Sweden, 1982

I should like first of all to congratulate the

President on his election to his office for this

session of the General Assembly. I am convinced

that, with his wide experience of the United

Nations, he will successfully carry out the

important tasks ahead of him. I should also like

to pay a tribute to the outgoing President of the

General Assembly, Mr. Kittani, who presided over

the previous session with great distinction and

skill. It gives me great pleasure to join the

many preceding speakers who have congratulated

the Secretary-General,

Mr. Perez de Cuellar, on his election to his high

office. In the exercise of his functions he has

already earned a reputation for great dedication

and integrity. I can assure him and his staff of

the Swedish Government's full support for their

endeavours in pursuit of international peace and

co-operation.

The international situation has increasingly

deteriorated since the late 1970s. We are living

in an era of distrust. The policy of detente has

been superseded by a policy of confrontation

between the super-Powers. A dialogue between the

United States and the Soviet Union has, it is

true, been initiated, but there is reason to be

sceptical about the possibility of its yielding

any quick results. We must, by our concerted

efforts, reverse these trends.

My country has chosen to pursue a policy of

neutrality, one of non-participation in alliances

in peace time and neutrality in the event of war.

This policy, supported by a strong defence

relative to our situation, contributes to the

calm and stability in our part of the world. We

shall pursue this policy with firmness and

consistency.

Swedish territory will be protected from

violations with all available means. Such

violations will be treated with equal

determination, no matter whence they emanate.

International law gives us the right and the duty

to safeguard our sovereignty and territorial

integrity. Let no one entertain fears or

expectations that Sweden would, even under strong

external pressure, abandon its policy of

neutrality.

Our policy of neutrality does not, however,

condemn us to silence or passivity. On the

contrary, it challenges us to pursue an active

foreign policy in the cause of peace, freedom and

international co-operation.

Sweden will, in accordance with its traditions,

seek to promote peaceful solutions and to play an

intermediary role in international conflicts. In

common with so many others, we have three

fundamental values to safeguard, namely,

sovereignty, security and solidarity.

All our considerations must start from the right

of peoples to determine their own future.

National sovereignty is the foundation of

political legitimacy in international contexts.

This is self-evident, but not uncontested.

Peoples have had to struggle for their

independence, and that struggle is still going

on. More than 100 States have gained their

independence in recent decades. But they know, as

do all other small and medium-sized States, that

in a world dominated by great Powers and powerful

transnational economic interests, this is a

struggle that must go on for a long time to come.

The real content of sovereignty is largely

conditioned by the ability to pursue an

independent, effective economic policy.

Against that background it is not surprising that

the movement of non-aligned countries has

attracted such a large membership and has shown

such great vitality, despite internal crises and

conflicts of interests. National sovereignty must

always be safeguarded. One recent example of the

violation of this principle is Israel's invasion

of Lebanon. By invading Lebanon, Israel has

demonstrated indifference to the principles of

the Charter and of international law. It is a

tragedy that the State in whose creation the

United Nations played such a decisive role now

acts in a way that counteracts the authority of

the Organization. The international community has

rightly condemned Israel's assault and demanded

the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its

troops.

Sweden has on repeated occasions condemned acts of terrorism perpetrated against

Israel. But in our view these can never justify

what has now taken place in Lebanon.

The massacre of Palestinians in Beirut aroused

feelings of horror and disgust in my country. The

immediate responsibility for these crimes rests

with their perpetrators. But this outrage would

not have been possible had its perpetrators not

been allowed into the camps.

Thirty-five years have now passed and five wars

have been fought in the region since the adoption

of the United Nations partition plan for

Palestine. A just and. realistic solution

presupposes that Israel and the PLO acknowledge

one another as negotiating parties. The PLO must

recognize Israel's right to live within secure

and recognized borders. Israel must, for its

part, recognize the Palestinians' right to

determine their own future, including the right

to establish a State of their own, in the spirit

of the original partition plan.

The borders existing before the 1967 war are more

time-honoured and internationally recognized than

any others. Obviously, the two parties must be at

liberty to agree between themselves on

adjustments of these borders which both can

accept.

The Israeli Government's claim of supremacy over

the occupied areas has no basis in international

law. The settlements policy pursued in these

areas constitutes a serious obstacle to the

efforts to solve the problems of the Middle East.

The acquisition of territory by force cannot be

tolerated. Israel must discontinue its occupation

of the areas it captured in 1967. A solution must

also include arrangements as regards Jerusalem

which guarantee the right of free access to the

Holy Places for all religious worshippers,

regardless of nationality.

The various proposals and plans recently put

forward from different quarters contain many

constructive elements. Together with Security

Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973)

they should be able to form the basis of a

lasting peace in the Middle East.

For the United Nations to play a role in solving

the conflict, it is necessary that Israel remain

a Member of the United Nations and that the FLO

continue to be able to present its views before

this forum. My Government disassociates itself

from any attempt to deprive Israel of its

membership or to limit it. To be elective the

United Nations must rest on the principle of

universality.

The Soviet Union has occupied Afghanistan for

nearly three years now. The Assembly has

condemned this brutal assault. But the Soviet

troops are still there, and reports leak out

about continued assaults on the civilian

population. This is all the more serious when we

consider the fact that the Soviet Union is a

permanent member of the Security Council with

special responsibility to uphold the principles

of the Charter relating to peace and security. We

demand that the Soviet troops leave Afghanistan,

and we hope that the talks which have now begun

under the auspices of the United Nations will be

able to create the conditions necessary for a

durable settlement of this issue.

The right to determine their own future without

interference from outside is also the due of the

people in Kampuchea. There, too, a peaceful

solution must be found in accordance with the

principles of the Charter, and the foreign troops

must be withdrawn. In recent months some signs of

an incipient dialogue between the countries in

the region have been evident. We welcome this as

a step in the right direction.

Namibia is still being denied by armed force its

self-evident right to national independence.

South Africa's illegal occupation of the country

is in flagrant defiance of United Nations

resolutions. South Africa continues to delay the

United Nations plan for Namibia. This plan is the

only course for achieving a peaceful and

democratic solution. There is a risk that this

course will be abandoned if elements alien to the

United Nations plan are introduced into the

negotiations on Namibia. The countries in the

contact group bear a special responsibility for

ensuring that the liberation of Namibia is not

further delayed.

South Africa is constantly guilty of subversion

and armed aggression against the States

neighbouring it. It is not enough to condemn

these lawless pursuits. The South African

Government should be subjected to increased and

effective pressure from the United Nations as a

peaceful means for achieving the abolition of the

system. The Security Council should, as

quickly as possible, impose comprehensive

mandatory sanctions against South Africa. We are

surprised to hear from States which have resorted

to sanctions in several other contexts outside

the United Nations framework that sanctions

against South Africa would not be effective.

The international community must give the

afflicted States and liberation movements in

southern Africa all the political, economic and

humanitarian assistance it can mobilize.

The ever-growing use of force in various parts of

the world is a cause of concern. The Charter

contains a clear and unequivocal prohibition of

the use of force in international relations. This

is one of the foundations of international law.

In our time, the issues of national security have

assumed a new dimension. Beyond the question of

who is right or wrong in a conflict, there looms

the greater question of the survival of mankind.

In the world of the super-Powers, one side cannot

achieve security at the expense of the other. We

must, together, try to find common security for

everyone's survival.

Nuclear weapons have changed the rules of the

game. If that ultimate weapon is used, the result

will be collective suicide. We must create the

political conditions which will ensure that

weapons of mass destruction will never be used.

In Europe, considerable headway had been made in

the process of detente at the beginning of the

1970s. The two military pacts were on the way to

finding a new way based on an approximate balance

of military power and on mutual respect.

Relations between the two German States improved.

Willy Brandt's was a pioneer achievement.

Contacts developed across the borders between

individuals and peoples. The increase in economic

exchange was of mutual benefit. Detente between

the super-Powers provided greater scope for small

and medium- sized States in the region to have

their legitimate interests respected. The

Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe

held at Helsinki laid the foundation for

continued peaceful relations between the States

of Europe.

The process of detente must be resumed and

carried forward. National security is promoted by

extensive exchanges across borders in the

interests of all parties. The common interest in

peaceful development will then grow.

At their meeting in Stockholm in August, the

Foreign Ministers of the neutral and non-aligned

States in Europe declared their intention to play

an active and constructive role in the meeting of

the Conference on Security and Co-operation in

Europe to be resumed at Madrid. Provided the two

super-Powers show a minimum degree of willingness

to compromise, at that meeting the Conference

should be able to achieve a comprehensive and

balanced final document on the basis of the

Helsinki Final Act and also to decide on the

convening of a conference for disarmament in

Europe.

In our part of Europe, close and trustful

cooperation has existed for many years. There are

no nuclear weapons in the Nordic countries. It is

essential that this situation remain unchanged.

Sweden is striving to achieve agreements which,

among other things, will make the Nordic region a

nuclear-weapon- free zone. Agreements of that

kind can ease the tension between the blocs and

reduce the risk of those countries being

subjected to nuclear attack.

In Europe, there is the most horrifying

accumulation of weapons of destruction anywhere

in the world or at any time in history, as well

as the largest standing armies. It is a prepared

battlefield. Nevertheless, we must not in Africa,

Asia and Latin America that the wars have been

fought, ever since the end of the Second World

War. Those wars have already claimed, and are

still claiming, innumerable victims. Starvation,

disease and deprivation follow in their wake.

AH this is very largely due to a colonialism

which is not so far back in the past. The world

is still shaken by the convulsions of liberation,

which are the more violent and the more prolonged

the longer the powers-that-be try to suppress the

peoples' struggle for independence.

In Central America, centuries of oppression have

given rise to a revolutionary situation. It is

absurd to claim that the workers, the farmers,

the students and the middle class have revolted

in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala because

some foreign Power asked them to do so. On the

other hand, it is obvious that a foreign

Power—the United States—plays a crucial role when

it comes to keeping tottering dictatorships on

their feet.

The violence in Central America is provoked by

those who oppose the demands of the people for a

bearable life. Peace in the region also

presupposes respect for the national independence

of all States. It is still possible to achieve

negotiated solutions and put an end to the

bloodbath. More and more Governments, both in

Europe and Latin America, are joining the call

for a political solution in the region.

Fundamental national security may not and cannot

be won at the expense of the freedom and

development possibilities of other nations.

Peaceful development on reasonable terms for

everyone presupposes solidarity. The demand for

solidarity must be equally strong whether it

applies to individuals in the struggle for human

rights or to nations in the struggle for

international justice.

In our neighbouring country Poland, the central

trade union confederation, Solidarity, has bee-a

declared illegal. The military take-over shucked

us deeply. The process of democratization was

interrupted, and fundamental human rights are

still being trampled underfoot, in contravention

of the Helsinki Final Act. And thus, the dream of

genuine reform has been temporarily shattered. If

real dialogue and reconciliation are to be

achieved in Poland, martial law must be lifted,

imprisoned and interned trade union leaders and

other political prisoners must be released and

trade union activities must be allowed to be

carried on freely, in accordance with ILO

Conventions which Poland has undertaken to

resect. The strikes and protests of the last few

days confirm the fact that the Polish workers are

not prepared to accept an imposed model for their

trade union activities.

Our protests also apply to the military

dictatorship in Turkey, where political parties

are banned and trade unions are prevented from

working freely. The regime's opponents are

subjected to mass arrests and mock trials.

Demands for democracy, for social justice, for

human dignity and for national independence are

made with the conviction in the East as in the

West, in the North as in the South. Oppression

may assume different guises and forms, but it

causes its victims the same human suffering, the

same enslavement. Our solidarity must therefore

never be one-sided.

It is obviously in the interest of all to have

rules governing political relations. Presumably

they also wish to have rules governing economic

exchanges. But in the long run, rules of this

kind work only if they can satisfy the legitimate

interests of all parties.

World trade and world production have been

experiencing the deepest crisis of the post-war

period for several years now. The international

system of payments is creaking at the joints. The

world has been confronted by acute and chronic

problems in regard to its supplies of energy. The

North-South dialogue has become a series of

parallel monologues. Small countries have a

particular interest in trying to strengthen

international co-operation. In the prevailing

economic situation, the GATT Ministerial Meeting

and the coming world trade conference will be of

great importance.

For three years we have been trying in vain to

agree on a formula for global economic

negotiations. There is, however, the capacity in

the United Nations system to negotiate the

answers to at least the most urgent questions and

there is, after all, little difference in

positions as regards the initiation of the global

negotiations. A few years ago the Independent

Commission on International Development Issues,

under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt, presented

a report with the challenging title. The members

of the Commission were people of varying

political convictions and geographic origin;

nevertheless they succeeded in arriving at common

conclusions. Their report becomes increasingly

valid.

A common strategy is needed to solve the growing

problems of the international payments system.

More and more countries are staggering under a

debt burden which stifles expansion potential not

only for the countries themselves but also for

their trading partners. Transfer of resources

must be increased and as far as possible reformed

in order to make them more automatic and

predictable. The need for concessional resources

is particularly great for the poorest countries.

A common strategy is necessary also for the

adjustment of world trade to new realities. One

such reality is the industrial development of the

developing countries.

Sweden is among those countries which, as a

result of their own experience, regard free trade

as extremely beneficial. The industrialized

countries must now demonstrate that they are

prepared to allow other countries and peoples to

enjoy the fruits of free trade. An adjustment of

this kind must take place, with account being

taken of two conflicting but equally legitimate

interests: the need of the developing countries

to create sufficient resources so that they can

participate in trade for their own benefit and

the need of the traditionally industrialized

countries to realign their production without

creating even greater unemployment.

The countries producing raw materials must

receive reasonable and foreseeable incomes from

their production and gradually acquire the

capacity to process a much greater proportion of

their own raw materials. No country should be

confined to the role of mere suppliers of raw

materials.

In a world marked by heightened antagonism

between the great Powers it is essential to

emphasize the possibilities which none the less

are available. The Independent Commission on

Disarmament and Security Issues, under the

chairmanship of Olof Palme, consisted, like the

Brandt Commission, of people with varying

backgrounds and political convictions. In spite

of considerable conflict of interests, they also

managed to achieve a measure of mutual

understanding. Allow me to comment briefly on a

few points. The Commission proposes a total ban

on nuclear-weapon tests. This has long been the

central issue in the disarmament negotiations.

Sweden has for its part, by its own proposals and

monitoring efforts, done all it can for the

attainment of this goal. I wish to indicate the

Swedish Government's satisfaction at the fact

that the Soviet Union has submitted to the

Assembly a draft agreement which is largely based

on previous common endeavours. It is our hope

that the other nuclear-weapon Powers will

demonstrate a corresponding will to negotiate, so

that agreement may finally be reached. May I also

emphasize that a test ban is a focal element in

the efforts to freeze the nuclear-weapon capacity

and to proceed to reductions. I am convinced that

the freeze idea will play an important role

during this session. In this context I wish to

express our appreciation of those popular

movements which work independently for

disarmament and peace. The military forces

stationed in Europe today are much larger than

can be justified by the security requirements of

the parties concerned. In fact, large balanced

reductions would increase security.

The vast number of nuclear weapons deployed in

Europe or targeted against that continent are the

source of special problems. Substantial

reductions of these arsenals of nuclear weapons

are necessary; but there is a connection between

nuclear weapons in Europe and balance between

East and West as regards conventional forces. One

condition for getting rid of nuclear weapons in

Europe is that both sides should also agree on a

rough parity in conventional forces. The

smaller—so-called battlefield—nuclear weapons in

Europe constitute a particular danger, as they

could be used at a very early stage of a

conflict. The Commission proposes that these

battlefield weapons be withdrawn from the most

forward positions and that a zone be created in

Europe which is entirely free of these weapons, a

zone which could stretch 150 kilometres on each

side of the East-West border. This idea has our

full support.

The Swedish Government attaches great importance

to all negotiations, such as those on mutual and

balanced force reductions and on theatre nuclear

forces and the planned European disarmament

conference, which aim in this way to reduce or

abolish the role of nuclear weapons in Europe.

The Commission also proposes an international

agreement on the total prohibition of chemical

weapons, as well as a chemical-weapon-free zone

in Europe. In the view of the Swedish Government,

the pre-conditions of implementing such an

arrangement for the purposes of

confidence-building should be examined more

closely. The proposal should also be used in the

extensive efforts being made in the disarmament

negotiations in Geneva to achieve the total

prohibition of all chemical weapons.

The most important instrument we have for

achieving common security is the United Nations.

It is encouraging that during this debate so many

Governments have emphasized that it should be

possible to use this instrument for preserving

peace and security in the world in a more

resolute way.

The Secretary-General has emphasized the

importance of this question by devoting the whole

of his first report on the work of the

Organization to it. His report is a clear-sighted

assessment of the international situation and of

the role of the United Nations in the

international system. By departing from the

standards and duties which we set ourselves in

the Charter of the United Nations we are as the

Secretary-General warns, "perilously near to a

new international anarchy".

No purpose of the United Nations is more

important than the maintenance of international

peace and security. Yet the United Nations has

repeatedly failed to realize that purpose and

never have the failures been more evident than in

the last few years. In the long run no

organization can survive if the members do not

respect its rules. The prohibition in the Charter

of the threat or use of force in relations

between States is absolute; so is the obligation

to use only peaceful means for the settlement of

international disputes.

We need a more active and imaginative approach by

the Security Council to potential conflict

situations. There are many ways of achieving

this. One is improved co-operation with the

Secretary-General, who has already announced his

intention to develop and activate the preventive

role foreseen for him under Article 99 of the

Charter.

A factor which has greatly contributed to the

erosion of the authority of the United Nations is

the repeated failure of the Security Council to

secure the implementation of its own decisions.

These are, according to the Charter, mandatory

for all Member States, and yet we have repeatedly

seen them flouted by those to whom they were

addressed. The Council must not, because of lack

of foresight or for some other reason, place the

Secretary-General in impossible situations but,

on the contrary, must give him all possible

support in the assignments he is given.

Many ideas similar to those tut forward by the

Secretary-General are to be found in the report

of the Palme Commission, to which I have already

referred. The report deals, with the need for

agreement among the permanent members of the

Security Council on early action primarily in

border countries in certain predetermined areas.

This would mean that in case of such conflicts it

would be possible to initiate action by the

United Nations in time to prevent the use of

force. In this way the risk of great-Power

rivalry in areas of conflict would diminish.

It is inevitable that the permanent members of

the Security Council, by virtue of the special

powers and ability to act vested in them by the

Charter, have special reason to reflect seriously

upon the role they play. To put it simply, the

United Nations cannot carry out its functions

without the full co-operation of the great

Powers, among themselves and with the rest of the

world. They should use that power and influence

for the purpose of making the ideals of the

United Nations come true. This session of the

General Assembly has been convened at a time when

many of the world's problems have assumed crisis

proportions. It is therefore only natural to

dwell particularly on the responsibility of the

United Nations for the maintenance of peace and

security, and its ability to contribute to a

solution of the economic crisis. The defence of

the principles of international law is a vital

task for the United Nations. This is a challenge

for the future. With the rapid advances in the

field of technology, more and more issues are of

a kind that cannot be solved by each State on its

own. Here we are faced with the necessity for

common solutions.

We must co-operate. The future always contains

both promise and threat. Let us together ward off

the threat and fulfil the promise.