Burundi, 1982

Allow me first of all to add the congratulations of the delegation of

Burundi to those already addressed to Mr. Hollai on his unanimous

election to the presidency of the thirty-seventh session of the

General Assembly. The Assembly's decision to make him its President

is a reflection of the respect and esteem which his country, Hungary,

and he himself enjoy within the international community. His

experience, competence and efficiency, as evidenced by his diplomatic

career, have enabled him from the outset to give the work of this

session a momentum that promises results in line with the hopes of

the nations represented here. It is our firm conviction that he will

manage to give our work the energy demanded by the seriousness and

complexity of the questions being studied. We are all the more

convinced of this as he will be assisted by a General Committee whose

competence and devotion we fully appreciate. I must also congratulate

Mr. Hollai's predecessor, Mr. Kittani, for the outstanding work he

did during the last session of the General Assembly. May I also pay a

tribute to the Secretary-General for the effective manner in which he

has carried out his lofty duties since his election. He has spared no

effort to restore international peace and security wherever they have

been threatened in the world.

The international community is going through a period of crisis of

disturbing proportions. The peoples of the world, particularly those

who are economically the weakest, are rightly turning once more their

anguished gaze towards the Organization, which is the special

preferred and most appropriate forum for a promising dialogue among

Member States. It is here that a new order-more just, more equitable

and more human-is taking shape.

Our present discussions will once again make it possible to study the

international political and economic situation, and to evaluate the

depth of the current crisis in international relations. But these

-debates will not yield fruit as long as the decisions taken by the

General Assembly are ignored and trampled on by some States Members

of the United Nations, and as long as others want to paralyse the

action of the Organization by subordinating that action to their own

selfish interests.

The political problems affecting South Africa, the Middle East and

other regions of the world cannot be solved if there is lack of

respect for the resolutions of the General Assembly and the Security

Council and deliberate contempt for the obligations incumbent upon

Member States under the Charter of the United Nations.

Indeed, in South Africa the vile Pretoria regime has established

apartheid as an institution, a system of colonial and racist

oppression and exploitation that the Assembly has justly described as

a crime against humanity. Pretoria's power and prosperity is being

built on the denial of the most elementary rights of the black

population, on contempt for them, and on their relegation to a social

limbo.

For many years the United Nations has continually demanded respect

for the right of the black people of South Africa to freedom and

dignity. Today, it is less a question of exposing the ignominious

crime of apartheid than of stressing the urgency of finding a just

and definitive solution to that problem.

The international community must hope that, in order to react against

the policy of apartheid practiced by the Pretoria regime in South

Africa, the Security Council will use the powers given to it by the

Charter to put an end to that odious crime. With the exception of an

arms embargo decided upon in Security Council resolution 421 (1977),

which continues to be violated in a concealed fashion, the Security

Council has remained paralysed by the use of the right of veto by

some of its permanent members each time the situation in South Africa

demands recourse to Chapter VII of the Charter.

The Security Council's inaction in the matter strengthens Pretoria in

its policy of oppression against the black population and in its

aggressiveness against neighbouring countries. It is clear that the

apartheid regime could not daily defy the injunctions of the

international community calling for an end to its policy of apartheid

without the political, military, economic and financial support of

its allies.

Faced with the gravity of the situation in South Africa, the struggle

of the national liberation movements finds itself doubly legitimized

by the nobility of their cause and the extent of their sacrifices. We

today reaffirm our Government's constant support for them.

A/37/PV.33

A situation which is just as anachronistic prevails in Namibia: the

racist and colonialist regime in Pretoria has become enriched in an

illegal occupation by depriving the Namibian people of their right to

determine their own destiny. Each passing year unfortunately adds to

the long list of missed appointments and postponed deadlines for the

independence of Namibia.

When the International Court of Justice decided that South Africa's

occupation of Namibia was illegal, and when in its turn the

international community recognized the struggle of the people of that

Territory, the dimensions of the Namibian question became clear. It

was purely and simply a problem of decolonization. It was therefore

incumbent upon the United Nations, as in similar cases, to do what it

could to enable the inhabitants of the Territory to exercise their

inalienable right to self-determination and independence. The United

Nations has exercised that right consistently and constantly. It will

not agree to the Namibian question so being distorted as to become a

conflict on grounds and for reasons completely alien to the interests

of the Namibian people.

Allow me, therefore, to repeat my Government's consistent position on

the Namibian question. We continue to believe that it is indeed a

question of decolonization, falling completely and solely under the

responsibility of the United Nations. The decolonization planned for

Namibia, as endorsed in Security Council resolution 435 (1978), must

be carried out fully. To that end, we urgently appeal to the five

Western States, members of the contact group, to do everything in

their power to persuade Pretoria to stop its specious dilatory

tactics aimed at delaying implementation of the United Nations plan

for the decolonization of Namibia.

We also reject all parallelism intended to link South Africa's

withdrawal from Namibia to that of the Cuban forces from Angola. Our

view on this is based on our conviction that such linkage not only

confuses two fundamentally different questions but also entails

involvement in Angola's internal affairs. Indeed, we think it is for

Angola alone to adopt, in complete sovereignty, the measures it deems

most appropriate to ensure its own security as long as it considers

that security to be threatened.

We further believe that Decree No. 1 for the Protection of the

Natural Resources of Namibia,' enacted by the United Nations Council

for Namibia, must be strictly observed. We therefore ask those who

are either directly or covertly involved in the exploitation of

Namibian resources, regardless of their nature or origin, to cease

their scandalous pillaging. We repeat our firm and constant support

for the South West Africa People's Organization, the sole legitimate

representative of the Namibian people.

Moreover, we hereby reiterate Burundi's solidarity and support for

the front-line States, in particular our brothers, the peoples of

Angola and Mozambique, who are the targets and the victims of acts of

aggression and sabotage by the regime.,

The question of the Western Sahara remains a burning issue, to the

extent that no step seems to have been taken since the adoption by

the Assembly of its resolution 36/46. None the less we keep our faith

in the capacity of the Organization of African Unity to resolve, in

collaboration with the United Nations, the problem of Western Sahara,

while respecting the right of the Sahraoui people to

self-determination and independence.

The unparalleled frequency with which the United Nations considered

the question of Palestine this year is a clear demonstration of the

serious concern with which the United Nations views Israel's

unacceptable policy of illegal occupation of Arab territories and its

continued aggression against its neighbours. The Israeli invasion of

Lebanon, causing death and destruction, the recent massacres of

Palestinian refugees in the Shatila and Sabra camps in west Beirut

have, alas, only confirmed the concerns expressed for almost three

decades now. Those sinister events were added to the sufferings of a

people already dispersed, a people whom Israel refuses not only the

right to a homeland but even the right to an identity. The General

Assembly has often asked Israel to withdraw completely and

unconditionally from all Palestinian and other Arab territories

occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem. Israel has responded by

annexing the Golan Heights, by imposing its own civilian

administration on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and establishing

settlements, and, finally, by the invasion of Lebanon and the savage

bombardment of Beirut.

It is not through violence, or the violation of United Nations

resolutions that Israel will ensure its own security. On the contrary

its security will be safeguarded and strengthened only when it

recognizes the Palestinian people's right to existence,

self-determination and a homeland in its own territory, in keeping

with the relevant decisions of the United Nations.

Today we renew the support of the Government of Burundi for the

Palestinian people and the Palestine Liberation Organization its sole

and unique legitimate representative.

Our conception of international relations follows a constant

principle which rejects colonialism, racism, domination, aggression

and the acquisition of territories by force. We have always held that

it is up to each people, to each country, regardless of its size and

economic potential, to define its own policies in complete

sovereignty, free from any foreign interference and according to the

priorities which those peoples and countries have chosen for

themselves.

The solution of the current disputes in Central America, South-East

Asia, Afghanistan, Kampuchea, Cyprus and elsewhere, must be guided,

in our view, by the principles I have indicated. They demand a

political solution. Recourse to force in international relations

deprives the peoples involved of their right to choose the political

system which best responds to their aspirations.

Another deplorable situation is also of concern to the delegation of

Burundi. I refer to the conflict between Iraq and the Islamic

Republic of Iran. In spite of the mediation efforts made by

representatives of the non-aligned countries-to whom we pay a

tribute-the war between those two countries continues. Burundi

urgently appeals to the two belligerents to heed the voice of reason

and bring the destruction to an end in order to promote true peace.

The Government of Burundi has already expressed its views on the

Korean question. That question, too, demands apolitical solution. The

withdrawal of foreign troops from South Korea is a prerequisite which

would establish a climate of confidence conducive to negotiations

between the two parties. We, for our part, will continue to support

any effort aimed at achieving the peaceful reunification of the two

Koreas.

Four months ago we met in this very Hall to talk about disarmament.

That debate, which began four years earlier, was necessary to the

extent that it was becoming more and more apparent that the arms race

was threatening to establish nuclear terror and to sow insecurity in

the minds of nations. Is it not paradoxical, to say the least, that,

at a time when a large part of mankind is bogged down in the most

absolute poverty and people are dying by the thousands of sickness

and hunger, the human and material resources that ought to have

served to feed those people, to care for them and to educate them

should be absorbed in the suicidal undertaking of the unbridled arms

race?

One of the tasks of the General Assembly at the twelfth special

session and the second special session devoted to disarmament was to

start considering seriously again the devotion of our collective

efforts to limiting the arms race. At that session the Assembly was

to have considered ways and means of beginning to implement the

Programme of Action contained in the Final Document of the Tenth

Special Session of the General Assembly. So it is not at all

necessary to reformulate the principles and priorities that were

agreed upon in 1978, much less to question them. It is time for the

nuclear Powers to engage in a frank and constructive dialogue on the

reduction of the nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals. This

is a question of the security and, indeed, the survival of the

planet. We also think it would be sterile for the super-Powers to

limit themselves to a debate in which each one would absolve itself

from guilt in the eyes of the world public by attributing all the

blame to the other.

The Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea finished

its work on 30 Apr' of this year by adopting the United Nations

Convention on the Law of the Sea. The participants in that Conference

succeeded after nine years of hard work and sustained efforts in

reconciling positions and interests which at the outset were claimed

to be irreconcilable. The Third United Nations Conference on the Law

of the Sea will go down in the annals of history not only because of

the complexity of the matters which it had to codify, the divergence

of the interests involved or the time it lasted, but also and above

all because it will prove to future generations that with a minimum

of political will and good faith nations can, while respecting the

essential interests of all concerned, solve the problems they face So

the benefit of the international community as a whole, regardless of

the scope and acuteness of those problems.

The results of that Conference will prove, furthermore, that the

United Nations remains the best framework for the North-South

dialogue. Similarly, we believe in the viability and possible outcome

of the global negotiations. It is our hope that those that for one

reason or another were unable last April to agree to the adoption of

the Convention on the Law of the Sea will realize the advantages

offered to them by that Convention and rejoin the rest of the

international community so that together we can make the concept of

the resources of the sea-bed and ocean floor as the common heritage

of mankind a reality of the future. In parallel with the

international political situation which I have just described, a

world economy is developing in a way that is of no less concern, in

particular with regard to the developing countries. Unemployment,

recession, inflation, the colossal debt of the developing countries,

the disruption of the economies of the least developed countries, the

reduction of official development assistance, the return to

protectionism, the problems with United Nations funds which

channelled the fruits of international solidarity to the least

developed countries, the precipitous fall in raw material prices,

which constitute the essential source of revenue for the developing

countries-this is the not very comforting picture of the world

economy. That picture is especially painful because it seems to

combine with the present economic malaise actions which are even more

disruptive and ineffective and which, if continued, would merely

strengthen the current state of affairs. Whereas the present economic

disorder affects international relations and requires a global

approach, some persons seem to be proposing as remedies for the

situation the return to selfish national interests and the

strengthening of international financial and monetary mechanisms, the

inability of which to meet the global needs of the international

community has become clear. The role of the United Nations in the

formulation of this global approach to the solution of the economic

problems of our time is a primary one, although some seem to wish,

for various reasons, to block its efforts in this matter. None the

less, the Member States, by unanimously adopting General Assembly

resolution 34/138, committed themselves to global negotiations in

order to establish a new international economic order. The global

negotiations have not been begun precisely because there is a

suspicion that they would in the long run challenge the lack of

equality in international economic relations. But the opposition to

those negotiations cannot continue indefinitely because the present

state of the world economy makes the launching and conclusion of the

global negotiations an overriding necessity. It is equally clear that

the settlement of the present economic crisis demands more determined

solidarity on the part of the international community. Recent events

have shown that the bankruptcy of the developing countries, whatever

the level of their development, could, if we do not act in time, lead

to the bankruptcy of the international economic and financial system.

The time is past when some thought they could build their wealth on

the growing impoverishment of others. The economic interdependence of

nations is now a reality.

The economic crisis affects the whole world. Nevertheless, there is a

category of countries for which the present crisis is most bitter. I

refer to the least developed countries. Whereas in the developed

countries the crisis affects the customary well-being of the

population, in the least developed countries it involves the loss of

the essential minimum. In the former countries the crisis makes life

less comfortable; in the latter it makes life simply impossible. We

are particularly disturbed by the trend towards the reduction of

official development assistance and the problems concerning the funds

of United Nations bodies, such as UNDP, in which the least developed

countries have placed such great hopes for a better future. Voluntary

contributions to UNDP funds have made it a vital and effective

instrument for development in the developing countries and the

suspension of such contributions would block the development of the

economies of the least developed countries. The wealthy countries

must not allow themselves to become indifferent to the desperate

situation of the least developed countries. It was envisaged that in

the Third United Nations Development Decade special efforts would be

made to enable the least developed countries finally to escape from

their past and present stagnation and future prospects.

The United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, held

in Paris in 1981, laid the foundations for the co-ordination of

international assistance to the least privileged countries. And so

today we launch an appeal to the entire international community to

ensure that the spirit of solidarity and generosity that inspired the

Substantial New Programme of Action for the 1980s for the Least

Developed Countries adopted at the end of the Paris Conference is

finally given practical effect.

The economic difficulties faced today by the developing countries

have prompted them to explore new methods of co-operation which can

best take account of their own limitations and also enable them the

speed up their own economic growth and improve position in the system

of international economic relations. It is to this concern that the

Programmes of Action of Amsha, Mexico, Buenos Aires and Caracas

respond with a view to establishing a system of collective autonomy.

The Lagos Plan of Action for the Implementation of the Monrovia

Strategy for the Economic Development of Africa which was adopted at

the second extraordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State

and Government of the CAU also responded to that necessity.

It is through strengthening the regional and sub- regional economic

groupings that we will achieve the collective autonomy envisaged in

the different programmes of action mentioned. It is to this end that,

in collaboration with our partners, we intend to strengthen the

various types of co-operation whit the sub- regional and regional

groupings, of which Burundi is a part.

The analysis of the international political and economic situation

which I have just presented to the Assembly is based on the

principles which guideour foreign policy, namely, international

co-operation with reciprocal respect among partners, non-interference

in the internal affairs of other States, good neighbourliness,

positive non-alignment and support for national liberation movements.

Sometimes justified criticisms of the United Nations have been made.

But these present shortcomings should not make us lose our faith and

be discouraged. International peace and security, whose guarantor the

Organization is, demand that we concentrate our efforts on

strengthening the United Nations through a progressive adaptation to

the realities and requirements of our time. As the Secretary-General

aptly pointed out in his report on the work of the Organization: "The

will to use the machinery of the Charter needs to be consciously

strengthened, and all Governments must try to look beyond short-term

national interests to the great possibilities of a more stable system

of collective international security, as well as to the very great

perils of failing to develop such a system." My delegation's view is

that this analysis is relevant. The dearest wish of the people and

the Government of Burundi is to see the progressive establishment in

international relations of a new world order where there is peace and

justice, collective economic security, and co-operation with due

respect for the right of nations to determine their own future and to

choose freely their path of development in keeping with the

aspirations of their peoples. May the United Nations be the cradle

where this hope is nurtured.