Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, 1982

It is with a deep sense of pleasure that I

venture to associate myself with the many

well-merited complimentary statements, as my

sources have indicated, made to Mr. Hollai on his

election to this most important office of

President of the General Assembly. I am sure

that, as his predecessor and others before did,

he will conduct the affairs of that office so as

to enhance its authority and add greater lustre,

meaning and dimension to the office itself and

the Organization which its serves. I should like

also to extend to the Secretary-General my

warmest congratulations on his appointment as

administrative head of this world body. He has

assumed the reins of office during a year of

varied far-reaching problems in different parts

of the world. I wish to assure him that Saint

Vincent and the Grenadines will give full support

to his endeavours to bring this troubled world by

patient diplomacy to confront, face and resolve

its problems, and so wish him a pleasant and

rewarding term in office during which he will

draw increasingly the respect of all inside and

outside the Organization.

The election of Mr. Hollai at this thirty-seventh

session comes at a time of unprecedented

conflicts and tension in the world. It was the

ambitious hope of the founders of this United

Nations that such problems as obtain today should

not be the lot of the world. That these conflicts

and tension exist and have persisted over the

years is a serious continuing reflection on

national attitudes: ambition, aggressiveness,

duplicity, pride and honour.

Thirty-seven years after the founding of the

Organization, the only real change has come from

expanded membership. Many former subject peoples

are now free and independent, though not all are

equal. National attitudes are following, in most

cases, the same consistent pattern. We refuse to

learn from the experiences of the past.

Consequently, people are dying, combatants as

well as non-combatants in Lebanon, Afghanistan,

Kampuchea, Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran,

Namibia and elsewhere, all in the name of

furthering national ambition and objectives.

For yet another year I urge again that the time

has come for all Member States to condemn, and to

continue to do so in the strongest possible

terms, acts which clearly violate the Charter,

resolutions and principles of this important

world body. It must be realized that the Charter

is not an instrument to be accepted when it is a

convenient adjunct to national policy and

abrogated when it is not. The Charter must be

accepted as establishing an international code of

conduct between nations. A code it is. By

membership of the Organization we have all agreed

to conform to its spirit and intent. It

recognizes that disputes are often unavoidable

given the present emotional level of the

development of man. He may perhaps evolve into a

different creature in another half million years,

but for now he is Homo Homini Lupus. It was

recognized that for our generation a mechanism

was necessary, hence a machinery for the

resolution of disputes was established. If the

Charter is to be respected and if the authority

of this body is not to be eroded, it must be

respected, the machinery for resolving disputes

must be rigidly adhered to, however painfully

slow and frustrating may be the negotiations.

Parties once at a negotiating table must show a

willingness and desire to reach a consensus. This

is the sane way, the humane way, the wisest and

most resource-conserving way. Is it so difficult

for leaders to accept this?

I know there are those who would frown and say

that this is Utopian and an unrealistic diatribe,

for to accept this is to contemplate the

remodelling of the innate conflicting attitudes

of man. Yet, whatever may be said, it is always

better for both sides to avoid confrontation and

to settle a dispute at the conference table than

on the battlefield. Even for the apparent victor,

there are often more hydra heads springing from

unexpected quarters than the one which the

attempt was made to cut off by force of arms, by

military surgery.

Since 1947 there have been continuous problems

between Israel, the Palestinian people and the

Arab nations. For 35 years this problem has

preoccupied the attention of the Assembly and of

the Security Council and has not been resolved

because of the two genuine but conflicting claims

by the protagonists of both camps. Israel demands

the right to exist within secure borders. The

authentic voice of the Palestinian people, the

Palestine Liberation Organization, demands a free

and autonomous State in an area that is not

exclusive of Israel.

Recent events in Lebanon have compelled my

country to look at this issue in greater depth

and to speak out about the wanton destruction and

carnage that have taken place, particularly in

west Beirut. The death and destruction wrought

before the massacre were inexcusable and

indefensible by any norm of international law;

but that a massacre that should have been

foreseen or guarded against should have been

committed while aid and assistance were given by

Israel to the Christian militia deserves strong

censure from the Assembly. A dark deed has drawn

sharp and bitter protest and is viewed,

justifiably so, with horror by civilized and

rational people everywhere. That that act should

have been committed on the soil of one Member

State by another and that the army of the country

ravaged is not at war or even in a state of

preparedness for war makes it all the more

reprehensible.

Whatever allegations Israel may make to justify

its conduct and action, the scale of the Israeli

response was totally unwarranted and

unjustifiable and cannot with good conscience be

supported even by their most ardent admirers. The

Old Testament advocated an eye for an eye; but

Israel has taken 100 eyes for one eye. It is a

most callous, inhuman display of brute military

might which, while it may have achieved its

political and military objectives, has released

other possible adverse international forces which

may be contained only if Israel withdraws its

troops immediately and without pre-conditions

from Lebanon and thereafter shows a willingness

to accept that if it is to live within secure

boundaries, as Security Council resolution 242

(1967) of 22 November 1967 stipulates, there must

be an accepted corollary that it is the

inalienable right of the Palestinian people to

have a homeland. The recent massacre now brings

this need into sharper focus.

Countries have to be careful that they do not,

even by winning a war, lose the respect and

goodwill of the international community as Israel

has now done so successfully. No country, however

large can allow itself to become an international

outcast; still less one that is small, even

though it is in possession of a powerful military

machine. We all need the goodwill, friendship and

support of each other. Total isolation must be

the worst tragedy with which any country can be

beset. Israel must in its own interest cease

actions which suggest that it has a total

disregard for international opinion.

If we, inside and outside the Assembly, accept

facts, however unpalatable they may be, apparent

problems may become soluble and inexcusable and

unpardonable Christian barbarities such as

occurred in west Beirut may not recur. The fact

is that Israel exists in the hearts of all

Israelis and as a State. The fact is that the PLO

exists in the hearts of all Palestinian people,

wherever they reside. It is therefore ridiculous

for either side to refuse to accept the existence

of the other.

For either side to continue to take firm and

unyielding positions on this issue could lead to

other even more tragic events which, while they

must redound to the shame of the perpetrators and

be to the utter disgust and anger of civilized

people must not occasion guilt among us for any

failure on our part to put an end to this impasse.

There are now three options to be examined in the

search for a peaceful solution to this Middle

East crisis: first, the much-criticized and by

some rejected Camp David accords; secondly,

President Reagan's initiative; and, thirdly, the

plan adopted at the Twelfth Arab Summit

Conference, at Fez.The opposing leaders should

now come together and, with assistance, so

orchestrate their actions that an effective and

lasting peace can come to the area. Those who can

encourage this process must do so, so that peace

can come to a troubled and tortured land,

Lebanon; so that peace can come to a strife-prone

and strife- torn region, the Middle East; so that

peace can exist between the Israelis and the

Arabs, based on a just settlement of the

Palestinian problem: a homeland.

Lebanon should now be given the opportunity to

become a unified country and to live and trade in

peace. Its new President and Government must be

given the support of the international community

to make this possible. It is for the President

and his Government to decide when all

non-Lebanese troops should leave their country.

When it is clear that the Lebanese army, with

international financial support, is firmly in

control, they should, on request, all immediately

depart.

The international community must not appear to be

indifferent to the fate of Afghanistan, a

relatively small country of 15.5 million people.

Foreign troops are in that country. The presence

of those troops is being contested by the

inhabitants of that country—the Afghans. Whatever

may be the stated reason for the presence of

those foreign troops—whether in support and at

the request of the present Government or

otherwise—it is evident that a significant

segment of the population, indeed a majority, is

opposed to the Government and to the presence of

those foreign troops. The fact is not

contestable, since poorly equipped Afghans at

great expense, in terms of loss of life and

property, and at great suffering—both to

combatants and to non-combatants—continue to wage

resistance to an occupation of their country

which they consider to be undesirable.

Neighbouring States have over 3 million—or about

one fifth—of the Afghans as refugees, placing

great strain on the resources of those countries.

Pakistan alone has over 2.7 million. Providing

for these refugees is utilizing a substantial

portion of the resources of international relief

organizations. AH this must make one wonder what

purpose is served by a continuing stalemate with

blood, death and suffering as the end-product.

The image of the occupying Power internationally

is being affected, and the validity and wisdom of

its political and military objectives must be

questioned. Without asking for a response, I am

sure that Afghanistan is an embarrassment to that

occupying Power. It has touched a lever which it

now wishes, quite likely, it had never touched,

yet still somehow refuses to release.

I appeal to the occupying Power to show that

great courage which I know it possesses, and of

which it is capable, and set a small country free

to determine its own future as it wishes. Let it

hold discussions with the Afghan nationalist

fighters with a view to ending the conflict; let

it agree to the holding of elections under United

Nations supervision and secure observer status

for such a team; let it negotiate, if possible, a

neutral Afghanistan, but this should not be a

pre-condition for the holding of free and fair

elections. I appeal further to the occupying

Power to start the process now and show the

greatness and compassion of which it is capable.

We of the Assembly must all work unceasingly to

bring to an end the cycle of suffering, death and

destruction occurring in that once quiet and

peaceful country, now turned into a divided,

suffering and unhappy land.

The Kampuchean question is another very sad

continuing episode. It is wrong for any outside

Power to impose itself by force of arms on

another country or by direct intervention decide

who should administer a country. It is all the

more heinous when to achieve that result it

occasions untold human suffering. Those foreign

troops now in occupation of Kampuchea should be

removed. Our national concern is that we cannot

be indifferent to human suffering, regardless of

when or where it may occur but especially when it

occurs under the domination of a foreign Power

determined to demonstratethat might is right. Let

the people decide whether they wish the new

Coalition or the present Phnom Penh Government.

The foreign troops occupying Kampuchea have

caused, in addition to the loss of lives and

property, severe refugee problems in neighbouring

countries. Will this unremitting foreign

intervention never cease? It should and must. The

Kampucheans should be left in peace to determine

their future by dialogue and through a freely

supervised electoral process.

The Iraqi-Iran war, although not one in which

foreign troops are the interventionists or the

protectors of their perceived but often misjudged

interests, is nevertheless a terrible war, being

fought with the most sophisticated types of

conventional weapons in an important and

sensitive part of the world. It is not for Saint

Vincent and the Grenadines, at this stage, to

attempt to apportion blame before being fully

apprised of all the facts; it is enough to

recognize that this senseless slaughter of the

flower and youth of both countries is a reckless

squandering of an important national resource.

The armies of the contending forces should agree

to withdraw, at all points, within their

respective borders and begin negotiations with a

view to concluding a peace treaty. If there are

any Member States which can in some measure

exercise influence on one side or the other, or

both, they should do so before this dread

malignancy takes on incurable proportions—before

it spreads even further, with dire consequences

for peace in that region and for world peace. One

cannot permit reason to be blind or deaf in a

dispute. It is like searching for a tiger while

blind and deaf, only to be destroyed by it.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines urges the

representatives of Iraq and the Islamic Republic

of Iran to give support to the resolution of the

Security Council and the sentiments of the

General Assembly and, within the limits

permitted, persuade their Governments to take

such differences as exist to the conference table

and endeavour to resolve them within the terms of

the Charter of the United Nations and resolutions

of the Security Council and the Assembly.

Yet another year approaches without the

inhabitants of Namibia having the right to

determine their future as a free and independent

people. For yet another year a regime in South

Africa which refuses to recognize racial equality

and which has institutionalized the dehumanizing

system of apartheid against the black majority

within its borders persists by every ruse and

various stratagems to frustrate the aspirations

of a people that wishes to be no longer a ward

but a proud people in a free and equal country.

The question of independence for Namibia should

not be linked to any pre-condition, particularly

when it is an issue not related to Namibia

itself, but of a third State. Understandable,

from a South African point of view, as that

concern may be, no one should allow a direct and

separate issue to be beclouded by what is, in our

view, an extraneous consideration. The question

for the General Assembly is no longer

independence itself but where do we go from here

to bring about independence for Namibia. The

question of what progress is being made by the

contact group on the implementation of the United

Nations plan is speculative but this is still

probably an area where results could be achieved.

Let us intensify our actions to ensure that this

issue is resolved before the Assembly meets for

its thirty-eighth session.

As a Member State, we shall continue to state

that the greatest challenge to the effectiveness

of the Assembly lies in the deliberate erosion of

its authority by its members. Perhaps Saint

Vincent and the Grenadines may have unwittingly

been an offender already. Nevertheless, we should

not ignore the Charter or resolutions of the

United Nations without at the same time

appreciating the adverse effect this must have on

its total responsiveness. For small States such

as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, it should be

obvious that it is necessary to ensure at all

times that the United Nations is strong and responsive

to problems, with the ability, through the

collective will of the Assembly, to enforce its

authority with regard to regional and world peace

for the good of all mankind, since it is the best

guarantor of the protection and independence of

such States.

Too often nations avoid the peaceful path and

resort to arms, with unforeseen results. In a

world replete with border disputes, civil

terrorism and guerrilla unrest, and territorial

claims, especially in this hemisphere, prudence

and caution should make the negotiating table

attractive. The path to a negotiated settlement

or the resolution of disputes by discussion can

at times be slow; yet this in itself should in no

way frustrate the process. The results of quiet,

painstaking diplomacy, even if the disputes are

ultimately resolved through the process of

arbitration, have always so far been more

beneficial than the results of war.

I spoke at length at the 23rd meeting of the

twelfth special session on disarmament, and I do

not propose to add anything further to what I

said then except to welcome the start of

discussions between the super-Powers on nuclear

disarmament in the hope that it will be treated

in as serious and urgent a manner as the gravity

of the situation warrants. However, I would like

to read out one portion of that statement: "Given

the suspicion and distrust that exist between

countries, it can be appreciated that there are

tremendous obstacles to be overcome in bringing

about real and lasting disarmament. "Countries

that have been suspicious of each other for

years, and still are, will not suddenly believe

each other's words. Therefore, in order to

eliminate this element of fear and doubt, which

is the result of suspicion and mistrust,

inspection and verification must be accepted as

an inescapable provision of any such treaty. Any

genuine desire to achieve disarmament must

realistically accept that States have to move in

the direction of an open-door policy rather than

a closed-door policy. The prerequisite for

reaching agreement on disarmament seems to be the

ability of the parties to convince each other

that no advantage is sought over the other and

that there is nothing to hide by thereby

guaranteeing the right of access to each other's

territory for inspection. What should then be

decided will be who would do the inspection and

how such inspection should be carried out—whether

by a team selected and controlled by this world

body and answerable only to this world body or

otherwise. This would actually mean that there

would have to be a re-examination of the national

concept of sovereignty and territorial

jurisdiction. There can be no diminution or

compromise of authority in giving to another an

entitlement that would be reciprocal. This is the

whole concept of ambassadorial and consular

representation which specifically limits national

jurisdiction on national soil and which

encroaches upon national sovereignty in certain

cases. This is now an internationally accepted

principle set forth in a Convention. There are

very rare occasions when this Convention is

violated and, when it is, it is as a result of

traumatic shocks within a national society.

Similarly, what has been achieved in the area of

diplomatic reciprocity should prove to be no more

difficult in verifiable inspection to achieve

disarmament. Willingness to agree to inspection

is an indication of acceptance of how crucial

inspection must be in reaching agreement on

disarmament."

It must not be thought that it is only the United

States of America and the Union of Soviet

Socialist Republics that are concerned, for all

mankind is concerned. We, the others, the silent

spectators, are all deeply concerned. There

should and must be an end to nuclear

proliferation, through a balanced reduction of

the existing terror. Ultimately there should be

an end to the international arms race in general,

for which a few countries are responsible. It is

they that possess the real capacity to fuel the

arms race; and once they show the will it can and

will cease.

One of the continuing, lingering problems with

which the Assembly is confronted is the creation

of conditions conducive to the reunification of

countries divided because of political and

ideological differences or differences of

language or religion. It must be a source of

great hardship when the fabric of life in the

parts of a divided country is torn. When there is

little or no contact and when it is difficult for

friends or families to be reunited, there is the

temptation to want to resolve the problem by

other than peaceful means. Consequently, in

divided countries, when restraint has been shown

it deserves praise, and the Governments must be

further encouraged to seek the negotiating table

as the best and most practical way to a solution.

They should renounce the resolution of any

dispute by means other than those the Charter

envisages, even though they may not be Members.

Not all these divided countries seek or can seek

admission to the United Nations, but those that

can and do seek admission should be admitted,

either together or individually, without the

possibility for any of the five permanent members

of the Security Council exercising a veto against

such admission. Such admission, in the view of my

country, would assist in the promotion of peace

and might well contribute to the realization of

the national aspiration for the reunification of

the divided countries. Although past experience

has in no way suggested that there is reason for

optimism, it has shown that admission has lowered

the threshold of tension between divided

countries, increased contacts in different areas

and permitted a greater degree of dialogue.

There is a place for both the Republic of Korea

and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in

the Assembly. It is time the wounds of division

were healed. The process of healing can begin

here. Friends of both the South and the North

should make this process possible.

We in the Assembly must address once again the

very grave danger to world security posed by

international terrorism, which now appears to

make a target of a diplomat for no reason other

than that in the discharge of the functions of

his office he speaks for his country and thereby

personifies his country. We must bring our minds

to bear on this problem so that those who perform

duties similar to our own work can do so in

greater safety. No self-respecting nation can

permit itself to be blackmailed by the dark deeds

of the terrorist. No self-respecting nation can

submit to the will of terror. In such a situation

selective terror could be applied against a

country extraterritorially to achieve the

objective, and unless and until all the countries

of the world community take firm and serious

collective responsibility for discouraging the

commission of such acts on their soil by

inflicting for such offences the severest

penalties permitted under their legislation, when

the perpetrators of the offences are apprehended,

the trend is not likely to be contained.

While man continues to demonstrate his inhumanity

on the field of conflict and by oppression in

other forms, there still remains a vast gap

between the rich and the poor countries of the

North and the South. Prodigious sums are budgeted

and spent on the production, stockpiling and

deployment of weapons of mass destruction, both

nuclear and conventional. While the budgeted cost

of defence increases, in most cases

substantially, only a few nations have yet been

able to achieve the United Nations target figure

of 0.7 per cent of the gross national product, in

aid to developing countries, to be attained by

1985.

The International Development Strategy for the

Third United Nations Development Decade,

certainly recognized the urgent need for aid

flows to the developing world. Such payments

include contributions made via multilateral

institutions. Countries of the Development

Assistance Committee are among those that have

made the highest contribution of resources on

liberal terms to developing countries as a whole

as a percentage of their gross national product.

In fact, four countries in the Committee exceeded

the targeted amountin 1979 and 1980. According to

1980 figures, and based on information from the

UNCTAD secretariat, the Kingdom of the

Netherlands contribute gross national product

with 0.99 per cent, and the lowest contribution

from the countries in the Committee was 0.17 per

cent. On average, the Development Assistance

Committee countries gave just 0.57 per cent of

gross national product in 1980—that is, just over

half of the targeted amount. Only members of the

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

exceeded 1 per cent, with an average of 1.51 per

cent in 1979 and 1.45 per cent in 1980.

While this terrible world recession has with

high, though now falling, interest rates caused

rising unemployment everywhere from the

industrialized North to the impoverished South,

with only a few exceptions, and has contributed

to budgetary strains, balance-of- payment

problems and liquidity squeezes within the

economies of the developed and the developing

countries, and may well tend to cause the

development of an inward-looking attitude,

nevertheless, even though it is natural for all

Governments to be preoccupied with national

concerns, introspection should not blind

Governments to the realities of the world around

them. Although the reality may be that some

countries are facing severe financial and other

problems, those small island States with highly

vulnerable economies often based solely on

primary products are in a still more perilous

state and in need of greater official development

assistance than ever before.

In his address to the Commonwealth Finance

Ministers at a meeting held at Marlborough House,

in London, on 30 August last, the Commonwealth

Secretary-General had this to say: "... the

tightening of lending because of the danger of

default can precipitate the very danger it seeks

to avert and quicken economic collapse. Joint

action by private banks alone cannot provide an

adequate, reliable basis for handling problems of

today's dimensions. The liquidity squeeze is

superimposed on a contraction of resource flows

to developing countries. Aid flows from the

Development Aid Committee and OPEC as a

proportion of gross national product are

declining, and the growth in World Bank lending,

including from the International Development

Association, is already projected at much lower

levels than in the past." This prognosis is

gloomy for the developing countries. However,

because the economies of the world are

interdependent, it is also gloomy for the rich

industrialized world. Of sheer necessity the weak

must and will, through trade, directly promote

the economic well-being of the rich. The rich

should therefore continue to be generous in their

aid to the poor, for a better world, such help is

a necessary priority. As we all now stand

watching a world writhing in financial and

economic agony, we should not allow our national

concerns to override all other interests and so

shelve the need to renew the North-South dialogue

in an effort to deepen our understanding of the

institutional mechanism required to promote the

introduction of a new economic order.

There can be no doubt that there is a need for

the restructuring of the world's economies.

Neither the old nor the new economic theories

seem capable of energizing the developed or

developing economies upon which the economies of

the poor and the underdeveloped countries are so

dependent, whether for the sale of their primary

products or in the area of tourism. There are too

many external factors that seem to interplay and

impinge upon national planning over which

national planners have no control. It is the

unpredictability of the multinational interplay

of forces and factors with which small

underdeveloped countries must contend and over

which they have far less control than the

developing or the developed countries.

When the higher-priced production of beet sugar

is subsidized within the European Economic

Community, causing large surpluses in production

and competition, the world demand for cane sugar

falls, creating huge surpluses in developing

countries, thereby sending prices down drastically,

with the result that economies dependent on that

crop are utterly destroyed, causing serious

balance-of-payments problems. These are some of

the difficulties which are beyond the control of

national planners. There is therefore a need for

the Economic and Social Council to look

critically at this problem to persuade States

which have been subsidizing the overproduction of

beet to recognize the harm they are doing and to

correct this injury.

There are some programmes which in my country's

view are having an impact. One such is UNDP.

Since just before our independence, it has been

having quite a significant impact on our

developmental efforts in the area of statistics

and economic advisory services. Since it appears

that programmes of the Organization are in all

probability going to be affected by the

inadequate contributions of Members, it is our

hope that this useful Programme will continue to

receive the support of the international

community. For our part, we are prepared to try

to make our own modest contribution to this

worthwhile Programme. As we demonstrate our faith

in it, my country expects donors to keep faith

with us and support it—not less generously, but

rather more generously, than previously.

In my country's policy statement on admission, at

the thirty-fifth session, I said that our

position on issues would be made quite clear. Our

intention would always be to assist this world

body in achieving and maintaining world peace as

well as economic and social justice. We meant it

then, and we still mean it. I wish to conclude as

I did then: "The Assembly can be a most effective

instrument; but it cannot be and will not be

greater than all of us collectively have the will

to make it. Each of us representatives possesses

the perception by conscience to know right from

wrong. Nevertheless, we are all subject to the

policies of our Governments and must represent

them or resign. But can we not in the light of

our thinking strive to influence those decisions,

if-by so doing we would enhance respect for the

integrity and credibility of this world

Organization? To fail in this endeavour is not

the problem; only to fail to try."

"General Assembly" is a mere name. We are all

gathered here in the General Assembly. "United

Nations" are only words. Our countries constitute

the United Nations. They can serve us as the

Charter intended, if only we let them.