Algeria, 1982

First of all, I should like to address to you,

Sir, the warm congratulations of the Algerian

delegation on your accession to the important

position of President of the General Assembly. We

are particularly glad to see you assume this

difficult responsibility because you represent a

country, Hungary, with which Algeria has

established excellent relations of friendship and

co-operation. You have succeeded Mr. Kittani, who

for one year placed his great experience and

ability as an accomplished diplomat at the

service of the Organization. I should also like

to congratulate Mr. Perez de Cuellar for the

dynamism he has shown in discharging his mandate

since his election to the high post of

Secretary-General.

The Assembly is faced from one session to another

with the same challenge of how to build a truly

universal peace. The fact that this is almost a

permanent challenge might lead one to believe

that the United Nations can only continue to wish

for beneficial achievements which would give full

significance to the concepts of convergence and

harmonization on which this assembly of nations

is based.

In the statements made since the opening of the

general debate the same concern has emerged over

the crisis in international relations as a whole

and the serious problems facing our world. There

have been two points that we have all been

obliged to make: first, the lucid analyses that

from year to year have highlighted the primary

causes of the critical state of our world and the

dangers for the future of mankind; secondly, the

international community's inability resolutely to

tackle these primary causes and prevent these

dangers.

But promoting true peace requires that we go

beyond simply being aware of the dreadful

realities of international life; nor can it

simply be reduced to diagnosing, however correct

our diagnosis may be. What is certainly needed is

a break, a change, in attitude and conduct which

have broadened tension and insecurity. Unless we

have such a break, such a change, the

international community will not be able to put

an end to systematic violations of the principles

of the Charter.

In these circumstances, we can hardly be

surprised that the picture of our world today is

one of anarchy where the unleashing of unbridled

force crushing the elementary principles and

values of law shows the failure of policies based

only on power plays and relationships of force.

The tragedy of the Palestinian people is the most

dramatic illustration of this. Indeed, the

Palestinian problem, which has dominated

international affairs and the work of the

Organization this entire past year, is the most

significant and disturbing example of the crisis

of the world today. The denial of justice to the

Palestinian people has made this issue a major

crisis of our age, one that leads to the most

serious dangers for international peace and

security.

The crime against humanity which was perpetrated

in Beirut and witnessed by the entire world was

committed when a situation had lasted for too

long, one in which an entire people's right to

live was denied. That crime was perpetrated

because of constant encouragement and unlimited

resources given to the Zionist policy of

aggression. Can we add to that horror by

emphasizing the fact that it was only after the

departure of their defenders that thousands of

women and children were massacred?

Is there any need for me to recall that the

Palestine Liberation Organization decided on

withdrawal of its armed forces, not because it

was reluctant to sacrifice its fighters, but

precisely out of respect for a civilian

population which had paid with its blood a noble

ransom of solidarity. What a contrast, what a

significant contrast, between infamy and respect

for human life. The PLO thus gave us proof of its

ability to use well its considerable political

and military resources to advance its cause. In

leaving that theatre of operation the PLO at the

same time broadened the strategic base of its

action and its hold on the people.

In the resolute struggle waged by the Palestinian

people under the leadership of thePLO, its sole

legitimate representative, the Beirut battle

symbolizes both the stubborn resistance and the

spirit of responsibility which prove the

authenticity of a national liberation war.

Therefore it would be wrong to expect a solution

in the Middle East without the Palestinian people

or against them. More than ever before, the

recognition of the national rights of the

Palestinian people, above all their right to

establish a State in their homeland, is essential

to a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

This is moreover, the very substance of the

international community's consensus on a

settlement of the crisis in the Middle East. It

is the duty of the United Nations to fulfil its

responsibilities and make possible the

implementation of this consensus, thereby

ensuring a return to peace in the Middle East. It

must react with specific action and bold

decisions that at last ensure justice for the

Palestinian people.

The plots hatched against the Palestinian

resistance, like, those we see in other parts of

the world, force us to say that there seems to be

a planned policy for destroying solidarity, a

strategy for splitting regional and other

political groups, in order to turn back the tide

of history and re-establish imperial domination

in the third world countries faced with many

problems and trying despite a thousand

difficulties to find solutions in keeping with

the aspirations of their peoples.

Against this background certain actions against

the Organization of African Unity are of

particular concern to us. Its very birth bore

witness to the victories won through the struggle

of the African peoples in the decolonization

process, and OAU was from the outset a means of

completing this liberation of the continent in

all areas and a bulwark of African freedom a has

to its credit constant action in solidarity with

all freedom fighters and determination to go on

until it succeeds, it has inevitably become the

target of attempts to crush it.

Therefore, after all kinds of political, economic

and military pressures have been brought to bear

on it, attacks are now directed, through that

organization, against the very basis of unity and

solidarity in our continent. But the crisis of

OAU, although an African matter, is not

exceptional in nature and must be overcome by the

efforts and the determination of its members.

However, although these difficulties are

transitory, that does not lessen the

responsibility of those that caused them, and

cannot be used as a pretext for considering it

less necessary to search together, as in the

past, for solutions to the problems facing

Africa, the most important of which remains that

of eliminating colonialism and racist domination.

The tragedy being played out in the southern part

of Africa becomes grimmer with each passing day.

The policy of Apartheid universally condemned as

a crime against humanity, is also constantly

being expanded. The illegal occupation of Namibia

continues and is being consolidated, while brutal

aggression against African States in the region

is intensifying. This situation demands that the

international community continue to mobilize in

support of the cause of the South African people,

their emancipation and freedom to determine their

future. It also demands the imposition of a total

embargo and comprehensive sanctions against South

Africa. Only such a response can put an end to

the policy of defiance and aggression of the

Pretoria regime.

As regards Namibia, it is time for the

international consensus on the inalienable right

of the Namibian people to independence and the

legitimacy of its struggle, under the leadership

of its sole representative, SWAPO, to be given

practical effect. It is time for the Western

Powers that have the duty and the means of

influencing the policy of the Pretoria regime to

do what is incumbent on them and to shoulder

their responsibility, because they have a

commitment to the international community

concerning the process of independence for

Namibia.

In north-west Africa the conflict between the

people of Western Sahara and the occupying Power,

the Kingdom of Morocco, has been a matter of

constant concern to the international community

since 1975. It is thus natural that OAU and the

United Nations should have attempted to find a

just and definitive solution to this problem some

of the sidetracking of the process that should

have led to. the decolonization of Western

Sahara. The Organization, aware of the justice

and legitimacy of the struggle waged by the

people of Western Sahara, led by the POLISARIO,

has thus constantly called for the exercise by

the people of Western Sahara of their right

freely to determine their own future, and in

General Assembly resolution 36/46 called for

negotiations between Morocco and POLISARIO.

OAU, for its part, aware of the dangers of the

continuing conflict in the region, has made a

responsible attempt to find ways and means of

moving towards a solution consistent with its

charter and principles. Since OAU It is thus

encouraging to see that one of the two parties to

the conflict, the Sahraoui Arab Democratic

Republic, continues to demonstrate a high sense

of responsibility to the cause of peace and of

Africa by expressing its willingness to seek a

political settlement. It simply remains for us to

hope that the voice of reason, or simply common

sense, will end by triumphing and that there will

be victory for a national liberation cause that

has been recognized as such by the international

community and that this will make it possible to

marshal all enemies and exploit all wealth for

the greater benefit of the fraternal peoples of

the region, united by the same historical

experience and a common future.

Disturbing trends in international affairs, in

the form of hotbeds of tension in the third

world, are also to be found in the serious

barriers to promotion of a true international

dialogue. Whether it be disarmament or

international economic relations, we can see a

paralysis in the channels of negotiation, a

disruption of the machinery of consultations.

Against this background, the recognized failure

of the second special session of the General

Assembly on disarmament reveals the difficulties

and the infernal logic of this kind of

confrontation. While the international community

came to the lofty conclusion that security cannot

be achieved by a build-up of arms, and while

there has been a tenfold increase in destructive

potential of the arsenals of the nuclear Powers

to destroy the entire human species, the

opportunity of moving forward in international

negotiations on disarmament, getting us out of

the rut of the discussions of the past, has not

been seized. However, on this vital issue where

the data is perfectly clearly established, there

was some hope that the rivalry in the unbridled

arms race would eventually yield to rivalry in

announcing concrete and effective measures for

disarmament.

However, it must be recognized that the call to

reason and the expectations and hopes of our

peoples have met no response. Furthermore, the

conceptual edifice patiently built in the Final

Document of the Tenth Special Session of the

General Assembly, of 1978, has on occasion been

challenged in the principles and priorities it

established, and this shows that there has been a

move backwards in political commitment to true

disarmament. This serious regression was

naturally accompanied by increased activity on

the part of imperialism and by geo- strategic

maneuvers in the third world. This activism was

reflected, by obstacles being increasingly

placed in the way of the national liberation

struggle of the peoples, an increase in policies

of intervention and destabilization, the

reactivation and opening of military bases and a

frantic search for military facilities for

interventionist purposes.

The Indian Ocean was proclaimed a zone of peace

by the United Nations, and yet there is military

competition and unequalled rivalry there and also

in the Mediterranean, where we have the same

foreign presence against the wishes of the

non-aligned coastal States. Even Cyprus, a

peaceful island, is living in a situation that is

simply incompatiblewith its own nature as an

open-hearted meeting-place for civilizations and

as an independent and non-aligned country.

Throughout the third world, in Africa, in Asia

and in Latin America, there is an increase in the

number of attempts being made to stifle the

forces of progress by resorting to intimidation

and destabilization techniques, and denying the

peoples' right freely to choose their political

system and their own path of development.

In international economic relations, the present

situation is extremely disturbing. Inseparable

from the deterioration in the international

political environment, the world economic crisis

is deepening and worsening. The international

economic system, a source of inequality and a

privileged area in terms of continuing

relationships of domination, is now prey to major

upheavals. The disruption in the world economy

highlights the intrinsic limits of an order that

is doomed because it has not adapted to the

development needs of two thirds of the human

race. The haphazard measures that have been

advocated by the developed countries simply do

not work, and this is additional proof that the

order is collapsing.

Against this background, it is hardly surprising

that the economic situation of the developing

countries should have continued to deteriorate.

When we look regularly at the balance sheets, we

can see that there has been a continued increase

in poverty and the ravages of hunger. Under

development of two thirds of the human race is

one of the main features of the world ted ay, and

the gloomy prospects in view of continuing trends

over the years and decades to come are indeed

threatening.

This precarious world economic situation

highlights more than ever before the need for a

fair restructuring of this anachronistic

framework and of the unequal rules that currently

govern international relations. In that

connection, the developing countries have spared

no effort to prelaunch the dialogue with the

developed countries—a comprehensive, responsible

dialogue taking account of the realities of the

developing world and of the growing

interdependence of the world economies; a

dialogue covering all the major issues

simultaneously and in a consistent, interrelated

way; a dialogue which, with universal, democratic

participation, would presage our final objective

of democratizing international economic relations.

Those were the bases on which the non-aligned

countries and the Group of 77 conceived the

initiative of global negotiations on

international economic co-operation for

development—an initiative that won the consensus

support of the international community with the

adoption in 1979 of General Assembly resolution

34/138. At a time when the Second United Nations

Development Decade was ending on a strikingly

unproductive note, the adoption of that

resolution sparked hopes that the developed

countries would finally evince the political will

to launch a significant common effort for the

benefit of one and all. Throughout the past three

years the Group of 77 has demonstrated

flexibility and has been open t^ dialogue; it has

played a dynamic and constructive role in the

search for a commonly acceptable basis for the

launching of those global negotiations.

In 1980, at the eleventh special session of the

General Assembly, devoted to economic issues, the

Group of 77 contributed act national community.

Since then several proposals have been made, with

due regard for the requirements of the minority

that did not join the consensus. Thus the Group

of 77 took the initiative of putting forward a

proposal with three options, with a view to

making possible the urgent launching of the

global negotiations. Unfortunately, the three

options were not accepted—although there was no

real negotiation at all. Despite that rejection,

the Group of 77 once again demonstrated a

constructive spirit by taking another initiative

in the hope of removing all doubts weighing on

the launching of global negotiations. The

industrialized countries, however, felt it

necessary to submit four amendments to that

proposal, the productof tremendous compromise.

The Group of 77 carefully and responsibly studied

those amendments, thus demonstrating again its

willingness to co-operate fruitfully, and decided

to accept two of the four amendments proposed.

However, inasmuch as the other two proposed

amendments questioned resolution 34/138 as the

political framework for the global negotiations

and called into question the delicate balance

between the central role of the General Assembly

in the conduct of the global negotiations and the

particular role of the specialized agencies, the

Group of 77 was unable to accept them. Hence we

venture to hope that the compromise proposals of

the Group of 77 will eventually be accepted.

During this period of deteriorating international

economic relations and given the impasse in the

North-South dialogue, South-South co-operation

takes on particular importance. As a parallel and

supplement to the efforts at a North-South

dialogue, South-South co-operation is part of the

major project of establishing the new

international economic order. It is in that

context that the developing countries have traced

a framework and defined the operational

instruments for the constant strengthening of

their individual and collective autonomy. The

Group of 77, aware that its strength lies in

unity among its ranks and in cohesion in its

approach, thus offers a new basis for reinforcing

its solidarity. A year after the adoption of the

Caracas Programme of Action, its implementation

has begun with the faith and determination that

nurture great hopes.

It is in that international atmosphere that

Algeria, having survived more than a hundred

years of darkness, celebrated the twentieth

anniversary of its independence. Having fully

recovered its attributes as a State, Algeria

undertook to consolidate its political

independence by meeting the requirements of

economic independence. Eager to preserve its

dearly reconquered sovereignty and desirous of

mutually beneficial international co-operation,

Algeria opted for a foreign policy governed by

principle and molded in the common destiny which

is based on its belonging to the Arab world, the

African world, the Moslem world and the third

world. At the same time, it codified in its

national charter and Constitution the fundamental

principles of a diplomatic policy which sets

peace and development, so intimately related, as

its objective, and the principles of the United

Nations as the inviolable guide of its conduct.

Having rediscovered the benefits of peace,

Algeria undertook to promote in good faith, at

the sub regional level, a policy of positive

good-neighbor-liness which embodied the principle

of the inviolability of frontiers and called for

political harmonization and broad-ranging

co-operation. This approach was also reflected in

our strong belief in the ideals of Arab unity and

African unity, and all efforts to consolidate the

basis of our effective solidarity and the

harmonious working together of the two groups.

Lending our voice to the community of the

oppressed, within which we forged our deep

beliefs and well-tested friendships, and the

world of the deprived, whose situation and

aspirations we share, Algeria is working to

establish international relations free of any

tinge of domination or exploitation. We are doing

this with perseverance within the United Nations

and within other groups to which we belong.

Algeria is a founding member of the non-aligned

movement, and we have elevated non-alignment to a

clear commitment and a system of values, a

reference system which inspires our conduct and

determines the positions we take. We believe in a

great future for this movement, whose relevance

in today's world confirms its importance and the

correctness of its doctrine. We thus express our

deep belief that the Seventh Conference of Heads

of State or Government of Non-Aligned Countries,

to be held at New Delhi, will help to strengthen

the cohesion and capacity for action of this

movement and strengthen its role in the

international arena.

Algeria's assessment of the role of the Organization is based on

that same premise and arises from the same

outlook. It is undeniable that the United Nations

has played a globally positive role, due account

being taken of the limits imposed on it both by

its very nature and by the will of the States of

which it is composed. Its movement towards

universality is proof that it is viewed as a

unique forum for reconciling views in order to

seek solutions to the problems of our world.

However, the many shortcomings that have led to

the paralysis of the Organization call for a

responsible consideration of its future, and

indeed this; something that the Secretary-General

invites us to do in his report on the work of the

Organization. The call for the democratization of

international relations and the legitimate desire

to strengthen the role of the United Nations and

to lift the Organization to the level of its

responsibilities, particularly in the field of

international peace and security, can no longer

be ignored.

The Secretary-General has highlighted the

deficiencies of the Organization, and thereby

emphasized the correctness of the political

position taken by a great majority of Member

States, and of our work on the present

functioning of the United Nations. World public

opinion can be harsh to the United Nations, but

we should think about it carefully, because the

United Nations is in fact based on a profession

of faith of our peoples, which it would be

dangerous to treat lightly.

Foremost among the factors that have immobilized

the Organization, while dangers are mounting and

all eyes of the veto in the Security Council,

which demonstrates the great gap that now exists

between the spirit of the rule of unanimity and

the use made of it are fixed on us, is

undoubtedly the abuse In view of this

development, which is increasingly prejudicial to

the credibility and effectiveness of the United

Nations, it is urgent that the international

community reconsider the way in which the

Security Council functions and subject it to a

strict review in the light of political ethics so

as to restore to that body its original purpose.

The vitality of the United Nations and its

ability to hold high those principles that

establish its moral strength could then be

demonstrated by its ability to establish and

preserve real universal peace.

If this session were to lead to a real

determination on the part of Member States truly

to make the United Nations the center for the

harmonization of the actions of nations in the

attainment of common ends, and if the most

powerful of them were to reflect that

determination in a change of attitude and

conduct, then we would have reason to encourage

our peoples' belief in the great future of the

Organization.