The recent visit of the Prime Minister of Malta to Hungary is
sufficient indication of the close relations existing between our two
countries, therefore it gives me all the more pleasure to compliment
Mr. Hollai on his unanimous election to preside over this important
session. We also compliment Mr. Kittani of Iraq on his
record-breaking performance last year.
Our presence in the Assembly is a token of our collective commitment
to the processes of peace in inter-State relations which the United
Nations offers in opposition to the processes of violence and
aggression which have marred human history for unsold ages. Yet, in
spite of this commitment, we are all aware of the reality that once
again the methods of violence and conflict are on the increase in
intercourse among nations. In Asia we are disturbed by the events in
Kampuchea and Afghanistan, in Africa by the continuing aggression and
inhumanity of South Africa, in Latin America by the recently
concluded conflict in the Falklands. In the Middle East we have still
not recovered from the shock of the appalling events in Lebanon,
which form a tragic climax to the escalating policy of illegality and
outrage perpetrated by Israel in its relentless aggression against
the Palestinian people, its annexation of occupied territories, its
attack on Iraqi nuclear installations and its persistent flouting of
General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.
The post-war world order based on the Yalta repartition of spheres of
influence, with its ensuing system of armed alliances, is no longer
able to maintain even its initial precarious stability. The erosion
of the nuclear superiority by one super-Power, leading to nuclear
parity, ushered in a state of strategic uncertainty. Together with
the challenges by the emergent nations to rigid polarization around
super-Power spheres of influence, this led to an increasing resort to
the use of force by dominant Powers. Therefore we cannot but agree
with the frank analysis of the Secretary-General, in which he points
out the reforms which are still required to transform the United
Nations into a world body which effectively unites nations in the
pursuit of their security on the basis of peace, co-operation and
mutual respect.
In the absence of all-encompassing co-operation on security at the
global level, nations have increasingly resorted to concrete
initiatives at the regional level.
In the Mediterranean, regional States have traditionally approached
their security concerns in different ways. However, while most of the
States of the North appear to have chosen the road of complete
integration in the armed alliances and all the States of the South
are active members of the non- aligned movement, the apparent
division is not so rigid. There are evidently different levels of
integration in the alliances by the members in the North, while
States of the South have established their own links with members of
the alliances-links which are based on economic, technological,
cultural and historical realities.
What constitutes the most pervasive destabilizing element in the
Mediterranean at the present time is in fact the massive and
increasing super-Power presence in the region. Detente, far from
being a global phenomenon, was restricted to central Europe. In
Helsinki, at the start of the process begun with the Conference on
Security and Co-operation in Europe, Malta had striven for the
acceptance of the need to extend detente to the Mediterranean, on the
basis of the principle that security in the Mediterranean is an
integral element in European security. The super-Power, however, paid
only lip-service to the Mediterranean document of the Helsinki Final
Act. Eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation is the reality in the
Mediterranean today, a reality which is even more threatening to
regional and European peace and security because it creates a
confrontation more direct than it has ever been in central Europe,
where the military forces of the super-Power are buffered from each
other by the presence of their allies.
Because of the vacuum which exists at the global level through the
absence of an elective role by the United Nations, super-Power
influence in matters relating directly to security and co-operation
in the Mediterranean has today assumed excessive proportions. All
States in the region must be concerned by the extent of this
influence. Many have already come to the conclusion that the only
feasible alternative is for Mediterranean countries to forge together
their own arrangements for regional security, which would then enable
them to work out with the super-Power an agreed programme of
progressive armaments reductions, phased in such way as to ensure
that at no stage would either super-Power consider that its
legitimate strategic interests were being put in jeopardy.
Such an approach entails two fundamental objectives: first, that the
Mediterranean should not be used as a major arena of global
confrontation; secondly, that regional States should be more directly
in control of security and co-operation questions in their own
region. Although we cannot have any illusion as to the continuing
impact of bloc politics on our region, we also sense an underlying
appreciation of the potential validity of an indigenous regional
security system, leading to the ultimate withdrawal of super-Power
forces from the region.
Malta's experience in its own struggle for freedom, a struggle which
is rooted in a strategy for regional co-operation, corroborates this
assessment. The Socialist Government which came to power in 1971
after 13 years in opposition was firmly committed to a policy aimed
at the elimination of all foreign military bases on the island. The
phased and bloodless withdrawal of the forces of Britain and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization from the island commenced in 1972
and was completed by March 1979. My party was returned to power in
1976 it was pledged to entrench the process of the elimination of all
foreign military presence in Malta by the assumption for the island
of a status of neutrality, based strictly on the principles of
non-alignment. We started discussions with our Mediterranean
neighbours on the status we were to adopt after 1979. By 1979 those
discussions were already bearing fruit. We found early encouragement
and support both from our southern neighbours, in particular the
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and Algeria, and from our northern neighbours,
including Italy and France. In the unfolding of events, our choice of
a neutral status received broad recognition from Mediterranean and
non- Mediterranean States alike. In different forms and under
different circumstances, such broad recognition came from Qatar,
Yugoslavia, Italy, Bulgaria and the European Economic Community in
1980; from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the United States of America, the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, France, Senegal, Iraq, the
non-aligned movement and the Commonwealth in 1981; and from Algeria,
Tunisia, Greece, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, China and
the Islamic Republic of Iran so far this year.
In May 1980 the Maltese Parliament formally enshrined our neutral
status in a proclamation. By virtue of that proclamation, Malta
undertakes not to allow any foreign military bases on its territory,
not to allow any military facilities to foreign forces, not to allow
any facilities to be used in Malta in such a manner or to such an
extent as will constitute a virtual presence of foreign forces, nor
that any foreign military personnel be allowed in Malta, and that the
shipyards of Malta will be used for civil commercial purposes and
will be denied to the military vessels of the super-Power. Soon after
the formal adoption of our status, in September 1980 Italy entered
into a bilateral agreement with us in which it welcomed, recognized
and supported our neutrality and engaged itself both to avoid any
action that would jeopardize that status and to come to our
assistance in case of any attack on Malta. That formal commitment by
a country belonging to NATO to commit itself actively in safeguarding
Malta's neutrality was paralleled a few months later by an analogous
undertaking by the Soviet Union in which recognition and support of
our status was also accompanied by an undertaking not to do anything
that would put it in jeopardy. Both agreements have been duly
registered with the United Nations under Article 102 of the Charter.
Following its third consecutive return to power in 1981, the
socialist Government pledged to utilize Malta's new-found freedom and
neutral status to promote a genuine process for peace in the
Mediterranean. Several countries have not only formally recognized
our neutral status, but have also explicitly acknowledged its
significance for the process of peace in the Mediterranean-these
include France and Greece from within the NATO alliance and the
non-aligned Mediterranean States of Yugoslavia and Tunisia.
In addition to its choice of neutrality, Malta had already taken
other important initiatives for peace in the Mediterranean. The most
comprehensive of those initiatives has been our endeavours in the
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to obtain
recognition of the linkage between security in the Mediterranean and
security in Europe, and participation by Mediterranean States in all
matters relating to Mediterranean security and co-operation.
By 1975 all European States, and the two super-Powers, had accepted
non-participating Mediterranean States in the process of that
Conference. By 1979 the Conference had launched a concrete initiative
for functional co-operation in the Mediterranean. Meeting in Malta in
February of that year, participants in the Conference and
non-participating Mediterranean States drew up recommendations
concerning the exchange of statistical data, environmental
co-operation, tourism, energy resources, transport networks,
telecommunications research, migrant labour, scientific and technical
problems, eradication of Mediterranean diseases, gerontology,
seismology, preservation of cultural heritage and a number of other
subjects. In the ongoing review Session of the Conference, taking
place in Madrid, our objective is now to bring about a thorough
consideration of the security aspects of the Helsinki Mediterranean
chapter, in particular the recommendations regarding the reduction of
armed forces in the region.
We have also taken initiatives outside the established bodies. As
early as 1972, on the initiative of Malta's Prime Minister, Dom
Mintoff, who has identified himself most intimately with the
objective of enhancing Mediterranean co-operation, a process of
quadripartite collaboration at the ministerial and technical levels
was initiated between Italy, Libya, Malta and Tunisia. That
initiative has led to the recognition of a common interest in
communications, tourism, fisheries, agriculture and the preservation
and protection of the environment.
A more recent initiative has been the setting up of Radio
Mediterranean, which Malta pioneered in 1978 under the auspices of
UNESCO and which is now starting to assume its intended role as the
collective and authentic voice of Mediterranean peoples. The keen
interest which that initiative is awakening has recently been
demonstrated by Algeria's participation and by the various approaches
made by other Mediterranean States.
At the multilateral level in 1975 UNEP launched a Mediterranean
Action Plan, which, under the objective of environmental protection,
has given scope to the emergence of a number of concrete projects of
a technical and practical nature. Malta is participating in various
aspects of that Action Plan, in particular through the setting up of
a Regional Oil-Combating Centre on the island which is intended to
coordinate regional action against hazards of oil pollution.
Here at the United Nations since 1976 the resolutions on the
implementation of the Declaration on the Strengthening of
International Security have included a call, sponsored by Malta and
other Mediterranean States, for the transformation of the
Mediterranean into a zone of peace. The growing support for that
call, which now also includes members of the NATO alliance, is also
manifested in the encouraging number, and substantive content, of the
various replies sent to the questionnaire on the strengthening of
security in the Mediterranean called for under resolution 36/102. It
is clear from some of those replies, in particular the one from
Yugoslavia, that Mediterranean countries are giving very serious
consideration to the question of how they can themselves best take
charge of security matters in their own region. We also find great
significance in the fact that in its reply France has indicated that
it considers its formal recognition and support of Malta's status of
neutrality as a direct contribution to the process of strengthening
security and co-operation in the Mediterranean. Similar interest has
emerged in the various statements made during the current general
debate, in particular by Italy and Algeria. It is our intention this
year, in collaboration with our partners, to seek to add to the
growing consensus on the question and to identify pragmatic ways of
developing the initiative further. One important consideration
concerns the need to keep all Member States, and especially those in
the Security Council, fully informed of relevant developments in our
region.
Various initiatives are converging to lend further strength and
credibility to the formation of a Mediterranean built upon the
awareness of a commonality of interests which bind the regional
States together in a process of peace and co-operation. Malta's
uphill task in the mid-1970s to form a consensus for bringing
together northern and southern Mediterranean States in the framework
of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe has in turn
opened up prospects for other initiatives. Thus, Malta and other
Mediterranean States, the Sixth Conference of Heads of State or
Government of Non-Aligned Countries, held at Havana in 1979, engaged
the explicit support of the non-aligned movement for the proposal
that non-aligned Mediterranean States meet in Malta in 1980 with
aligned Mediterranean States, participants in the European
Conference, to discuss specific projects of co-operation and to
co-ordinate positions for further action even in the European
Conference itself.
That convergence is most evident in the case of Malta's neutrality.
The widespread recognition and support for Malta's status of
neutrality is proving of seminal value for initiatives aimed at
installing a system of regional security in the Mediterranean in
which the concerns of super-Power confrontation are neither exclusive
nor dominant.
Through their unilateral rejection of foreign military bases on their
territories, a number of Mediterranean States have set in motion a
process of disarmament in the region. With the closing of foreign
military bases, Malta, too, has contributed to that formation of
embryo zones of peace. But this unilateral approach is not enough. In
seeking support for its status of neutrality, Malta has introduced a
reciprocity of commitments. At the regional level it has undertaken
the commitment that its territory would never be used for armed
offensives against neighbouring States, and in return obtained
assurances from them that they would not threaten or violate its
neutrality; at the broader level, the super-Power have accepted
Malta's assurances that its territory would not be available to
either of them for military purposes and in return they have assured
Malta of their undertaking to respect its neutrality. If the
Mediterranean is to enjoy the benefits of a system of regional
security, an extension of this type of reciprocal commitment is
indispensable. Only in this way would there start a process of easing
of tension, reduction of polarization and limitation of armaments
deployment.
We are, of course, very much aware that military deployment by the
super-Power in the Mediterranean is not simply a function of regional
concerns, but is integrated in global strategic planning. We are
equally aware that the options being taken today by some of the
States in our region are supportive of the global dimension of the
super-Power military presence in the Mediterranean. The current
deteriorating situation is not especially propitious. Yet, we have
sensed in the developments which took place in the 1970s that the
potential exists for an affirmation of the collective role of
Mediterranean States in the security of their own region. Our
persistence at the present time arises both from the concern that any
relaxation would jeopardize the progress which has already been made;
as well as from the conviction that in pursuing our objectives for
peace we are directly contributing to the overcoming of the current
negative trend.
Although conditions in the Mediterranean are ripe for progress in the
pursuit of regional security and co-operation, current negative
trends elsewhere are adversely affecting this region too. The
Mediterranean thus challenges the super-Power with a crucial test of
their willingness and capacity to respond by favouring the processes
of peace as opposed to the processes of confrontation. In the light
of the remarkable achievements for the Mediterranean over the past
decade, a reversal here would have ominous consequences for other
quarters of the globe, where stability, peace and security are
precarious and threatened. Progress here, on the other hand, would
give the cue for analogous initiatives to be undertaken in other
regions so that peace becomes indivisible and stable. In other words,
the crucial test for peace is whether Mediterranean countries and the
super-Power agree on reciprocal assurances as have already been
implemented in respect of a neutral Malta. The Mediterranean is ready.
For Malta, the struggle against such high odds to bring about a halt
to the process of confrontation in our region is in line with the
historic linkage which has existed between events in our country and
in the region at large. Poised in the heart of the Mediterranean,
less than 200 miles from the mainlands of Europe and of Africa, Malta
has for centuries been right on the dividing line between opposing
and contending forces.
Starting with the Roman-Carthaginian confrontation of the
pre-Christian era, and running through to the regional super-Power
confrontation of our day, Malta's position has always imposed
critical choices of alignment and commitment. In the past, these
choices were always made by the dominant Power in possession of the
island. They were inevitably choices for aggression and military
domination of Malta's neighbours. During this century alone, Malta
has served as a forward base for major military offensives in Italy,
Greece and North Africa; it served as a strategically vital position
in the two world conflicts and as an important focal point of
operations in the Suez crisis in the late 1950s.
Without any choice of its own, Malta has therefore consistently been
committed on one or another of the sides in the many conflicts and
confrontations taking place in the Mediterranean region. Whenever
armed aggression took place, Maltese territory fell directly under
attack. The nature and extent of our defences were as much at the
discretion of the foreigner as were the strategic decisions leading
to the opening of hostilities and the actions and considerations
leading to their resolution. The experience of the last World War,
when the Maltese people in their overwhelming majority joined
enthusiastically in the struggle against fascism and nazism and
rejoiced in their eventual overthrow, brought with it the dear
realization that in always fighting other people's wars, Malta had
never yet had the opportunity to struggle for its own freedom and for
peace.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the time came for Malta, in common with other
oppressed nations of the world, to achieve its independence. The
opportunity thereby created for the island to define its role for
peace in the region was, however, obstructed by British and NATO
collusion that Malta should and, indeed, would continue to pursue
economic, strategic, political and cultural choices strictly
integrated into the Western alliance, even if that involved actions
and policies divergent from the national or regional interests of a small
independent island State in the heart of a troubled region.
For a few years the local interests which had thrived on the colonial
structures and mentality managed to retain sufficient control over
the island to ensure the pursuit of a policy in strict conformity
with NATO strategies. The inappropriate economic infrastructure
closely supportive of a NATO role, which had been inherited from
colonial times, was cosmetically restructured only to the extent that
it would not interfere with that role. Control of key factors-ports,
airports, telecommunications, media, banking and currency, for
example-was retained, sometimes through indirect means, by the
British.
This continuing control served British interests in two ways. On the
one hand, by reinforcing the dominance of an elite which had a weak
base of local support, it ensured the continuing loyalty of that
elite to the British and NATO objectives. This in turn permitted
Britain to convince its NATO allies that in order to ensure that
Malta remained firmly entrenched in the Western bloc, it was in their
interests not to take any action to improve, at least to Western
European standards, the social and economic plight of the Maltese.
The Maltese people soon realized that the policies under which they
were being led constituted a negation of their freedom, were inimical
to their national interests and thwarted their natural vocation to
serve as a focal point of peace and co-operation in the
Mediterranean. Those who were claiming to maintain the island as a
bulwark of democracy by aligning it irrevocably with one bloc were at
the same time led into taking measures which, in their disrespect for
the basic rights of the individual, constituted a serious denial of
democracy.
The process of Malta's struggle for freedom came to a critical point
in the early 1970s when the people of the island, in anger and
frustration, took a dramatic decision to halt the centuries-old
military role of their own homeland. Over the last 12 years, Malta
has pursued a policy in which the struggle for personal liberty,
national freedom and regional peace and co-operation are intimately
intertwined. We have, restructured our economic infrastructure to
make it serve simultaneously the purposes of national development and
regional co-operation. We have opened our economic, cultural,
technological and political relations to all countries, rejecting any
ideological bias in our contacts.
This policy both defines and lends credibility to the status of
neutrality we have assumed, not out of any escapist desire to steer
an uncommitted course between the contending antagonisms in our
region and beyond, but out of the fundamental awareness that the
future of our nation is intimately linked with developments in our
region.
This policy has enabled us to demonstrate a forceful integrity in the
pursuit and defence of peace. Last week's endorsement of Malta's
candidacy for the Security Council in the ministerial declaration of
the non-aligned movement encourages us to persevere in our policy.
Whenever the occasion has required it, we have not shirked from
taking the necessary frank and forthright action. It was the forceful
integrity of our policies which enabled us to persevere when alone in
the European forums, in the Conference on Security and Co-operation
in Europe, and in the European capitals we put forward such views as
the call for a Mediterranean involvement in questions of European
security and the equally pressing call for a Middle East solution
based on recognition of the Palestinians' right to an independent
State of their own. Today, when these views are finding increased
support, we can look back on our earlier efforts with a dense of
pride, satisfaction and encouragement for the future.
This same spirit motivated us in the early 1970s to be equally firm
in our negotiations with Britain over the arrangements to phase out
their military presence on our territory. We then faced a massed
opposition based on prejudice, misconception and vested interests
both from within and beyond our shores. Gradually, however, we
persuaded our opponents of the integrity and peaceful nature of our
objectives.
Yet following the final departure of British troops from the island,
we again had to face the arrogant attitudes of our erstwhile colonial
ruler in connection with the question of the clearing from areas
around Malta of war remnants left over from the colonial period which
are seriously obstructing some of our major development projects.
One particular case, concerning the removal of war remnants, is
causing serious problems to our development programme. My
Government's development plan calls for the setting up in Malta of a
major coal and grain trans-shipment centre in the Mediterranean. A
prerequisite for the success of this project is a sufficient draught
to enable ships requiring an under-keel clearance of over 14 metres
to enter and navigate in the Grand Harbour of Valletta without any
problem. Nature has blessed Valletta Harbour with a sufficiently
large draught to handle such ships, but the presence of war wrecks in
various parts of the harbour and, in particular, at its entrance, has
reduced the clearance to 12.6 metres, so that the trans-shipment
project cannot materialize unless those wrecks are removed.
For the past several years my Government has been trying to reach an
amicable solution with Britain on this subject but, in spite of the
universally accepted principle that the removal of remnants of war is
the responsibility of the country that implanted them, Britain has
consistently refused to accept any legal or moral responsibility.
Indeed, Britain is making its repeated disclaimer of any legal or
moral responsibility whatsoever a pre-condition of any talks with my
Government. From this rostrum I repeat the offer which my Government
has already made to the British Government of talks without
pre-conditions. A satisfactory solution would also obviate the need
for us to raise this issue in all appropriate international
forums-something which we are otherwise determined to persist in.
Our experience teaches that the struggle by a people to achieve
dignity and freedom is itself part of the process in the endeavor for
regional and global peace and security. For the Palestinian people
the road to dignity and freedom is proving particularly tragic, as
the recent events in Lebanon have shown. These events have not broken
the spirit of the Palestinian people in continuing their struggle but
the opportunities for a peaceful solution, which under the leadership
of the PLO were genuinely being sought, have been dealt a severe
blow. The Israeli actions have deliberately placed a policy of
aggression right in the path of the road to peace; in the process
they have inflicted unbelievable suffering, and they have torn a
country apart.
The threat to the peace and stability of the Middle East and the
Mediterranean which arises out of the Palestinian and. Lebanese
tragedies constitutes a direct threat to peace and stability even
outside the region. European nations should play a major role to help
bring about a solution which both respects the inalienable rights of
the Palestinians and at the same time safeguards other legitimate
interests in the region. Malta is proud of the role it has played in
supporting the Palestinian cause and pledges to continue steadfastly
in this course.
The actions of South Africa, its internal policies of racism and
oppression and its external policies of aggression and domination
constitute yet another threat to international peace and stability.
The cry of anger, frustration and suffering emerging from southern
Africa is urgent and persuasive. It calls for urgent and effective
remedies.
The aspiration of the people of Korea to the peaceful unification of
their country continues to be frustrated. The presence of foreign
troops in South Korea and the size and strategic objectives of this
presence run directly counter to the already expressed desire of all
Korean people to seek a peaceful road to the reunification of their
country.
Similarly, in Cyprus the illegal presence of foreign troops stands in the
way of an already defined basis for a peaceful solution which would
ensure the sovereignty, unity, territorial integrity and independence
of that island.
The people of Afghanistan and Kampuchea also find the internal
evolution of their societies interfered with and distorted by the
interplay of outside interests. The departure of foreign troops from
these countries remains a necessary pre-condition of the recovery by
their peoples of their sovereignty and independence.
For over two years now the imperatives of peace have not prevailed
between the Iranian and Iraqi peoples. We continue to believe that
the possibilities exist for a peaceful solution to their problems and
that no means whatsoever should be spared to achieve this end.
In the Falkland Islands the resort to force was a tragic outcome of
the failure to use the processes of consultation and negotiation
recommended by the United Nations. We hope to see wiser counsels
prevail in the future.
In these and other instances, policies of aggression and force
clearly continue to play their dominant role in the relations among
nations. The yearning for peace, so urgent and pervasive in the
hearts and minds of peoples throughout the world, has not yet been
translated into the actions and policies of nations. And yet the
mechanisms for peace exist, here at the United Nations, through
regional concertation and through national initiatives. We need to
muster the courage and tenacity to make a thrust for peace before the
increasing resort to force overwhelms us completely and leads us to
an irreversible catastrophe. Malta remains deeply committed to this
endeavour.