in the General Assembly. "United
Nations" are only words. Our countries constitute
the United Nations. They can serve us as the
Charter intended, if only we let them.