Madagascar, 1982

The unanimous election of Mr. Hollai to the

presidency of the Assembly is a tribute to the

People's Republic of Hungary, a country with

which Madagascar is glad to have very cordial

relations based on our common aspiration to

social progress, and if I can speak as a former

colleague I must say that we also see in this

election recognition of his personal qualities

and his unceasing contributions to the

deliberations and work of the United Nations. To

his predecessor, Mr. Kittani, we would address

fraternal thanks for the exemplary and

responsible way in which he carried out his

mandate. It is also fitting for us again to

express the confidence of the Malagasy Government

in the Secretary General and to assure him of the

full cooperation of our delegation.

At the last session, when analyzing the

international situation, the Foreign Minister of

the Democratic Republic of Madagascar highlighted

three points: the failure of the system of

collective security drawn up in the Charter in

rather special circumstances; the widespread

insecurity in international relations; and the

need for a multilateral approach to both the

assessment and the solution of world problems.

That analysis is still valid today, particularly

now that we are so bitter and disconcerted to see

that despite the numerous meetings, the

succession of conferences and the numerous

consultations we still cannot manage to emerge

from the world political and economic crisis. How

could it be otherwise, when real or potential

conflicts are constantly on the increase, and

when, through neglect or of necessity or

inadvertently, the determination of priorities is

governed by one law only, the law of confusion,

and when we are virtually helpless in the face of

the return of the primacy of national interests?

The most pessimistic among us are quite willing

to say that we have tried all remedies, that

nothing can be done about this problem, that all

we can do is remain content with a short lived

respite from time to time. We are tempted to

agree with them, because the notions on which the

hopes of a just and equitable redefinition of

international relations were based have been

discarded. What happened to detente? What about

peaceful coexistence? Is it now obsolete? And

what happened to the right of peoples and nations

to independent development? Are we still bound by

international solidarity? The generous enthusiasm

of the 1970s is no longer with us, and we are

witnessing the erosion of the collective

responsibility necessary for vision and the

management of a world that obviously can no

longer be what it was 37 years ago.

The vast majority of the countries of the third

world were not present at the time of the

drafting of the Charter, the limits and even the

imperfections of which we recognize. But in

joining the Organization we were determined to

remain as faithful as possible to the precepts of

the Charter. In that respect we were idealists,

because, for example, we thought that by

brandishing the Charter we would be able to rid

the world of. But at the end of the twentieth

century Apartheid remains at the center of our

concerns. It is an inhuman and retrograde policy

if ever there was one. The racial segregation

practiced in South Africa is detrimental not only

to the dignity and well being of the non white

population of that country; it poisons the

political life of the continent as a whole, and

its persistence makes it impossible for us to

talk about true stability or peace in either the

short term or the long term.

The regime presupposes the use of force,

because no ethnic group can willingly submit to

domination and exploitation by another group. To

stay in power this regime has to ensure that its

victims will stop being inspired by the example

of the independent African countries. It has to

undermine and destroy the network of solidarity

which the South African liberation movement,

essentially the African National Congress, enjoys

or may enjoy beyond the frontiers of South

Africa. That is why the Pretoria authorities do

not hesitate to show their anti African nature

by increasing their acts of aggression,

interference and destabilization against their

immediate or more distant neighbors, in

particular those of southern and eastern Africa.

The sister Republic of Seychelles will take a

long time to recover economically from the

mercenary aggression of 25 November 1981 and to

regain the security it needs to press ahead with

its policies and the development that should be

promoted by enabling the Special Fund set up

under resolution 3202 to become operational.

The racist regime sends into action mercenaries

and bandits, which it trains, finances, leads and

commands, in order to challenge the socialist

course followed by Mozambique.

Angola, which has suffered several acts of

aggression since independence in 1975, has had

part of its territory occupied for more than a

year by South African troops; its airspace is

constantly violated, and its civilian population

and installations are constantly at the mercy of

bombardments and airborne troops.

Was that provided for in the Charter? Is it

tolerable? The only answer can be no, but when we

Africans who are in our flesh and in our dignity

victims of the system of Apartheid and the

extortion that accompanies it ask for sanctions

against Pretoria or compliance with and the

strengthening of the arms embargo decreed by the

Security Council, all we get is unwillingness to

act and vetoes.

In Namibia, which South Africa still considers to

be one of its provinces, Pretoria has done

nothing to break the infernal cycle of injustice,

turmoil and repression through voluntary

renunciation of a policy that is constantly

challenged. Instead, the racist regime continues

to rely on force to suppress or at least to

thwart the desire for emancipation of those who

disagree with it and continues to maintain the

illegal occupation of the Territory.

It is regrettable that certain circles,

disregarding this aspect, refuse to recognize

SWAPO as the authentic and sole representative of

the Namibian people and continue to treat it as a

terrorist organization, showing a lack of

sensitivity towards the large scale physical

liquidation of SWAPO militants. Those same

circles have been the most zealous advocates of

the need to shore up confidence in the racist

regime and to keep it secure, as if injustice and

illegal occupation needed comfort or

consolidation.

Recently those same circles have not hesitated to

go beyond South African requests by reimposing a

conditional link between the independence of

Namibia and the withdrawal of the Cuban

internationalist troops that are in Angola at the

request of the Angolan Government. Leaving aside

the fact that this would constitute a flagrant

intervention in the internal affairs of a

sovereign independent State, this proposed link

is truly surprising. It seems to be forgotten

that it was South Africa that committed

aggression against Angola and not the other way

round. Now it is South Africa that needs to be

protected against the combined forces of Angola

and Cuba. Instead of internationalist or why not

multinational troops being brought in to provide

protection for that country, those that are there

are being asked to leave.

For this reason we support the terms of the

communique of the summit meeting of the front

line States held in Lusaka on 4 September 1982.

Reaffirming that Security Council resolutions 386

(1976) and 435 (1978) are the sole valid basis

for a negotiated settlement of the Namibian

question, we subscribe to the position of the non

aligned countries that the United Nations has the

prime responsibility for the solution of this

question, with a view to the rapid transition of

the Territory to independence. If that

independence is further delayed, the Organization

should shoulder its responsibility and proclaim

Namibia independent, with all the consequences

which that might have, particularly for South

Africa, whose rights in the matter we challenge,

for the Member States, which cannot with impunity

abandon the Namibians to their fate and, lastly,

for the Organization itself, one of whose primary

objectives is after all the liberation of peoples.

The unanimity of the African States on the

political liberation of Africa, particularly of

its southern part, we should have liked to see

manifested in a positive manner in respect of

Western Sahara. For us, the admission of the

Sahraoui Arab Democratic Republic as the fifty

first member of the Organization of African Unity

is irreversible because it represents an

important stage in the struggle of the Sahraoui

people to put an end to the Moroccan occupation,

which we continue to denounce, and to enjoy fully

independence, sovereignty and their inalienable

national rights. Last year, in Nairobi, at the

eighteenth session of the Assembly of Heads of

State and Government of the OAU, a consensus

emerged ' in respect of the framework in which

the exercise of those rights could take place and

no divergence of views manifested itself as to

the need for a ceasefire and negotiations between

the parties to the conflict, which in our opinion

can only be Morocco and POLISARIO,

The crisis experienced by the OAU does not date

from the admission of the Sahraoui Arab

Democratic Republic to that organization but it

is evident that

its solution depends to a great extent on the

commencement and successful outcome of

negotiations on Western Sahara. The error in this

matter, if there has been an error, does not lie

in the existence of divergent views, but may

derive from the belief that unity can be achieved

at any price and on any conditions. The African

determination to overcome this crisis is still as

firm as ever and we shall achieve our aims and be

even more strengthened in our principles and

convictions, if only to confound those who have

counted on a temporarily disunited Africa in

order to promote certain interests which will

never be ours.

On the Middle East, there are those who would

like to calm our apprehensions by suggesting that

the recent Israeli aggression against Lebanon and

the Palestinian people ended in political defeat.

In Israel itself something seems to have changed,

something resembling the qualms of a conscience

which had long been accustomed to accept the

double talk of the Government; while among the

most fervent defenders of the Zionist regime

there are those who complain they have been led

astray by Begin and Sharon and now seem to

recognize the dangers of unconditional support

for Israel and the virtues of a more critical and

objective attitude to its crimes.

Although salutary those reactions have come

rather late and we cannot forget what a great

price has been paid by the Palestinian people in

order to bring about these modest movements in

public opinion. Israel is now its own rejection

front. It is the only country which has rejected

in tum the United Nations plan, the Fahd plan,

the Reagan plan, the Brezhnev plan and the Fez

plan. In its isolation, and even though it is in

the wrong, none the less Israel in fact, however

wrongly, holds positions of strength which enable

it to veto any proposed solution. Its supplies of

weapons, munitions and military hardware continue

to be assured. It occupies Jerusalem, Lebanon and

the Golan Heights. The West Bank and the Gaza

Strip are under relentless control. The

settlements are solidly established and do not

seem to be threatened. The liquidation of the

Palestinian resistance continues, with the use of

methods the horror of which transcends

imagination, including as they do genocide.

In this connection the President of my country

wrote as follows in a message to the Secretary

General dated 19 September: from now on, the word

genocide will bring to mind not Oradour, but

Beirut... the holocaust, the concentration camps

and systematic massacres at Dachau and Buchenwald

are eclipsed, as we near the end of the twentieth

century, by the final solution perpetrated by

Beginís and Sharon's executioners. Now, after the

genocide in west Beirut, we feel bound to declare

to the world that verbal condemnations and United

Nations resolutions are no longer enough but that

it is time for action. I therefore have the honor

to request you: To call upon all the great Powers

to impose an economic, commercial, diplomatic and

military embargo on Begin's Fascist and extremist

Israel; in particular, that the great Powers

which boycotted Argentina at the time of the

Malvinas affair should desist immediately from

supplying Israel with arms, munitions and

petroleum. To consider the possibility of

organizing an international tribunal along the

lines of the Nuremberg Tribunal against the

Israeli Fascist war criminals and their Lebanese

accomplices. To demand the immediate and

unconditional withdrawal of Israeli troops from

Lebanon. It is high time for a review of history,

geography and frontiers in this explosive region

of the world and to give the martyred Palestinian

people a State, a homeland, a nation of their

own. In the absence of urgent, concrete and

decisive action, we greatly fear that the peace

of the whole world will be very seriously

threatened. In another part of the world a

deplorable conflict has been taking place for

more than two years between two countries which,

like my country, belong to the non aligned

movement. We have no more ardent desire than to

see the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq resolve

their conflict in a peaceful manner, bringing the

hostilities to an end as soon as possible,

because their own interests and the interests of

the rest of the world are at stake. En this

respect we are encouraged to see that, within the

framework of the current meeting of Foreign

Ministers of non aligned countries, the two

parties have agreed to accept a consensus text

reaffirming the principles of the movement and

those of the Charter, principles which can and

must serve to bring about a just and lasting

settlement of this dispute. The armed conflict

which broke out this spring in respect of the

Malvinas was a source of great consternation to

the world because of its intensity and its

ramifications, involving regional alliances. Was

this confrontation inevitable, once the

negotiations between Argentina and the United

Kingdom had remained too long in a state of

uncertainty? As the General Assembly now intends

to invite the parties to resume their talks, it

is important in our opinion to learn from the

past, and in particular from the recent past. We

may wonder, among other things, whether the idea

of self determination should constitute a

relevant factor in these negotiations. Just as

the Jewish settlers living in the settlements set

up by Israel do not acquire the right to take

part in a referendum on self determination

concerning the future of the occupied Arab and

Palestinian territories, so in the same way the

personnel transferred by the Falkland Islands

Company for the purposes of the colonial

exploitation of the islands cannot determine by

their vote the question of sovereignty over those

islands.

Although it is not on the agenda, the question of

Korea is none the less of concern to Member

States. We do not believe that the solution lies

in the endorsement of the division of the country

and the admission of two Korean entities into the

Organization. How will that resolve the problems

posed by the abuse of the United Nations flag and

the introduction of atomic weapons into the

peninsula? Direct negotiations between the two

parties is inevitable if there is a real desire

to make progress towards the settlement of this

crisis and they are all the more called for since

the joint communique of 4 July 1972 has defined

the basis for negotiations. We would add only

that the principles of that communique are in no

way incompatible with the establishment of the

great Koryo confederation which we very much look

forward to.

Other hotbeds of tension exist in Asia, Central

America and the Caribbean and we are concerned by

them because they do violence to the principles

which we cherish, particularly the right to self

determination, respect for sovereignty,

independence and territorial integrity of States,

the right of peoples to choose freely without

interference of any kind their political, social

and economic regime, and the right of nations to

preserve by all possible means the gains of their

revolution. We will not repeat our position,

which is constant and well known. We wish to

assure our friends and comrades from those

regions that our solidarity is with them, as it

is with all the victims of destabilization,

injustice and imperia list domination.

Before proceeding to consider the world economic

situation, I should like fairly briefly to touch

upon disarmament. At the second special session

of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament,

we tried to maintain the impetus of the first

special session and despite some rather

unfavorable factors we felt that the time had

come to promote further a multilateral approach

to disarmament, particularly in view of the risks

attendant upon the bilateral negotiations. We did

not succeed in our aims, but this is no reason

for us to abandon the comprehensive programme for

disarmament, the complete prohibition of nuclear

weapons tests, the control of strategic nuclear

weapons, or the strengthening of the nuclear non

proliferation regime, particularly as regards

negative security guarantees.

We still believe that the two approaches,

bilateral and multilateral, strengthen and

complement each other, particularly in the case

of nuclear weapon free zones, zones where the

limitation of conventional weapons is envisaged,

and zones of peace such as the Indian Ocean,

which, for our own security and for the sake

world peace, should become a demilitarized,

denuclearized zone. On this matter the proposals

of the non aligned countries are blocked, but an

Indian Ocean treaty remains our final objective

and we once again urge the great Powers to reduce

their military presence in the Indian Ocean area

as a first step towards the eventual elimination

of the great Power presence and the

implementation of the Declaration of the Indian

Ocean as a Zone of Peace. Such was the unanimous

position of the non aligned countries at the

ministerial meeting of their Coordinating Bureau

at Havana last June. I should now like to refer

to the economic situation and first to point out

that the deterioration of the situation, which is

a manifestation of a structural crisis, has

become one of the most serious political problems

of our age, since it is a potential source of

instability and insecurity for all countries,

both the developing countries, which already have

negative growth rates, and the developed

countries, where the recession is continually

getting worse and unemployment rates have become

uncontrollable The crisis is widespread: it is

global and it will remain with us for a long time

because of the deterioration of the international

economic climate and the emergence of trends

which are not favorable to integrated development

based on solidarity.

Although the consequences of the crisis have been

felt grievously by the international community as

a whole, its bad effects have hit much harder at

the developing countries. The repercussions of

this are manifold, but some of them need to be

emphasized. The developing countries have a large

trade deficit, mainly due to unequal terms of

trade and stagnant production. Despite their

producers' associations, they have no control

over commodity prices on international markets,

or over the rising prices of capital goods; they

are therefore subjected to inflated import prices

and reductions in the prices of their exports,

which lead in turn to a net reduction in

investment, forcing them to sacrifice part of

their development programme.

The deficit in their balance of payments,

resulting from the increase in their financial

obligations in the private capital markets and

the high level of interest rates have led to an

unprecedented increase in the external debt of

those countries, to about $540 billion at the end

of 1981. The servicing of that debt alone absorbs

an average of 25 per cent in some cases over 40

per cent of their export earnings.

Moreover, in the field of multilateral

cooperation, despite the encouraging indications,

official assistance for development is slowing

down. The financing of the programmes and funds

of the UnitedNations system is becoming more and

more uncertain, while support for multilateral

financial institutions is crumbling and the

massive transfer of resources remains illusory.

In the quest for solutions to these problems, we

should like simply to take up again the following

points which have already been discussed many

times by the States members of the Group of 77.

First, interdependent economic relations as they

are in the present day world are still unbalanced

and reflect inequalities of development. The aim

can no longer be the recovery of the world

economy on the basis of an undifferentiated

process of growth; there must be development of

the countries of the third world fully in keeping

with their options.

Secondly, the problems posed by world trade, the

financing of development and the international

monetary system require concerted action and

cannot be dealt with without a recognition of the

harmful effects of certain national policies on

the world economy, and particularly the economy

of the developing countries. We have not

adequately grasped these effects because of the

distance between the decision making centers;

that is why we consider it essential that the

sixth session of UNCTAD should provide Member

States with an opportunity to deal in an

integrated manner with development issues.

Finally, the third aspect of joint endeavor is

required to restore an economic environment

favorable to development and the recovery of the

world economy, with due regard for the objectives

of the new international economic order. These

few considerations confirm the value of global

negotiations and we look forward to seeing these

negotiations open as soon as possible. Desirous

of being considered as equal partners in the

reform of international economic relations, the

third world countries have proposed an agenda and

a procedure for these negotiations which reflect

their belief that equity and justice alone can

assure a reorganization of relations governing

countries which have long been categorized on the

basis of an incorrect understanding of the

international division of labor. At the beginning

of my statement, I referred to the erosion of

collective responsibility which is not only due

to the fact that each one of us wishes to propose

or, in the worst of situations, to impose its own

solution. In this respect we must first of all

revitalize and strengthen what should properly be

called the pillars of the Organization, that is

to say, all the organs or machinery for

consultation and decision making at the regional

and intergovernmental levels, taking care,

however, to avoid further polarizing positions,

and adopting convergent approaches in the

interest of security for all in all spheres. The

solution of conflicts will thus be made easier

and one can even hope that conflicts will even be

avoided. This requires, however, that we examine

our priorities in the light of the permanent

interdependence of problems which will continue

to confront a world of increasing solidarity. In

our view, it is not too late to check

confrontation hither between East and West, North

and South or even between countries of the South

in order to make mutual recognition of interests

the comer stone of cooperation and coexistence.

In short, as Members of the Organization we must,

in facing the crises before us, be open minded

and positive, resist temptations towards

fragmentation and maintain the common principles

to which we have freely consented, without

allowing ourselves to have recourse to expedients

in the name of pragmatism and acceptance of

reality. It is in this context that we have

studied the Secretary General's report on the

work of the Organization with the greatest

interest. Our concerns are very much his own,

and, since the Organization is not just the

symbol of collective responsibility but also the

most appropriate framework for its implementation

and further development, we can but rejoice if

the indications given by the Secretary General in

his report are followed up by deeds, particularly

by the permanent members of the SecurityCouncil.

This would put to an end the continual challenge

to the authority and functioning of the

Organization. To take up this challenge is also

one of the reasons and not the least for our

participating in this general debate. For our

part, we renew our whole hearted commitment to do

our utmost in this respect and in the cause of

peace.