Colombia, 1982

I should like first to congratulate Mr. Hollai on his election to the

important post of President and at the same time to express the hope

that, under his able leadership, this session of the General Assembly

will achieve positive results. I should also like to express to his

eminent predecessor, Mr. Kittani, our gratitude for the effectiveness

with which he presided over the thirty-sixth session. I wish to

assure the Secretary-General, Mr. Perez de Cuellar, a seasoned

diplomat of whom Latin America is proud, of our support in any action

that he takes in the interest of the international community. I take

this opportunity to commend the sincerity, the vigour and the vision

shown in his report to the General Assembly on the role of the

Organization in these times of crisis.

On behalf of our President, Belisario Betancur, and the people of

Colombia, I should like to greet the representatives of States

Members of the United Nations and to express our confidence that at

this thirty-seventh session of the General Assembly we shall be able

to work effectively in the search for solutions to the disputes that

disturb the peace and threaten the security of our peoples.

I represent a country with a population of 30 million-the fourth

largest in population in the western hemisphere-situated at the heart

of the Americas and sharing land and sea boundaries with 13 Latin

American and Caribbean nations. Our unique geographical position ties

us irrevocably to the fate of a large part of the continent and

obliges us to work in an open and constructive spirit.

Colombia is also a country of laws and an unsullied democratic

tradition, where political differences are resolved through elections

and authority emanates from the popular will. Our newly elected

Government has devoted its efforts to the country's economic and

social recovery and to a major peace initiative which will surely

enable those groups which had resorted to armed rebellion to be

reincorporated into civilian life. I have been so bold as to mention

these positive attributes of my country, but I shall not dwell

further on a point which hold little interest for the news agencies,

whose preferred subject-matter is scandals and disasters.

My country believes in the possibility and the desirability of

peaceful solutions. It defends the application of the principles and

norms of international law in the settlement of disputes and

advocates nonintervention, self-determination and strict observance

of treaties. It none the less believes that justice complements law

and it is therefore prepared to consider with an open mind all those

intrinsically just causes that, for this very reason, warrant the

attention of the international community.

The United Nations, created under the noblest of auspices to save the

world from the scourge of war, to promote more equitable conditions

and standards of living for the peoples and to ensure a stable

economic order and harmonious development, has all too often been

prevented from fulfilling its noble mission. In the view of many it

has even become ineffectual. To a large extent this view is correct:

purely political controversy has invaded all United Nations forums.

Agencies designed to promote social progress, economic recovery and

technological progress have become arenas of bitter polemics. The

spirit of co-operation is gradually disappearing; selfish interests

predominate and the policy of blocs is expanding. Against the

backdrop of this kind of Tower of Babel, the imminent danger of

universal cataclysm emerges as the only reality.

It is not surprising that, in this atmosphere, the arms race should

have intensified. What until recently was a phenomenon exclusive to

the great Powers has spread like a malignant growth to moderately

developed States and even to poor countries. Often it is the

industrialized nations themselves that encourage this trade in death.

Military and economic might create conditions of dependence. The

world's backward countries must sacrifice their dignity to necessity

and their conceptual independence in the face of threats. The will to

survive leads to a servile pragmatism which destroys ideals and

fosters resentment. This concentration of the factors of power

explains the formation of the major blocs and the humiliating

situation of those nations that have been forced to submit to one or

another sphere of influence.

It would be unfair to overlook the ideological motivation surrounding

some of the decisions of the great Powers. This ideological

confrontation is becoming increasingly rare, however. Above all, what

we have is a power struggle which threatens to engulf the entire

world community. As long as the system of major blocs persists, peace

will be impossible.

Colombia is profoundly concerned about this state of affairs. In the

past year, far from decreasing, the causes for concern have actually

increased. The number of situations which disrupt world peace is

growing, the economic crisis's becoming increasingly complex and the

imbalance among nations is becoming increasingly marked Colombia is

concerned by the constant violations of the principles and norms of

international law. We cannot countenance the illegal occupation and

annexation of territories by force or other forms of intervention

that perpetuate a state of permanent anxiety.

Like most countries, Colombia has condemned Israel's military action

in Lebanon. It advocates withdrawal from the Arab territories now

under military occupation and recognizes the right of the Palestinian

people to a sovereign State.

Colombia believes that the various formulas now under consideration

with regard to the Palestinian problem must be reconciled as soon as

possible. New negotiating machinery which is binding on the parties

to the conflict and on the third countries involved is probably

needed. We believe that this vital step does not conflict with

recognition of the State of Israel and the latter's right to live in

peace within its own borders.

We note with interest and satisfaction all efforts, such as those

undertaken by the Korean people, tending to re-establish national

unity.

We have voiced our opposition to the possible exclusion of any Member

State from the various organs of the United Nations. Despite all the

risks, we believe that the principle of universality, which is

fundamental to the survival and historical impact of the

Organization, must be maintained.

Unfortunately, the latest acts of aggression and violence in the

Middle East are not the only ones suffered and repudiated by the

international community. We have also condemned the military

occupation of Afghanistan and Kampuchea and the persecution of the

trade union movement in Poland. In all these cases clear-cut norms of

international law have been violated, resulting in the irreparable

loss of human life and considerable material damage.

We are deeply concerned at the situation in Central America and at

the risk that this region so near to us geographically and so dear to

our hearts might become a new arena of international confrontation.

The nations of Central America are struggling, each in its own way,

to strengthen democracy and promote social change. In that process,

which should occur peacefully as a result of self-determination,

there has in recent times been resort to the perilous course of

ideological extremism, arms buildup and foreign interference.

We cannot stand by and let the countries of Central America become a

prey to international ambitions and their weak political and economic

structures be suddenly threatened by violence and civil war. It is

essential to restore peace and, by means of a constructive dialogue,

to create the conditions for' peaceful coexistence and development.

In achieving these objectives, it would be most useful to eliminate

the pernicious influence of the military apparatus that in one way or

another has become involved in Central American politics.

At the beginning of October, Colombia participated in a meeting of

Foreign Ministers organized by the Government of Costa Rica with the

aim of finding common ground and discussing specific actions which

would permit a return to normalcy. As a result of that important

meeting, it was agreed to create a body which would work for peace

and democracy: a peace based on mutual respect and a democracy which

would guarantee free political expression in each country. At

Colombia's request, the Foreign Ministers meeting in San Jose

proposed the removal of all military and security advisers from the

area, in particular from El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua.

We hope that the goodwill mission entrusted to the Foreign Minister

of Costa Rica will help to broaden the regional dialogue and will be

well received in those countries which for various reasons did not

participate in the first round of talks. My country will co-operate

fully in achieving the objectives set.

Colombia does not advocate and has never advocated the use of force

to resolve conflicts. It therefore deplores the fact that, in the

case of the Malvinas Islands, the protracted absence of a peaceful

solution and the persistence of colonialist practices let to the de

facto situations and that all efforts at conciliation to avoid an

armed conflict failed.

We are now faced with the consequences: the loss of 3,000 human lives

and damage estimated at over $1 billion. But this tragic outcome is

not the only cause for concern. The truth is that as a result of the

armed conflict the possibility of a stable solution for the islands

now appears more remote than ever.

The United Kingdom, having gained a military victory, refuses to

discuss the question of sovereignty over the islands. Although

explicable in the light of recent events, this position will prove

untenable in the long run. The anti-colonialist determination of the

vast majority of countries, Colombia among them, will finally prevail.

In order to obviate the risk of further conflict and avoid a

prolongation of the harmful consequences of this confrontation,

Colombia proposes that the Malvinas should immediately be made

neutral and their administration entrusted to a multinational

authority until a way is found of reconciling Argentina's rights with

the legitimate interests of the islands' inhabitants.

The conduct of the United States in this unfortunate incident

warrants special comment. That country's decision to abandon its

initial neutral position and to afford economic, political and

military support to the United Kingdom aroused justified indignation

in Latin America. That episode has given rise to the feeling

throughout the continent that the United States cares little of the

fate of its neighbours. The United States attitude none the less had

the salutary effect of uniting the peoples of Latin America for the

first time in their entire history. We must seize this opportunity to

create effective machinery which will make possible a joint response

in moments of crisis.

The impact of this conflict on the continent's political future

cannot be ignored. Europeans and North Americans will in the short

term be able to correct many of the decisions taken during the war,

but it will take a long time for the wounds to heal. Clearly, Latin

America is not a priority on the great Powers' list. At the centre of

the armed confrontation in the South Atlantic the question of

colonialism appears as a last remnant of a world which has faded into

history but the vestiges of which will continue to cause constant

irritation and potential conflicts for years* to come. Practical

problems arise in this decolonization process, including that of how

to ensure that newly independent territorial entities, many of them

small, avoid the dependence forced on them by their limited economic

resources. Faced with the danger of new forms of domination, these

young nations will have to seek, with the support of the

international community, systems of association that enable them to

defend their own independence successfully.

In analysing the factors which contribute to disturbances of the

peace we are also concerned at the discouraging results of the second

special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament. We

see the problem as one not only of nuclear weapons butalso of

conventional weapons. It is not enough for the great Powers to

declare their willingness to refrain from the use of nuclear weapons.

A decision must also be taken drastically to reduce conventional

weapons and to agree to absolutely trustworthy verification

procedures.

In Colombia's view peace is not and cannot be a precarious balance

between heavily armed nations but rather the result of a just

international order. Pope Paul VI made this abundantly clear when he

stated in his encyclical Populorium Progressio many years ago that

development was the new name for peace. The Pontiffs historic maxim

becomes dramatically relevant in a world where opportunities are

dangerously concentrated in the hands of a few and three quarters of

mankind continues to be excluded from a development which would make

justice feasible and freedom attainable.

It was this time bomb which prompted the international community a

decade ago to seek a new international economic order which would

make it possible to correct imbalances and bridge the gap between

rich and poor. Without wishing to belittle the initial efforts that

were made, we must agree that the situation is not encouraging and

the prospects of establishing such an order are increasingly remote,

above all in the midst of one of the worst economic crises to face

the international community in three generations.

This crisis, which is probably both the cause and the effect of the

chaotic situation in which mankind is living, is the result of

numerous factors, including theoretical dependence on rigid models

which for a long time now have failed to take into account the whole

purpose of economic management for the advancement of man and have

become worn-out concepts which, at the political level, point the way

to failure.

The peripheral countries that traditionally revolve around these

systems are often used as testing grounds. The all-out free

enterprise of the so-called Chicago school on the one hand and the

rigid self- management and planning, with total State intervention,

advocated by the current Marxist school, on the other, are the most

recent examples of how blind adherence to economic theories whose

origins are purely political is doomed to failure.

Another no less important, cause of this far- reaching crisis is the

rapidly growing indebtedness of the developing countries and of those

countries with a so-called centrally planned economy. Between them,

these countries are fast approaching a foreign debt amounting to the

extraordinary sum of $800 billion. Two circumstances aggravate this

phenomenon: on the one hand, the growing involvement of private

lenders-calculated at 50 per cent-to the detriment of financing

through international development agencies which are finding it

increasingly difficult to open the coffers of their rich members; on

the other hand, the all too frequent use of foreign loans for sectors

other than infrastructure or social welfare.

In practice, those resources have become volatile material and there

are difficulties in repaying loans because production has not

increased in proportion to indebtedness. There are, of course,

exceptions but in the end only those countries that have exchanged

foreign currency for progress will be successful and it will be

difficult to find a remedy for those which exchanged loans for

prestige or used them for ill-planned investments to find a way out

of their difficulties.

The external debt problem has reached such insane proportions that

what formerly generated dependence today engenders mutual fear

between debtors and creditors. The entire financial problem must be

approached in new terms before this fear degenerates into political

confrontation.

Colombia is not subject at present to the pressures of a

disproportionate foreign debt. Its foreign debt amounts to over $7

billion, but to a large extent this figure represents development

loans whose short- term impact is manageable. The annual debt service

takes up barely 15 per cent of our foreign trade earnings.

International reserves stand at over $5 billion. We are not,therefore,

pleading our own cause but rather speaking, out of an elementary

sense of solidarity, as advocates of those countries which need rapid

and effective support. To this end we support the preparation and

implementation of a short- term emergency plan as a first step in the

process of global negotiations.

The economic crisis also has its mots in the policies of the

industrialized countries. The restriction of demand in order to

control inflation has caused a drop in the growth of price indices

and more recently in that of interest rates, but at the high social

cost of slowing down growth and increasing unemployment.

This affects international trade, which is the basis for the growth

of most of the developing economies, and thus exports unemployment,

the social and political consequences of which are felt far more

acutely in the third world than in the industrialized world.

Protectionism has taken hold of the major markets, with obvious

consequences for trade but also with the distressing result that the

developing countries, seeing the deterioration in their trade

balances and balances of payments, try to save themselves and are in

turn accused of protectionism, of violating free trade agreements or

simply of being trade terrorists who, by stimulating exports, attack

the world economy.

Another aspect that we must mention here is the deterioration of the

situation with regard to commodities. Producer countries were used to

products enjoying good seasons bad seasons, and one usually cancelled

out the other. Now there are only bad periods because of the

recession affecting the main purchasers, and especially because of

the irresponsible, selfish and disastrous policies of groups of

developed countries which, as in the case of sugar, have brought

prices down to absolutely ludicrous levels.

The countries that uphold this sugar policy of subsidies, increased

production and the imposition of quotas cannot expect us to be

grateful, to cooperate and to let them participate in our development

plans. In my country the sugar sector generates considerable

employment and foreign currency, and it would be inconsistent of us

not to respond forcefully to seeing our international earnings

reduced as a result of unilateral policies.

Almost all the Powers could be accused of this kind of policy with

regard to other commodities. The sale of strategic reserves, the

stockpiling of others by mining multinationals, the unilateral fixing

of quotas for access to markets and the use of foodstuffs as a

political weapon are only some of the many aberrations against which

the international community as a whole will have to fight.

We should, however, also mention, within this bleak commodity

situation, the success just achieved in London in connection with the

International Coffee Agreement, of which my country has always been

and will continue to be an ardent supporter. This agreement to

protect the market reached between producers and consumers in the

same forum is an example which I should like to mention here and

which would not have been possible without solidarity between the two

interest groups.

This already long list also includes the affront constituted by

military spending. According to United Nations calculations, at 1978

prices the world spends $1.2 billion a day on armaments, $900 million

of which represents the combined military budgets of the United

States, the Soviet Union, China, France and the United Kingdom. This

daily arms expenditure is equal to the sum total of the annual

budgets of UNDP, the World Food Programme, UNICEF, UNRWA and UNFPA.

And, one further comment, compared with the over $380 billion spent

each year on military budgets, the $21 billion in direct aid, the $80

million from the World Bank, the $24 million from the Inter-American

Development Bank and the $67 million from the International Monetary

Fund seem paltry amounts. The $825 million of United States financial

assistance to the Caribbean and the Soviet Union's $1,856 million to

Cuba, North Korea and Viet Nam are even more insignificant. These

figures speak for themselves.

The subject of the North-South dialogue is perhaps one of the few on

which we all agree: we have failed miserably. Since 1973, the year of

the oil embargo and the floating of the principal currencies, the

United Nations as an institution, its Members and the decade's most

eminent personalities have reiterated the need to restructure

fundamentally the economic relationship between those that are the

most prosperous and those that are still the poorest. Then came the

General Assembly resolutions on the new international economic order

and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. The latter

could figure in the book of world records as the instrument most

frequently violated.

The same happened with the 1974 Paris Conference, which throughout

its three long years brought nothing new to the solution of world

problems; with the various meetings of UNCTAD; the ministerial

meeting of GATT; the Conference of Science and Technology for

Development; the Tokyo Round; the annual rite of the International

Monetary Fund, the World Bank and FAO; the proposal of the

non-aligned countries on global negotiations; the Brandt report; the

Cancun summit and the New Delhi and Oslo meetings.

These comings and goings of officials, diplomats, economists and

politicians have achieved little. Generosity has run out; these are

difficult times; such are the phrases we read in foreign ministry

reports. We of the South say that the North lacks the necessary

political will; those of the North say that we of the South do not

know what we want. There is nothing new; every possibility, including

hope, has vanished.

The argument that we must wait for the world economy to return to

normal and regain its health is not convincing enough for us to

postpone indefinitely the initiatives with regard to the North-South

dialogue and the global negotiations. The illness has to be treated;

the solution is in the hands of those present here-developed or

underdeveloped, with or without a colonial past. It is a question of

political will and of clearly identifying our goals and procedures.

There is light in all this darkness: co-operation among developing

countries. This South-South relationship is one of the few

multilateral successes of recent years and must therefore maintain

its momentum and continue its identification of areas in which

co-operation is possible and fruitful.

It is true that the developing countries enjoy only 28 per cent of

the wealth of our planet, but it is no less true that they represent

80 per cent of the world's population. This tremendous sociological

reality will make itself felt in the end and the developed countries

realize this. Unfortunately, they neither act nor allow others to

act. Years ago there was a proposal, which was never put into

practice, that the rich countries should earmark a minimum percentage

of their gross national product for programmes of international

co-operation. The proposal never got off the ground.

The only alternative is to strengthen the South- South relationship.

It is a question of seeking and offering support, encouraging

exchanges, pooling experiences and developing new technologies. These

are some of the goals. Although Colombia is not an economic Power,

much less a military one, it understands and accepts its obligation

to contribute to those goals and has tried to do so in its own area.

One result of my country's decision is the Andean Pact or Cartagena

Agreement, an interesting experiment in sub-regional integration that

has managed to survive for over 10 years. Another example is the plan

for economic, trade and financial cooperation which Colombia is

promoting with the countries of Central America and the Caribbean.

These are specific examples which prove that a stable and fruitful

relationship is possible among developing countries.

If it is not possible, as we have seen, to institutionalize the

North-South dialogue and render it operational, then let the General

Assembly at least offer effective backing to the agencies that

promote South-South co-operation.

In the midst of so many disappointments, there is another very

important and positive element in the work of the United Nations

which shows that it is possible to find universally acceptable

solutions to problems affecting the international community when the

spirit of consensus prevails and multilateral negotiating machinery

is properly used. I am referring to the adoption on 30 April last of

the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the culmination

of nine years of difficult negotiations and six years of careful

preparation.

The new regime for the sea recognizes and develops for the sea-bed

beyond the limits of national jurisdiction a principle already

formulated 150 years ago by the great Latin American legal expert

Andres Bello, according to which there are assets which can remain

common property for the benefit of all and belong to the indivisible

heritage of mankind and cannot be marked with the seal of ownership.

With regard to maritime spaces under State jurisdiction, the

Convention represents not only a complete legal framework, but also

an instrument for the economic and social development of our peoples.

Colombia was one of the 130 countries to vote in favour of the

Convention and hopes that at this session the General Assembly will

provide the Secretary-General with the necessary means to take on the

responsibilities assigned to him.

The Second United Nations Conference on the Exploration and Peaceful

Uses of Outer Space, which was held at Vienna in August, enabled the

United Nations to review the conquest of space, and the developing

countries to call the attention of the technological Powers to the

need for more effective and systematic international co-operation.

For Colombia, an equatorial country, it was significant that several

of the recommendations of the Conference stressed the urgent need to

plan and regulate the use of the geostationary orbit, a limited

natural resource which can be over-exploited by its appropriation by

the technological monopolies. Since 1975, my country and nine other

equatorial States have been demanding a special regime for the

geostationary orbit. In Vienna, all the developing countries, within

the framework of the Group of 77, turned our demands into a dire

necessity. We reiterate to the Assembly today that technological

development must be regulated by international law and that

consequently the free consent of countries below the orbital arc must

be a prerequisite of any such regulation. We really believe that the

prior consent of receiving and monitored countries must be obtained

before direct television broadcasting by satellite or remote-sensing

activities are carried out.

I could go on at length on many other topics of concern to my

country, but I see no practical usefulness in doing so. Each country

must act within the limits of its possibilities and in relation to

the questions which concern it directly. I should like, however, to

share a number of closing observations with the members of the

Assembly. These refer to the search for a lasting peace which would

guarantee the survival of our species. If we are to achieve such a

peace, we must replace confrontation by balance. This balance does

not arise from the strategic parity of the super-Powers, however, but

is born of the tactical unity of medium-sized and small nations in

seeking to dismantle the whole threatening apparatus of war.

It has been proved time and again that the United States and the

Soviet Union are not in a position to offer mankind the good news of

effective disarmament and that they will probably pursue their

intensive political, economic and military rivalry. Colombia has

thought carefully about these and other facts in relation to its own

international position. For years, influenced by our dedication to a

set of principles and consistent with a tradition, we have on

occasion been regarded as a dependent country. We believe that the

time has come to clarify our position. Not so that we might disown an

honourable past, much less abjure principles that are deeply rooted

in our people, but simply so that we might better serve the cause of

mankind. We believe that the prospects for peace will be improved if

countries able to do so adopt more independent positions. This is

also valid in view of the aspirations to establish a new, more just

and equitable economic order.

These are the main reasons for Colombia's decision to apply for

admission to the non-aligned movement. We are well aware that this

movement was, at the outset, made up principally of countries from

other continents. We believe that the time has come for the countries

of Latin America also to join in a process which, if well directed,

can make a decisive contribution to the cause of peace. Some have

already done so and others, like Colombia, hope to do so in the near

future.