Antigua and Barbuda, 1982

I wish to join with the leaders of other delegations in paying a

tribute to the outgoing President, Mr. Kittani, who distinguished

himself throughout last year in his efforts on behalf of the

Assembly. I am also honoured to be accorded the privilege on behalf

of my country to congratulate Mr. Hollai on his election to the

presidency of the thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly. I

offer him my delegation's fullest support in the tasks which lie

ahead of him.

Never in the history of its existence has the Assembly convened

against such a background of pervading universal gloom. Unemployment

figures I the industrialized countries are assuming proportions

traditionally associated with developing countries: 10.1 per cent in

the United States and a similar figure in the European Economic

Community. Every month that passes witnesses thousands more people

being cast on to the heap of the unemployed with no prospect of jobs,

no means of maintaining their standard of living and little means of

ensuring the well-being of their families. Many marvel every day that

there have not been widespread violent reactions in the streets;

others expect those reactions to erupt at any time if this

all-consuming recession continues unabated.

And while unemployment in industrialized countries reaches the level

normally linked with developing countries, the ranks of the

unemployed in poor States are swelling to record volumes. Only an

immunity to suffering born of generations of deprivation keeps some

developing States from explosion.

A blanket of misery has been cast upon the world: it has spared no

country and it has brought many to the brink of disaster. This misery

can only be measured in human terms-for it knows nor colour, nor

religion, nor nationality. It grips many millions in developed

countries who must struggle to survive on State support and many more

millions in poor countries who must suffer with no support at all.

In the 1930s, when mankind experienced a global economic recession

such as the one we now face, the economists called it "the Great

Depression". It was the forerunner of a terrible war which brought

even greater human suffering than had obtained before it. As

conditions currently exist in the world, it would not be too

far-fetched for some to contemplate wars, however limited, as a

solution to the current economic crisis. Indeed some are already

advocating the Keynesian theory that military spending will create

jobs, increase public demand and stimulate economic growth.

In these troubled times, the global community should be able to spam

the irrationality of the warmongers and turn instead to the United

Nations for a sane and sensible direction. The words spoken in the

Assembly by the world's leading personalities should invoke in

mankind a spirit of hope and a sense of optimism for the future. But

we are yet to hear those words. We are yet to hear an attempt at

dialogue between the two super-Powers; we are yet to hear an attempt

at peace between warring neighbours in the Middle East; we are yet to

hear nations climb down from their nationalistic pedestals to the

table of peaceful discussion for the benefit of all mankind. What we

have heard is a discourse of the deaf; a mouthing of prearranged

statements with no interest in response or reply. Statements have not

been made for the benefit of other nations, let alone the world; they

have been made for political mileage in national capitals.

In that context the report of the Secretary- General on the work of

the Organization is both important and timely, for its summons us to

recall the principles of the Charter and to review the Mechanisms of

the Organization in order to make this body strong, not sterile;

decisive, not dilatory; functional, not ornamental. It warns us that

in a world fraught with tension and peril the United Nations is

indispensable. The Secretary-General's report has identified a number

of important ways in which the effectiveness of the United Nations

could be improved and enhanced, particularly in regard to collective

international security. Therecommendations, especially the call for a

meeting of the Security Council at the highest possible level to

discuss the problems of the United Nations, should be given the

support of all Member States. In my view, part of the agenda of that

meeting should be consideration of how much more effective the United

Nations might be if we ended the veto system provided for the

permanent membership of the Security Council. The concept of a veto

was developed at the end of the Second World War when a few nations

held dominion over many. But surely the results of a war, in whose

creation the majority of the world's people played no part, should

not continue to advise the procedures of the Security Council on an

everlasting basis.

In his report the Secretary-General has himself said that

"allegations of partisanship" have been used by some Member States to

justify side-tracking the Security Council. He has called on us to

"take such matters with the utmost seriousness and ask ourselves what

justifications, if any, there are for them and what can be done to

restore the Council to the position of influence it was given in the

Charter".

There is no doubt that there exists among Member States a genuine

fear that in certain circumstances members of the Security Council

could act in a partisan manner. In fact recent history has shown that

the veto has been used to safeguard narrow national interests in

defiance of world opinion and the decisions of the Assembly. The use

of the veto in such a manner does not inspire confidence in the

Security Council.

In this context my delegation contends that the most effective action

that can be taken to restore the Council to the position of influence

which the Charter intended for it is to end the veto system and to

democratize the process of decision-making.

Even as I state my delegation's position I am sadly aware that it has

little chance of becoming a reality, for those that hold power seldom

relinquish it willingly. None the less that is precisely why I state

it, for the attention of the Organization and other international

organizations must be focused on their collective impotence to

meaningfully address the problems of the world while the will of s

few dominates the aspirations of the many.

As we consider the issues about which the many in the Organization

have been concerned, we are struck by the dismal record of failure

which confronts us. Let us first examine efforts in the Assembly to

bring about change in the global economic arrangements. Although 1981

was the date set for the completion of global negotiations on trade,

energy, raw materials, development finance and monetary issues, the

few have ensured that this body has failed to produce agreement even

on the procedures for such negotiations. Discussion on the global

negotiations has been shunted from the thirty-sixth to the

thirty-seventh session of the Assembly. While this delaying game has

been played in the United Nations the prospects for growth and

development in poor countries have been diminished by similar actions

in other international organizations. At the recent joint meeting of

the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group in Toronto

the few ensured that an urgent call by the Group of 24 for an

increase in the Fund's quotas of not less than 100 per cent would be

ignored. Equally, efforts to persuade donors to the International

Development Association to improve their contributions in view of the

Association's vital importance to poor countries met with only

partial success.

Developing countries have not only been denied the opportunity to

discuss a framework for an international economic system based on the

fundamentals of social justice and equality; they have also

experienced a reduction in the quantum of badly needed assistance.

Official development assistance from the Western industrialized

nations decreased by 4 per cent in real terms in 1981. Official

development assistance from the Eastern European countries, including

the Soviet Union, is of course selective, and these countries have

yet to show any interest in the international dialogue on aid, though

they are active participants, to their own benefit, in the process of

trade.

Only a few nations provided more than 0.7 per cent of their gross

domestic product, which this body established as a desirable minimum,

in the form of assistance. Those countries have the gratitude of the

developing world; they deserve the respect of the international

community as a whole. They are Denmark, France, the Netherlands,

Norway and Sweden, from Europe, and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the

United Arab Emirates, three major donor countries that are members of

the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which gave 3.02

per cent of their gross national product in 1980.

It is true that by providing aid in the volume that they have those

donors have greatly assisted poor third-world States which are the

worst victims of the current recession. But those donors have also

rendered a service to the global community, especially the rich, for

the third world countries are now the biggest market for the goods of

the industrialized nations. For instance, one in every 18 jobs in the

United States is in manufacturing for the third world. In such

circumstances it is in the interests of all, including the

industrialized nations, for third world States to survive. For if we

are unable to purchase goods produced by the developed States they

will lose many more millions of jobs, and that may be the trigger for

those violent reactions which have not yet erupted in the streets.

I have already mentioned our failure to advance the global

negotiations and the reduction of aid to developing countries as

setbacks to a prosperous global economy. Let me now add

protectionism. The protectionism practiced by some developed States

is the short-term answer to the problems of adjustment raised by the

current recession. It is believed in some capitals that by shutting

out the goods of developing countries local production will be

stimulated to the benefit of the national economy.

The evidence against that argument is now well known. Indeed recent

studies have shown that between

and 1977 protectionist measures imposed by the United States on goods

imported from Latin America and the Caribbean resulted in a loss to

consumers of $1,250 million for carbon steel, $1,200 million for

footwear, $660 million for sugar, $400 million to $800 million for

meat, and $500 million for television sets-a total of $4 billion for

these five items. The cost to the consumer for every job protected

was more than $50,000 per year. I submit that the national economy

did not benefit in the long run.

In this time of disarray in the world economy it is crucially

important to establish an international trading system in which the

developing countries are accorded a fair and equitable place.

Therefore we call on Governments represented in the Assembly to

approach the GATT Ministerial Meeting in November with the will to

return to a set of agreed principles and rules applying to all

international trade and providing a recognizable and ordered

framework within which it can grow. Therein, we believe, lies the

basis for promoting a sound world economy.

Failure to achieve change in global economic arrangements is not the

only example of the -Assembly's resolve to right wrongs being

thwarted. South Africa is yet another burning example.

South Africa continues to be a running sore upon the face of this

earth. The inhuman system of apartheid has gone beyond excess in its

brutality against the black majority. The iniquities of its regime

continue to mock the authority of this body. And what is

reprehensible about the success of the South African regime is that

Pretoria has received tacit support from many large transnational and

some of the very Governments which sit in this Hall.

Many will plead that, although they have a connection with South

Africa, they decry and bemoan the system is simply an excuse, for

they are as aware as we are, though perhaps not as painfully, that

any support given to Pretoria serves only to strengthen the regime

and intensify its atrocities.

Those atrocities are now legion: the permanent imprisonment of South

African blacks for the crime of believing that they have a right to

be free; the sentencing to death of young men because they fought to

wrest their country from minority control; the dumping of hundreds of

thousands of black South Africans in hastily created Bantustans in

order to deprive them of citizenship in the land of their birth.

We do not appear to have much chance of addressing the problem of

South Africa in the comprehensive manner which it demands if we are

unable to compel Member States to comply with our resolutions. We do

not appear to have much chance of isolating the virus of South

Africa, when a Committee established by the General Assembly in to

draft an international convention against in sports is unable to

present an agreed convention six years later.

But we must continue to try, for what is happening in South Africa is

a mark against all mankind, an assault on our decency, violence to

our world as human beings. It requires every Government represented

in the Assembly to support efforts to uphold creative ways in which

the wrongs in South Africa can be put right. Not least amongst our

efforts must be the full implementation of Security Council

resolution 435 (1978), which establishes the framework for the

independence of Namibia. The freedom of the people of Namibia must no

longer be blocked by the perpetrators in Pretoria of the wicked

system of apartheid must it be delayed by any attempt to link it with

the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. The independence of the

Namibian people is just, justified and justifiable; it should not be

used to serve the national interests of other countries. I wish I

could point to the Middle East as an area where the United Nations

has been effective, for if this were true thousands of lives would

have been spared, cities would have been saved from ruin, and

millions of dollars would have been channelled into improving rather

than destroying societies. Unfortunately, the principles of the

Charter have been flagrantly disregarded and resolutions of the

Security Council have been wilfully ignored. Consequently, the people

of the Middle East, who have suffered so agonizingly long, have found

no respite from the pain of war.

The recent massacre in the Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut was a

cold-blooded and brutal act of barbarism. It goes beyond merely

epitomizing the tragedy of the Middle East; it adds a new dimension

to the horrors of the confrontation. Lebanon has become the bleeding

heart of the world. Its anguish is shared in every man's conscience.

This country deserves the urgent support of the international

community to bind its wounds, restore its national pride and

reconstruct its economy. The Israeli forces could now be helpful to

that process if they were to withdraw immediately from Lebanese

territory.

The tragedy of Lebanon points once again to the manner in which some

nations are willing to bypass the United Nations and to disregard its

peacekeeping roles. The fact that a search for a solution to the

Middle East problems is going on and that a peace-keeping force is in

Lebanon without the involvement of the Security Council considerably

dilutes the worth of the Organization. It makes small countries like

mine wonder about the purpose of coming here at a cost we cannot

afford, when the United Nations is dismissed by those who are its

greatest power- brokers.

Central to the issue which has wrought such catastrophe in the Middle

East is the Fight of the Palestinian people to self-determination and

their further right to a land of their own in the West Bank and Gaza.

These legitimate rights of the Palestinian people must be satisfied,

and my Government will steadfastly support every initiative to secure

those rights for the Palestinian people, while recognizing that

Israel also has a right to exist securely within agreed and

recognized boundaries. In any event, as my country has opposed

acquisition of territory by force in our own Latin America and

recently in the South Atlantic, so we oppose similar acts of

aggression in the Middle East. The conflict between Iraq and the

Islamic Republic of Iran is another instance of the United Nations

being ignored. This two-year military engagement has also cost many

thousands of lives. It has been particularly savage, with

prisoners-of-war on one side being slaughtered in contravention of

their rights as prisoners. We appeal to both countries to renew their

commitment to the Charter and to end this bloody conflict, by

complying with Security Council resolutions 514 (1982) and 522

(1982). In doing so, they would ease the suffering of both their

peoples, who have been the greatest losers in the confrontation.

One cannot help but wonder how many thousands of lives would have

been saved, how much destruction averted and how much real

development achieved had the Assembly's work on disarmament positive

results rather than unmitigated failure. Much was expected from the

second special session devoted to disarmament held earlier this year,

particularly as tension heightened in so many parts of the world. Not

least among those who had high expectations of the disarmament

session were hundreds of thousands of young people all over the

world. This summer they openly demonstrated in major cities,

including here in New York, the seat of the United Nations. The

protests of this generation against the continuous, unrelenting

stockpiling of weapons have broken out like a rash. It is a rash of

resistance, an epidemic of health in an otherwise unhealthy world.

Many of those young people associate the failure to halt the arms

race with the ineffectiveness of the Assembly, for in the creation of

the United Nations did not Governments enshrine in the Charter a role

for collective security? Did they not promise mankind to make the

world a safe place in which to live? Did they not extend the hope of

an enduring respite from the horrors of war?

A generation has come to maturity with conventional wars and the

threat of nuclear war still menacing their lives. They are not

content that it should remain so. They want a broader, more

comprehensive response from Governments, and it is obvious that such

a response must be practical steps to arrest the arms race and to

devise a system of collective security which demands of each nation a

commitment to the protection of mankind as a whole.

The arms race competes with development objectives. It not only robs

the productive process of resources, it also deprives humanity of the

funds needed to improve the quality of life. It not only creates

international tension, it stagnates national economies.

There are shocking statistics available to all who would pay

attention. Funds allocated for technical assistance to all developing

countries for the next five years are less than will be spent on

weapons in the next five days. Developing countries received

approximately $20 billion in assistance from industrialized nations

last year; this year the United States alone will spend $18 billion

on exploring the military uses of outer space. Total military

spending' last year was $700 billion. That sum totals more than the

entire income of 1,500 million people living in the 50 poorest

countries.

We should all consider what those funds would mean to the quality of

life in developing countries if a portion were released for

development assistance. Moreover, the rich nations should consider

what effect the release of such funds would have on the productive

sectors of their own economies, on jobs for their own young people

and on health care for their old.

My delegation was pleased to see a report this week that the chairmen

of the biggest corporations in the United States, including many of

those that count on the Pentagon for their business, have called for

a cut in military spending. Although their objective may be confined

to narrow national concerns in the United States, it is at least an

acknowledgement by a powerful group that military spending is not

sacrosanct.

A halt to the arms race has become a matter for urgent global action in the cause

of mankind's survival. The Assembly would fail to satisfy the noble

ideals for which the United Nations was established if we turn a deaf

ear to the eloquent calls for peace and a halt to the arms race that

have echoed so profoundly across so many continents.

The depression of the 1930s and the Second World War were followed by

unprecedented international co-operative efforts to reconstruct the

world economy. The international economic order, which was

established as a result of those efforts, can no longer cope with the

realities of the 1980s, but the efforts which attended its creation

are worthy of emulation. For it is a similar kind of international

effort which our global community requires today, one which includes

countries of the North and South, the East and West.

Such an effort must have as its goal a vision of how the world could

be if there were a will by Governments to make it so. It should be a

vision which acknowledges the pluralistic nature of our societies,

accepts the inevitability of our economic interdependence and

resolves that our children should inherit a peaceful and prosperous

planet.

The Assembly is in a unique position to help mankind establish that

vision, for the conditions outside this building-in the cities and

rural dwellings of our many countries-demand urgent change. It is a

task which should be embraced with alacrity, for future generations

will judge us harshly if, despite our recognition of a need to act,

we sacrifice long- term global well-being for short-term national

gains. Antigua and Barbuda stands committed to help make such a

vision a reality.