Guyana, 1982

My first and pleasant duty is to extend warm

felicitations and congratulations to the

President, a distinguished son of Hungary, upon

his unanimous election. I and the other members

of my delegation pledge our full cooperation with

him in his efforts to make this session of the

Assembly a successful one. May I at the same time

pay a tribute to Mr. Kittani of Iraq who, with

patience, tact and wisdom, guided the Assembly

through the various and bewildering demands of

the last year? We owe him a debt of gratitude.

May I also reiterate my congratulations to the

Secretary General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar of

Peru, on his election to this most important

office at this most critical period? I have

personally had the pleasure and good fortune of

working with him in earlier years when he gave

dedicated and unstinting service to his country

and to the Organization. The seriousness and

forthrightness which characterize the approach of

the Secretary General to the challenges facing

the Organization and its Member States have won

praise and well deserved recognition within the

Organization as well as outside it. We wish him

every success.

The Secretary General aptly observed in his frank

and perceptive report on the work of the

Organization we are perilously near to a new

international anarchy. Guyana shares that

assessment. The world economic crisis deepens

even as political relations are beset by tension

and turbulence. Within recent years there has

been an intensification of global crises,

political and economic, and a manifest trend

towards the exacerbation of existing situations

and the creation of new ones, of so called local

and regional conflicts, some of them with

devastating effect. Turbulence is pervasive. No

region, indeed no country, has escaped unscathed.

More than ever before States need in their

bilateral relations to be conscious of the impact

of their national policies on others and to take

the appropriate and necessary steps to avoid

conflict preserve pluralism and promote security

mid the economic and social development of

peoples throughout the world.

Underlying current global tensions is the

heightening of the contestation between social

systems. Nowhere is that more clearly reflected

than in the increase in expenditure on, and the

sophistication of, armaments and weapons systems,

fuelling the movement towards conflict and global

conflagration. The language of cooperation has

been superseded by that of confrontation and the

relations among the great Powers are now

dangerously adversarial. Thus military and

political rivalries have reached a new level,

creating in their wake deep fissures in

international relations and the frustration of

the process of democratization of those relations.

Our global political preoccupations are matched

by economic preoccupations; equitable

international economic relations are necessary

prerequisites to political stability. The present

international economic system is undoubtedly in

disarray and its debilitating effect on all

States, especially on the small and the weak, is

manifest.

The solution to that state of affairs demands

collective, reasoned efforts But the global

community has not responded in that manner often

enough. Instead of a greater surge towards

multilateralism in international economic

relations, there is today a retreat from it,

resulting in frustration and impasse. Meanwhile,

efforts to fashion solutions upon partisan,

bilateral criteria are being renewed. Indeed, the

retreat from multilateralism that threatens

economic relations among States has been finding

expression in a reassertion of the dominance of

single minded ideological approaches to economic

development, in essence a return to economic

determinism. In the retreat from multilateralism,

in this return to economic determinism, we are

faced today with a dual tragedy. There is a

steadfast refusal to remodel existing

international institutions in a way that would

render them more responsive to the serious

problems which imperil us all and, more

particularly, the developing countries.

Simultaneously, we witness a tendency to deny

those multilateral institutions the resources

required for their normal operations. In that

regard the position of UNDP demands our special

attention and we must urge a genuine commitment

to meaningful resource allocation to allow that

agency to continue its useful work in an

effective manner.

The disturbing trend towards a bilateral

resolution of global economic woes is

demonstrated in other ways. We cannot ignore the

evidence of three years of continued stalemate in

the effort to launch the global round of

negotiations. There have been periodic signs

during the process which indicated movement but,

just as rapidly, there has been another impasse.

The failure to agree on that launching has

seriously weakened the much needed to undertake

collective solutions. The consequence is a

growing indication that the global manifestation

of the economic woes can be set aside until the

national endeavors at a solution have been

pursued. Thus the absence of global negotiations

to help to resolve global problems of a

structural nature has resulted in almost a total

dearth of measures to address the immediate

issues which beset the global community. The

individual, partisan adjustment measures are

being forged with an increasing incidence of the

attendant burdens, costs and pains of that

adjustment being borne by the developing

countries.

183. The problems of depressed prices for

commodities, the prevalence of inflation and high

interest rates, the barriers to trade expansion

and the chaos that characterizes the

international financial system have been

repeatedly assessed, examined and analyzed from

this rostrum over the last few days. Those

analyses notwithstanding, we in the developing

countries are acutely aware of the limits to

growth we now face as a result of those problems.

Nowhere are those limits more manifest than in

our efforts at debt management. The problems

posed by cur spiraling debt burdens present us

with tremendous difficulty. Efforts at adjustment

to inflation in the developed world have had a

very grave effect on its economies. All of these

problems high rates of interest, mounting debt

burdens and the very nature of the international

financial system demand that we seek collective

redress. It is our most compelling concern and

one that necessitates urgent and immediate

consideration. For our part, we in the developing

world have been willing to seek ways and means to

contribute collectively to the solution of the

global problems, as evidenced in the Caracas

Programme of Action on economic cooperation among

developing countries. Our attempts to pool our

individual strengths and resource bases and thus

promote our collective self reliance are

noteworthy and offer promise for the future. But,

as has been noted on repeated occasions, economic

cooperation among developing countries, South

South cooperation, is but one part of the whole.

It is not a substitute for genuine progress in

North South relations. The quest for solutions

based, on multilateral and collective methods

should be pursued unceasingly.

Guyana notes with satisfaction the successful

conclusion of the negotiating sessions of the

Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the

Sea and the emergence of a final text which truly

reflects the concerns of many who have labored

long and hard establish an international legal

regime for the ocean space. It is Guyana's hope

that when we meet in Jamaica to sign the Final

Act and Convention, the number signatories to the

Convention will be a source of great satisfaction

to those whose primary motivation over the past

several years has been the promulgation of just

and equitable arrangements for the most effective

use of the sea and the utilization of its

resources for the benefit of all mankind, without

discrimination.

It is, not unnaturally, a source of profound

concern that some States should have seen fit to

stand aside from this historic effort. It is also

a matter for regret that a few developed States

have moreover chosen instead to conclude between

them a mini multilateral treaty in defiance of

the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the

world's States.

If I now tum to international political

relations, it is to say that these have

deteriorated markedly over the past few years.

The diagnoses of the malaise afflicting

international relations are many and varied. They

range from the crisis in the multilateral

approach in international affairs to the

proliferation of armaments with the concomitant

incentive and urge to utilize them; the collapse

of cooperative endeavors evolved in the aftermath

of the Second World War so called; an increasing

disregard for the fundamental norms and

principles of international law; and a widespread

tendency too widespread to resort to lawless

conduct based on confrontation, threats and

violence and, unhappily, intervention.

These negative manifestations have both

encouraged and facilitated behavior antagonistic

to full respect for the sovereignty and

independence of States small States in particular.

Interventionist behavior is undoubtedly on the

increase. It is at once cause and effect of the

crisis in international relations, a

distinguishing feature of many conflicts. The

extant cases are numerous in the Middle East, in

Europe, in Africa and in Latin America.

Nonintervention in the affairs of other States

has served as one of the main pillars and guiding

principles of a system of stable international

relations. The proscribing of intervention is at

the core of several international instruments

adopted by this world body over the years. The

most recent of these is the Declaration on the

Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference

in the Internal Affairs of States, adopted at the

thirty sixth session. This Declaration represents

a comprehensive instrument codifying the rights

and duties of States that inhere in the principle

of nonintervention.

Yet, despite its existence as a well established

and fundamental principle of international

relations, nonintervention has increasingly been

respected more in the breach. The whole gamut of

interventionist techniques, ranging from overt

military action to the more insidious and subtle

forms of indirect pressures and destabilization

tactics, has been brought into play in recent

years.

The motivation for intervention varies from case

to case. Yet certain broad patterns are clearly

discernible. Some manipulate local situations of

controversy and exploit international conflicts

to, serve perceived broader geo strategic

interests. Further, intervention is of times

designed to frustrate national liberation and the

struggle against colonialism. No less problematic

is interventionist behavior undertaken in pursuit

of expansionist ambitions territorial,

ideological and economic.

Some of our countries possess enough human and

material resources to ensure for their people an

adequate and satisfying standard of living. Yet

some of these very countries, in what can only be

seen as a fit of greed, seek to covet the

territory and resources of their neighbors. In

pursuit of their expansionist claims, such

countries disregard hallowed principles of an

international legal edifice painstakingly

constructed over the years.

But even as we resolve to banish intervention as

an instrument of policy in relations among

States, it becomes imperative to strengthen and

advance the process of collective security and

disarmament. The second special session devoted

to disarmament, held here last June, did not

realize the high hopes of our peoples for a world

free from the specter of the catastrophic uses of

the destructive weapons at man's disposal. This

happens at a time in which we witness the

proliferation and perfection of a plethora of

weapons systems possessing mass destructive

capability.

It is indeed a sad commentary on the position of

some major Powers that in the face of a clear

demonstration of the public throughout the world

in favor of disarmament, these Powers have not

exercised the necessary political judgment to

facilitate agreement on the various disarmament

issues and the preparation of a comprehensive

programme on disarmament.

The recent horrors which accompanied the ruthless

Israeli invasion of Lebanon and senseless

slaughter of innocent men, women and children in

west Beirut heighten the necessity for a

comprehensive, just and lasting solution to the

Middle East situation and the Palestinian

question. There has undeniably been a quickening

of the conscience of peoples to the urgent need

to terminate the Palestinian diaspora and to

bring about the creation of a homeland for the

Palestinians in Palestine, as envisaged by early

resolutions of the Assembly.

Let me repeat the position of Guyana: the

acquisition of territory by force cannot be

condoned; the Palestinian people, led by their

authentic representative, the PLC, must have

their national rights restored; and all States in

the region should be enabled to live in peace and

security.

We must be equally firm in dealing with the

racist entity in Pretoria. The independence of

Namibia must be achieved in conformity with

Security Council resolution 435 and there must be

no question of further conditionality’s. South

Africa must be made to vacate Namibia and to do

so quickly. At the same time, South Africa must

show full respect for the sovereignty and

territorial integrity of neighboring independent

African States. Within South Africa itself, the

system of apartheid must be condemned. The

members of the international community

individually and collectively must desist from

giving the racists in South Africa support to

maintain their oppressive policies.

Unhappily, the tragedy of a divided Cyprus

remains, despite the fact that the Assembly in

its resolution 3212 set an adequate framework for

the withdrawal of foreign troops and the

reconciliation of the communities in the

territory. Guyana gives every encouragement to

the Secretary General to continue unceasingly in

his search for an urgent solution. We also

support the proposals made by the President of

Cyprus before the Assembly.

Likewise the people of Korea deserve our support

for the peaceful reunification of their territory

without outside interference. Guyana continues to

urge the implementation of the provisions of the

4 July 1972 joint communique? And the more recent

constructive proposals advanced by the Democratic

People's Republic of Korea.

We are particularly concerned about the

continuing war between Iraq and the Islamic

Republic of Iran. We call for strict

implementation of the relevant resolutions of the

Security Council relating to this matter, in

particular resolutions 514 and 522.

Central America and the Caribbean indeed, Latin

America is a state of ferment. Threats of

destabilization and armed intervention are mad in

relation to Central America and the Caribbean.

Indigenous impulses for change are being

violently confronted by a tandem force of local

interests and their external supporters.

Deliberate policies of pressure and intimidation

are implemented, policies aiming at ideological

conformity. Guyana firmly believes that a system

of peaceful and stable relations in the Latin

American and Caribbean region must of necessity

be premised or? an end to all types of economic

pressures and political interference and on

respect for ideological pluralism. The Caribbean

must be made a zone of peace.

In his statement to the Assembly at the 5th

meeting, the Foreign Minister of Venezuela

adverted at length to the relations between our

two countries. Unfortunately that presentation

contained egregious distortions; it was

contumacious, and it bordered on calumny. It was

tendentious and selective in its account of

history.

Last year, in addressing the Assembly my Prime

Minister, Mr. Ptolemy A. Reid, laid bare the

history of our relations with Venezuela. The

nature of those relations has been profoundly

affected by a Venezuelan desire to redraw the

boundary between our two countries, a boundary

which was settled by Treaty in 1899 and

demarcated on the ground between 1901 and 1905.

The Foreign Minister of Venezuela stated that

Venezuela's claim is based neither on territorial

ambition nor on covetousness of the wealth of

others but on the need to correct an historical

wrong perpetrated against it. And this Venezuela

asserts as the successor to Spanish colonial

imperialism. He also asserted that Guyana refuses

to understand the need for this correction

because it wishes to enjoy the fruits of British

colonial imperialism.

Guyana hardly needs to reject these pejorative

Venezuelan asseverations. Moreover, our

reputation as an anti imperialist nation is well

known. The anti imperialist policies my country

pursues are in accordance with the tenets of the

nonaligned movement, of which it is a full member

The Foreign Minister of Venezuela, in disavowing

any motive of covetousness and expansionism, and

in persisting in his country's territorial claim,

asserts that no exploitable mineral resources

have been discovered in the Essequibo region,

which Venezuela claims. On the contrary, to give

but a few examples, oil has recently been

discovered there; our long established gold and

diamond mines are developing as centers of

economic activity; and there has been an

intensification in the evaluation of our uranium

potential. And Venezuela knows this.

With these activities and the potential which

exists, can we accept Venezuela's portrayal of

the Essequibo as a land without exploitable

mineral resources. And are we to understand that

its claim to this land, whose people are moreover

of a different culture, is motivated simply by a

desire to redress an historical wrong. We are

convinced that the Venezuelan territorial claim

is an unjustified attempt to satiate a thirst for

the land and resources of ethers.

The Venezuelan Foreign Minister also asserted

that there has been no aggression by Venezuela

against Guyana. I cannot permit that statement to

go unchallenged. Indeed it must be categorically

rejected. Let the record speak.

Can Venezuela deny that its troops are still in

occupation of Guyanese territory that it

violently seized in 1966? Can Venezuela honestly

and I stress the word honestly deny that there

have been numerous violations of our air and land

space by Venezuelan aircraft and armed forces?

And what of Venezuela's actions against us in the

economic field. Can Venezuela deny that it has

been endeavoring to dissuade Governments and

organizations both in the developed and in the

developing world from participating in Guyana's

economic development, especially in that part of

our territory that it claims'? Does Venezuela

deny that in June last year, as we were preparing

for a global conference on new and renewable

sources of energy, its Foreign Minister wrote to

the President of the World Bank opposing the

construction of a hydroelectric facility in the

Upper Mazuruni region of Guyana on the political

ground that the proposed dam was to be located in

the area claimed by Venezuela and that it was not

economically important to Guyana? And can it deny

that such action was after the World Bank had

itself assessed the project as being economically

and technically feasible? Is that not economic

aggression?

There are several international treaties and

legal instruments that relate to the border

between Guyana and Venezuela. The most important

one is the Arbitral Award of 1899, which all

parties, in ' eluding Venezuela, had by an

earlier treaty agreed to accept as a full, final

and perfect settlement. Pursuant to that Award,

as I stated earlier, the boundary was demarcated

on the ground and registered in a separate

Agreement in 1903. There is also the Geneva

Agreement of 1966, which has as its purpose the

solution of the controversy which has arisen as a

result of the Venezuelan contention that the

Arbitral Award of 1899 is null and void.

Under the Agreement Guyana and Venezuela were

required to choose one of the means provided in

Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations

for the settlement of the controversy. Venezuela

proposed negotiation; we proposed judicial

settlement, and recommended the International

Court of Justice. Unfortunately, Venezuela not

only challenged our competence to suggest the

International Court of Justice but persistently

refused to consider our proposal for a judicial

settlement. As a consequence our two countries

are now, in strict accordance with the provisions

of the Geneva Agreement, required to consider the

selection of an appropriate international organ

to choose the means of settlement.

From the inception of the Geneva Agreement in

1966 there have been repeated violations of it by

Venezuela. I have already alluded to some of

them. Notwithstanding those provocations, Guyana

remains willing, in keeping with its policy of

respect for legally binding treaties and peace

and good neighborliness, to continue to honor the

Geneva Agreement and to fulfil its obligations

under it. On Friday last Guyana proposed to

Venezuela that our two countries, in fulfilment

of that Agreement, seek to agree on an

appropriate international organ to choose a means

of pacific settlement.

There are a number of organs of a regional

nature, some of which may not be acceptable to

Venezuela and others which may not be acceptable

to us. However, there are three organs of such a

wide international character that in our opinion

any of them should be acceptable to both parties.

These organs are: the International Court of

Justice the Security Council and the General

Assembly of the United Nations.

We are therefore now suggesting for the

consideration of the Government of Venezuela

recourse to one of those organs. It is Guyana's

belief that their international character

recommends them as suitable. We put our

confidence in them. We trust that Venezuela would

be prepared to do likewise.

Let me repeat what my Prime Minister said at the

thirty sixth session of the Assembly: We have no

other wish than that of establishing a regime of

peace, harmony and friendship with the people of

Venezuela, with whom we share aspirations for a

just and satisfying life and with whom we can

together make a contribution to our development

and that of our region and our continent.

To that goal Guyana remains committed.

In the complexities which beset the international

community the nonaligned movement continues to

play an influential and beneficial role. As we

speak out against intervention and interference,

the nonaligned are aware that external efforts to

divide and subvert us will continue. But we must

stick resolutely and uncompromisingly to our

principles and our policies.

Despite its imperfections, the United Nations

system still offers mankind the best hope for

international relations based on the rule of law.

In his courageous report on the work of the

Organization the Secretary General not only has

analyzed the weaknesses of that system but has

also made constructive proposals for the

improvement of its vitality and the enhancement

of its effectiveness. The decline in its

authority and the credibility dilemma facing the

United Nations are as much functions and

consequences of certain deficiencies of the

system as of the growing propensity of an

increasing number of nations to marginalize the

Organization or to ignore its decisions.

We owe it to ourselves and to the Secretary

General to ponder seriously his assessment of the

international situation, his views on the crisis

of confidence facing the United Nations and the

various ideas he has submitted for reinvigorating

the process of multilateral diplomacy. We believe

that the opportunity to do so which this session

provides should be fully utilized. Guyana

supports his proposals. We are particularly

interested in his argument for a role for the

Security Council which emphasizes a preventive,

rather than a reactive, orientation.

As my President said in a statement on 5 October 1982 in Brasilia:

I believe the time is ripe for us to examine once

again the possibility of establishing a United

Nations security force with sufficient authority

and strength to forestall aggression and prevent

disputes from degenerating into armed conflicts.

Man's impulse is to survive and to live in peace

with his fellow man. Our task as representatives

of Governments is to give effect to this impulse.

The pursuit of this task requires us to undertake

serious dialogue, to act in concert, to adhere to

the norms of international law and to make a

reality of peaceful coexistence. History, I

suggest, would indeed be unkind to us if we did

not seek to build a world that is safer and in

which justice prevails.