Latin American Network Information Center - LANIC


Text of UN Speech

FL121705 Havana Domestic Service in Spanish 1533 GMT 12 Oct 79 FL

[Test of speech by Cuban President Fidel Castro to the 34th UN General
Assembly, in his position as chairman of the nonalined countries

[Text] Esteemed chairman, distinguished representatives of the world
community: I have not come to talk about Cuba. I have not come to explain
at this Assembly the charge of acts of aggression of which our small but
worthy country has been the victim for over 20 years. Neither do I come to
use unnecessary adjectives to would a powerful neighbor in his own home.

We bring the mandate of the sixth conference of heads of state or
government of the nonalined countries movement to present to the United
Nations the results of their deliberations and positions derived from them.

We are 95 countries from all the continents representing the vast majority
of humanity. We are united by determination to defend cooperation among our
countries, free national and social development, sovereignty, security,
equality and self-determination. We are associated in the endeavor to
change the current system of international relations based on injustice,
inequality and oppression. We act on international policy as a global
independent factor.

Gathered in Havana, the movement has just reaffirmed its principles and
confirmed its objectives. The nonalined countries insist that it is
necessary to eliminate the abysmal inequality that separates developed and
developing countries. We therefore struggle to eliminate the poverty,
hunger, disease and illiteracy that hundreds of millions of human beings
are still experiencing.

We want a new world order based on justice, equality and peace to replace
the unfair and unequal system that prevails today under which, according to
the proclamation in the Havana declaration, wealth continues to be
concentrated in the hands of a few powers whose economies, based on waste,
are maintained thanks to the exploitation of workers and to the transfer
and plundering of natural and other resources of countries in Africa, Latin
American and other regions of the world.

Among the problems this General Assembly will discuss, peace figures to be
among the first order of concern. The search for peach also constitutes a
concern of the nonalined countries movement and has been the object of
attention at the sixth summit conference. However, peach for our countries
is indivisible. We want a peace that benefits equally the big and small,
the powerful and weak, that covers all regions of the world and reaches all

Since their founding, the nonalined countries have considered that the
principles of peaceful coexistence must be the cornerstone of international
relations, that they constitute the foundation for strengthening
international peace and security, reducing tension and extending this
process to all regions of the world and to all aspects of relations. And
they must be applied universally in relations between states.

At the same time, however, the sixth summit considered that those
principles of peaceful coexistence also include the right of peoples under
foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, independence,
sovereignty; the territorial integrity of states; the right of each country
to end foreign occupation and acquisition of territories by force; and the
right to choose their own social, political and economic systems. Only in
this way can peaceful coexistence by the basis of all international
relations. It is impossible to deny this.

When one analyzes the structure of the contemporary world, it is confirmed
that these rights of our peoples still are not guaranteed. The nonalined
countries know very well who are our historic enemies, where threats come
from and how we must fight them. For this reason we agreed in Havana to
reaffirm that the quintessence of the nonalinement policy, in accordance
with its original principles and fundamental nature, is the struggle
against imperialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, apartheid, racism,
including Zionism, and any form of foreign aggression, occupation,
domination, interference or hegemony, as well as the struggle against the
policies of big powers or blocs.

It is thereby understood that the Havana declaration associated the
struggle for each with political, moral and material support for national
liberation movements and the implementation of joint actions to eliminate
colonial domination and racial discrimination.

The nonalined countries have always attached great importance to the
possibility and need for detente between the big powers. Thus, the sixth
summit pointed out with great concern the fact that after the Colombo
summit there came a certain stagnation in the process of detente which has
also been limited in its scope as well as geographically. Basing themselves
on this concern, the nonalined countries, which have made disarmament and
denuclearization one of the permanent and most prominent objections of
their struggle and had the initiative to convene the 10th UN General
Assembly extraordinary session on disarmament, examined at their conference
the results of negotiations on strategic weapons and the agreements called
SALT II. They believe that these agreements represent an important step in
negotiations between the two principal nuclear powers and that the
agreements could pave the way for broader negotiations leading to general
disarmament and reduction of tension.

However, for the nonalined countries those treaties are nothing more than
part of the advance toward peace. Although negotiations between the big
powers constitute a decisive element in this process, the nonalined
countries once again reiterated that the endeavor to consolidate detente,
extend it to all parts of the world and prevent the nuclear threat, the
accumulation of weapons and, in sum, war, is a task in which all nations
must participate and exercise their responsibility.

Mr. Chairman: Basing ourselves on the concept of the universality of peace
and the need to associate the search for peace--extended to all
countries--with the struggle for national independence, full sovereignty
and equality among states, we heads of state or government who met at the
sixth summit in Havana devoted our attention to the more pressing problems
in Africa, Asia, Latin America and other regions.

It is important to emphasize that we based ourselves on an independent
position that was not tied to policies which might be derived from the
controversy between the big powers. If, despite this objective and
uncompromising focus, the review of international events becomes a
denunciation against the supporters of imperialism and colonialism, it
merely reflects the essential reality of the contemporary world.

thus, when the heads of state or government began their analysis of the
situation in Africa and, after noting the advances made in the struggle of
the African peoples for their emancipation, they emphasized as the
fundamental problem of the region the need to eradicate from that
continent, especially in southern Africa, colonialism, racism, racial
discrimination and apartheid. It was indispensable to stress that the
colonialist and imperialist powers were continuing their aggressive
policies for the purpose of perpetuating, recovering or expanding their
domination and exploitation of African nations. The dramatic situation in
Africa is none other than that.

The nonalined countries could not avoid condemning the attacks on
Mozambique, Zambia, Angola, Botswana, the threats against Lesotho, the
attempts at permanent destabilization in that region, and the role of the
racist regimes of Rhodesia and South Africa. The need to urgently achieve
the full liberation of Zimbabwe and Namibia is not only one of the causes
of the nonalined countries or of the most progressive forces of our times,
but it already constitutes agreements of the international community
through the United Nations which imply unavoidable duties whose violation
also presupposes the need for international condemnation.

For this reason, when the heads of state of government in the final
declaration agreed to condemn by name a group of Western countries--headed
by the United States--for their direct and indirect collaboration in
maintaining the racist oppression and criminal policy of South Africa, and,
on the other hand, they recognized the role played by the nonalined
countries, the United Nations, the Organization of African Unity, socialist
countries, Scandinavian countries and other democratic and progressive
forces in support of the African peoples' struggle, there is not in all;
this the slightest manifestation of ideological inclination. It simply
represents the faithful expression of objective reality. To condemn South
Africa without mentioning those who make its criminal policy possible would
have been incomprehensible.

From the sixth summit there emerged with more strength and urgency the need
to end a situation which involves the rights of the people of Zimbabwe and
Namibia to their independence and the unpostponable need for the black men
and women of South Africa to achieve a status in which they are considered
equal and respected human beings, as well as that the conditions of respect
and peace for all countries of the region be insured.

The continued support to national liberation movements, and to the
[Zimbabwe] patriotic Front and SWAPO was a decision that was as unanimous
as it was foreseen. And it is not a case here, let us say it clearly, of
expressing a unilateral preference for solution through armed struggled. It
is true that the conference praised the people of Namibia and SWAPO--their
true and sole representative--for having intensified the armed struggle and
advancing it, and requested total and effective support for this type of
combat, but this is because the South African racists have closed all paths
to real negotiation since all attempts at negotiated solutions did not go
beyond being mere strategems.

The decision of the Commonwealth in its Lusaka meetings last August for the
British Government to call for a conference as the authority in south
Rhodesia to discuss the problems of Zimbabwe helped to confirm that the
nonalined do not oppose solutions achieved without armed struggle as long
as they bring about an authentic majority government, and independence is
attained in a manner that satisfies the fighting peoples and which conforms
with the resolutions of organizations such as the OAU, the United Nations
and our nonalined countries.

Mr. President: The sixth summit had to deplore again that Resolution 1514
of the UN General Assembly on the granting of independence to the colonial
countries and peoples has not been applied to Western Sahara. We must
recall that the decisions of the nonalined countries and the UN
resolutions, especially 3331 of the General Assembly, have reaffirmed the
inalienable right of the people of Western Sahara to self-determination and
independence. Concerning this issue, Cuba feels special responsibility
because it was a member of the UN committee which carried out the
investigations on Western Sahara which allowed our representatives to
confirm the wholehearted decision of the Saharan people for
self-determination and independence. We reiterate here that the position
the nonalined countries is not one of antagonism toward any country. In
hailing the agreement between the Republic of Mauritania and the POLISARIO
Front and of Western Sahara and in deploring the spread of Morocco's armed
occupation in the southern part of Western Sahara previously administered
by Mauritania, one should one read into it the application of our
principles and the UN agreements. That is why the conference expressed its
hope that the ad hoc committee of the OAU established at the 16th OAU
summit meeting will insure that the Saharan people may exercise their right
to self-determination and independence as soon as possible.

The same principle and the same position of concluding agreements on
Mayotte and the Malagasy Archipelago and their respective necessary
reintegration to Comoros and Madagascar. [sentence as heard]

Mr. President: There is no doubt that the problem of the Middle East has
turned into one of the situations of most concern in current affairs. The
sixth summit examined the matter in its two-fold dimension. On the one
hand, the conference reaffirmed that Israel's determination to continue its
policy of aggression, expansionism and colonial settlement in the
territories it has occupied with the support of the United States
constitutes a serious threat to peach and world security. At the same time,
the conference examined the problem from the viewpoint of the rights of the
Arab peoples and the Palestinaian question. for the nonalined countries,
the Palestinian question is the crux of the Middle East problem. Both form
an integrated whole which cannot be resolved separately. The basis for a
just peace in the region begins with the total and unconditional withdrawal
of Israel from all occupied Arab territories and presupposes for the
Palestinian people the return of all their occupied territories and the
recovery of their inalienable national rights, including the right to
return to their homeland, to self-determination and to the establishment of
an independent state in Palestine in accordance with Resolution 3236 of the
General Assembly. This implies the illegality and nullity of the measures
adopted by Israel in the occupied Palestine and Arab territories as well as
the establishment of colonies or settlements in Palestinian lands and the
other Arab territories, the immediate dismantling of which is a
prerequisite for the solution of the problem.

As I said in my speech to the sixth summit, we are not fanatics. The
revolutionary movement has always affirmed its abhorrence of racial
discrimination and pogroms of any kind, and deep in our hearts re repudiate
with all our strength the unrelenting persecution and genocide that Nazism
unleashed in its time against the Jewish people. But I cannot recall
anything so similar in contemporary history than the eviction, persecution
and genocide carried out today by imperialism and Zionism against the
Palestinian people, stripped of their land, expelled from their own
homeland, dispersed throughout the world, persecuted and murdered. The
heroic Palestinians are an impressive example of abnegation and patriotism
and are the living symbol of the greatest crime of our age. [applause]

Can anyone find it strange that the conference found itself forced, for
reasons that do not arise from any political prejudice but from the
objective analysis of facts, to point out that the policy of the United
States plays a fundamental role in preventing the establishment of a just
and complete peace in the region of alining itself with Israel, by
supporting it, by working toward partial solutions that are favorable to
Zionist objectives, and by safeguarding the fruits of Israeli aggression at
the expense of the Arab people of Palestine and the whole Arab nation.

The facts, and only the facts, led the conference to condemn U.S. policies
and maneuvers in the region. When the heads of state or government reached
a consensus condemning the Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel treaty
of March 1979, the formulations were preceded by long hours of thorough
study and of profitable exchanges which made it possible for the conference
to consider those treaties not only as the total abandonment of the cause
of the Arab peoples but also as an act of complicity with the continued
occupation of the Arab territories. The words are hard, but true and just.

It is not the people of Egypt who have been subjected to the criticism of
the organs of the movement. The Egyptian people have the respect of each of
our countries and the solidarity of all of our peoples. The same voices
that rose to denounce the Camp David accords and the Egypt-Israel treaty
praised Gamal an-Nasir, founder of the movement and the embodiment of the
combative traditions of the Arab nation. No one can ignore nor will ignore
Egypt's historic role in Arab culture and development nor its merits as
founder and driving force of the nonalined [movement].

The problems of Southeast Asia also held the attention of the conference.
The growing conflicts and tension occurring there constitute a threat to
peace that must be avoided. Similar concerns were expressed by the sixth
summit regarding the situation in the Indian Ocean. the declaration
approved 8 years ago by the UN General Assembly on this area as a peace
zone has not attained its objectives. Military presence has not been
reduced in that area. It is increasing. Military bases keep extending, now
as far as South Africa. They also serve to watch the African liberation
movements. The talks between the United States and the Soviet Union are
still in suspense, despite the recent agreements between the two countries
to discuss their resumption. This gave rise to the invitation by the sixth
summit to all states interested in working effectively toward the
objectives of the declaration of the Indian Ocean as a zone of Peace.

the sixth conference analyzed other problems of regional and world interest
such as those pertaining to security and cooperation in Europe and the
Mediterranean problem, the tensions existing there now augmented as a
result of Israel's aggressive policy and the support afforded to it by
certain imperialist powers. It examined the situation of Cyprus, still
occupied by foreign troops, and Korea, still divided in spite of the wishes
of the Korean people for a peaceful reunification of their homeland. This
led the nonalined countries to reaffirm and broaden resolutions of
solidarity directed at the achievement of the aspirations of both peoples.
It would be impossible to mention all the political decisions of the sixth
summit. To do so would not allow us to touch on what we consider one of the
most fundamental aspects of our sixth summit, its economic plans, the
clamor of the developing peoples, weary of their backwardness and the
suffering this backwardness causes.

Cuba, as host country, will tell all countries that are members of the
international community about the final declaration and the additional
resolutions of the conference. But allow me, before telling the views of
the nonalined countries regarding the world economic situation, their
demands and hopes, a few minutes to inform you of the main theme of the
final declaration in regard to current Latin American affairs. The fact
that the sixth summit was held in a Latin American country provided the
heads of state or government meeting there the opportunity to recall that
the peoples of that region began their efforts for independence at the very
onset of the 19th century. They did not forget either, as stated in the
declaration, that Latin America was one of the areas of the world which had
suffered most in history from the aggression of imperialism, colonialism
and neocolonialism of the United States and Europe. the participants of the
conference felt it necessary to highlight that there are still traces of
colonialism, neocolonialism and national oppression in that land of
struggle. Therefore, the conference spoke out in favor of the eradication
of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations. It condemned the
existence of military bases in Latin America and the Caribbean, such as
those in Cuba and Puerto Rico, and once again demanded that the areas of
their territories occupied by those basis against the wishes of their
peoples be returned to them by the Government of the United States and the
rest of the colonial powers.

The experience in other areas made the heads of states or governments
reject and condemn the attempt to create in the Caribbean a so-called
security force, a neocolonial mechanism incompatible with the sovereignty,
peace and security of countries. In asking the return to Argentina of the
Malvinas Islands, in reiterating its support of the inalienable right of
the people of Belize to self-determination, independence and territorial
integrity, the conference again confirmed that which its declaration
defined as the quintessence of nonalinement. It was pleased to verify that
on 1 October the Panama Canal treaties signed by the Republic of Panama and
the United States would go into effect. It gave its full support to those
treaties, demanded that they be followed to the letter and spirit, and
called on all the states of the world to adhere to the protocol of the
treaty on the permanent neutrality of the Panama Canal.

Despite the pressure, threats and flattery exerted, and despite the
stubbornness of the U.S. Government in demanding that the problems of
Puerto Rico be considered an internal affair of the United States, the
heads of state or government reiterated their solidarity with the struggle
of the people of Puerto Rico and with their inalienable right to
self-determination, independence and territorial integrity, and exhorted
the U.S. government to abstain from any political or repressive maneuver to
perpetuate the colonial situation of Puerto Rico. [applause]

There can be no more worthy homage to the liberation traditions of Latin
American and the heroic Puerto Rican people who recently celebrated the
Grito de Lares [Puerto Rican call for independence from Spain] with which a
hundred years ago it express its indomitable with for freedom.

Referring to Latin America, the heads of state or government who had
already analyzed the significance of the liberation process in Iran, could
not but refer to the revolutionary upheaval in Grenada and the
extraordinary victory of the people of Nicaragua and its vanguard, the
Sandinist National Liberation Front [applause] and highlight the enormous
historic significance this event has fore the peoples of Latin American and
the world. The heads of state or government also stressed a new factor in
Latin American relations which is an example to other regions in the
world--the solidarity and support of the Panamanian, Costa Rican and
Mexican governments, and the countries of the sub-regional Andean
Pact--Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela--in the attaining of a
just solution to the Nicaraguan problem, as well as the historical
solidarity of Cuba with the cause of this people.

I confess that these focuses on Latin America would have been enough for
the Cuban people to justify all efforts and vigilance carried out by
hundreds of thousands of men and women of our country in making it possible
for Cuba to worthily welcome the fraternal countries of the nonalined
movement at the Havana summit. But there was much more for Cuba--something
for which we wish to express our thanks here at the tribune of the United
Nations on behalf of our people. In Havana the Cuban people received
support for its right to choose its political and social system, for its
reclamation of the territory occupied by the Guantanamo base and for the
condemnation of the blockage which the U.s. Government still [corrects
himself] by which the U.S. Government still attempts to isolate and dreams
of destroying the Cuban revolution. [applause] We appreciate the profound
meaning and resounding universal denunciation which the movement has just
made in Havana of the acts of hostility, pressure and threats by the United
States toward Cuba, calling them a flagrant violation of the UN Charter and
the principles of international law, a threat to world peace.

Once again we answer our brothers and assure the universal community that
Cuba will continue loyal to the principles of international solidarity.

Mr. President: History has taught us that the access to independence by a
people which has freed itself of the colonial or neocolonial system is, at
the same time, the last act in a long struggle and the first in a new and
difficult battle. This is because the independence, sovereignty and freedom
of our peoples who are apparently free are continually threatened by
foreign control of their natural resources, by the financial imposition of
official international organizations and by the precarious situation of
their economies which diminish their full sovereignty. Therefore, at the
very start of its analysis of world economic problems the chiefs of state
or government once again solemnly stressed the supreme importance of having
to consolidate political independence by way of economic emancipation and
reiterated that the existing international economic system runs counter to
the basic interests of the developing countries, that it was profoundly
unjust and incompatible with the development of the nonalined countries and
other developing countries and did not contribute to the elimination of the
economic and social ills which afflicted those countries.

On the other hand, they emphasized the historic mission which the nonalined
countries movement should play in the struggle for the economic and
political independence of all developing countries and peoples in
exercising full and permanent sovereignty and control over their natural
and all types of resources and over their economic activities, to promote
an in-depth restructuring through the establishment of a new international
economic order. They conclude with these words: The struggle to eliminate
the injustice of the existing international economic system and establish a
new international economic order is an integral part of the struggle of the
people for their political, economic, cultural and social struggle.

It is not necessary to show here up to what point the existing
international economic order is profoundly unjust and incompatible with the
development of the underdeveloped countries. The figures are already so
well known that it is unnecessary for us. [Pauses] It is disputed whether
the number of undernourished beings on our planet is only 400 million or if
it has become 450 million as it is stated in certain international
documents. Four hundred million hungry men and women is already too
accusing a number. What no one doubts is that all of the hopes which have
been displayed in the developing countries appear to have failed and to
have been canceled by the end of this second decade of development.

The general director of the FAO Council has recognized that progress
continues deceptively slow in relation to the long-term development
objectives decided on in international development strategy in the
declaration and action program on the establishment of a new international
economic order, in the resolution of the world conference on food and in
various subsequent conferences. The agricultural and food production of the
developing countries over these past 10 years has far from achieved the
modest annual average increase of four percent, which was set forth to
resolve some of the most urgent problems of world hunger, and leads to
further reduced levels of consumption. As a consequence of this, the food
imports by developing countries, which right now constitute an aggravating
element in their deficit balance of payments, will very soon reach,
according to the FAO, such proportions as to be unmanageable.

The official pledges of foreign aid in agriculture for developing countries
diminish in face of this. This panorama cannot be embellished. Sometimes
certain official documents reflect the circumstantial increases of
agricultural production in certain areas of the underdeveloped world. Or
they point out the occasional increases in prices of some agricultural
articles. But this deals with transitory advances and fleeting advantages.
The income in terms of agricultural exports by developing countries
continues unstable and insufficient in relation to their needs to import
food, fertilizer and other necessary goods to increase their own
production. In Africa food production per inhabitant in 1977 was 11 percent
less than 10 years earlier.

If backwardness is perpetuated in agriculture, the industrialization
process does not progress either. It cannot advance because of the majority
of the developed countries the industrialization of the developing
countries is seen as a threat. In 1975 in Lima the World Conference on
Industrialization set for us, the developing countries, the goal of
contributing by the year 2000, 25 percent of all manufactured goods
produced in the world. But the progress from Lima to today is so
insignificant that if we do not accept the measures proposed by the sixth
summit conference and do not carry out an urgent program of rectifying the
economic policy of the majority of the developed countries, this goal will
also be unfulfilled. We have not yet arrived at producing 9 percent of the
world's manufactured goods. Our dependency is once again expressed by the
fact that we, the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, import 26.1
percent of the manufactured goods in international trade and we only export
6.3 percent.

It will be said that there is a certain progress in industrial expansion.
But it is not at the necessary rate nor in the key industries of the
industrial economy. The Havana conference pointed this out. The world
redistribution of industry, the so-called industrial redeployment, cannot
consist in a new confirmation of profound economic inequalities which
originated in the colonial period of the 19th century. At that time they
condemned us to be producers of raw materials and cheap agricultural
products. Now they want to use the abundant manpower and starvation wages
of the developing countries to transfer to them the industries of least
technology, lowest productivity and those which are the greatest polluters
of the environment. We categorically reject this. The developed market
economy countries today absorb more than 85 percent of the world's
manufactured goods production, among which is the highest technology
industrial development. They also control over 83 percent of industrial
exports. Twenty-six percent of these exports go to the developing
countries, whose markets they monopolize. The most serious aspect of this
structure of dependency is that that which we import--that is, not only
capital goods but also the articles of consumption--is manufactured
according to the demands, needs and the technology of the countries of
greatest industrial development and the patterns of the consumer society.
These goods are introduced through openings in our trade, infecting our
societies and, in this way, add a new element in the already permanent
structural crisis.

As a result of all this, as the chiefs of state or government saw at
Havana, the existing gap between developed and developing countries not
only exists, but has been substantially widened. The relative participation
by the developing countries in world production considerably decreased over
the last two decades, resulting in even more disastrous consequences, in
phenomena such as malnutrition, illiteracy and unsanitary conditions. Some
have wanted to resolve the tragic problem of humanity with drastic measures
to reduce the population. They recall that war and epidemics have helped
reduce the population in other periods. They even want something more. They
want to attribute underdevelopment to the population explosion. But the
population explosion is not the cause, rather it is the consequence of
underdevelopment. In its turn development will bring solution to poverty
and contribute through education and culture so that our countries achieve
rational and adequate growth rates.

A recent World Bank report pointed out a more serious prospect. It says
that it is possible that by the year 2000 there will be 600 million
inhabitants on this earth who will still be in absolute poverty.

Mr. President, Messrs Representatives: The situation of industrial and
agricultural backwardness from which the developing countries have not been
able to free themselves is without a doubt, as the sixth summit pointed
out, the result of unjust and unequal international relations. Added to
this now, as the Havana declaration also points out, is the prolonged
crisis of the international economy. I will not spend too much time on this

Let us now state that we, the chiefs of state or government, consider that
the crisis of the international economic system is not a situation but
rather a symptom of structural breakdown and an imbalance which are part of
its own nature; that is imbalance has been aggravated by the refusal of the
developed market economies to control their foreign imbalances and their
high levels of inflation and unemployment; that inflation has been applying
the only measures which could end it. And we also pointed out, because it
is something which we will refer to alter and which is also stated in the
Havana declaration, that this crisis is at the same time the result of the
persistent lack of equality in international economic relations. Resolving
this imbalance, as we propose will contribute toward lessening and ending
the crisis itself.

What are the main points which the representatives of the nonalined
countries movement drew up in Havana? We condemned the persistent diversion
of human and material resources toward an arms race which is unproductive,
wasteful and dangerous for mankind. [applause]

And we demanded that a considerable part of the resources now used for
armaments, particularly by the major powers, be used for economic and
social development.

We have expressed our grave concern over the insignificant progress of the
negotiations dealing with the implementation of the declaration and the
action program on the establishment of an international economic order. We
pointed out that this was due to the lack of political desire by most of
the developed countries and we expressedly censured the delaying
diversionist and divisionist tactics adopted by those countries. The
failure of the Fifth UNCTAD session demonstrated this situation.

We confirmed that the unequal trade in international economic relations,
denounced as an essential characteristic of the system, has become even
more unequal. While the prices of manufactured goods, capital goods, food
products and services which we import from the developed countries
constantly increase, the prices of the raw materials which we export are
stagnant and are subjected to constant fluctuations. Trade relations have
worsened. We stressed that protectionism, which was one of the elements
that worsened the great depression of the 1930's, has again been introduced
by certain developed countries. The conference lamented that in the GATT
negotiations the developed member countries did not bear in mind the
interests and concerns of developing countries, particularly the
less-developed countries. The conference also criticized certain developed
countries for increasing the use of domestic subsidies for specific
products to the detriment of crops which are of interest to developing

The conference deplored the deficiencies in the scope and functioning of
the generalized preference system and, in that spirit, condemned the
discriminatory restrictions in U.S. foreign trade laws and the inflexible
position of certain developed countries which prevented agreement on these
problems at the Fifth UNCTAD session.

We expressed concern over the constant deterioration of the international
monetary situation, the instability in the exchange rates of the main
reserve currencies and inflation. These factors intensify the imbalance of
the international economic situation, create additional difficulties for
developing countries, decrease the real value of their export revenues and
reduce that of their foreign exchange reserves. We noted the disorderly
growth of international monetary resources, basically through the use of
devaluated U.S. dollars and other currency reserves. We noted that while
the inequality of international economic relations had increased the
developing countries accumulated foreign debt--to more than $300
billion--international financial organizations and private banks had raised
interests rates, shortened the amortization terms of loans, thus
financially smothering the developing countries. As the conference noted,
all of this becomes a coercive element in the negotiations, permitting
these financial institutions to obtain additional political and economic
advantages at the expense of our countries.

The conference kept in mind the neocolonialist effort to prevent developing
countries from permanently and effectively exercising their full
sovereignty over natural resources and reaffirmed that right. It supported
the efforts of developing countries which produce raw materials to obtain
just and profitable prices for their exports and to improve their export
revenues in real terms.

The conference paid more attention than ever to strengthening economic
relations and scientific-technical and technological cooperation among the
developing countries. We can define this concept as collective
self-sufficiency. That is, mutual support and cooperation among the
developing countries so they will be able to depend on their own collective
forces In the Havana declaration, this position gained strength which it
never had before. Cuba, as president of the movement and coordinating
country, plans to carry out, along with the Group of 77, all efforts
necessary to promote the action program outlined by the conference
regarding economic cooperation.

Nevertheless, we do not view this collective self-sufficiency as something
even closely resembling autarchy. We see it as a factor in international
relations which will put into play all the possibilities and resources of
this considerable and important part of mankind which we developing
countries represent. We hope to incorporate it into the general current of
resources and the economy, which it can mobilize in the capitalist camp as
well as in socialist countries.

Mr. President, the sixth summit rejected the attempts of some developed
countries which are trying to use the energy issue to divide the developing
countries. The energy problem can only be examined in its historical
context, bearing in mind how the consumption patterns of certain developed
countries led to the squandering of hydrocarbons and at the same time
underscoring the plundering by the transnational companies which until
recently have benefited from the supply of cheap energy, which they used

Transnational companies are simultaneously exploiting producers and
consumers and are making huge and unjustified profits. At the same time
they are trying to blame the developing petroleum exporting countries for
the current situation. Permit me to recall that in my opening speech to the
conference I pointed out the distressing situation of those developing
countries which are not petroleum producers, particularly the less
developed countries. I expressed the certainty that the nonalined petroleum
producing countries would find formulas to lessen the unfavorable situation
of those countries already hit by inflation and unequal trade relations and
suffering from deficits in their trade balances and a considerable increase
of their foreign debt. However, this does not preclude the developed
countries, their monopolies and transnational companies from bearing the
main responsibility. On examining the energy problem from this viewpoint,
the chiefs of state or government stressed that the problem should be the
object of discussions in the context of international negotiations
conducted at the United Nations with the participation of all countries and
linking the energy problem with all development problems, financial and
monetary reforms, international trade and raw materials so that a global
analysis can be made of the aspects dealing with the establishment of a new
international economic order.

In reviewing the main problems which effect developing countries in the
international economic arena, one could not disregard the operation of
transnational companies. Once again their policies and practices were
declared unacceptable. It was charged that they exhaust resources, disrupt
economies and violate the sovereignty of developing countries in their
search for profits. They undermine peoples' rights of self-determination,
violate the principles of noninterference in the internal affairs of states
and frequently resort to bribes, corruption and other undesirable practices
through which they try to do subordinate developing countries to the
industrialized countries.

In view of the lack of sufficient progress at the UN to prepare the code of
conduct that regulates the activities of transnationals, the conference
reaffirmed the urgent need to conclude the code in order to give the
international community a legal instrument to control and regulate the
activities of transnationals in line with the goals and aspirations of
developing countries. In referring to all the burdensome negative aspects
of the international situation of developing countries, the sixth summit
called attention to the problems affecting the less developed countries,
which are at a disadvantage because they are landlocked, and those
Mediterranean and other isolated countries and called for the adoption of
urgent and special measures in order to (?mitigate) their situation.

This is, Mr. President and representatives, the pessimistic, somber and
discouraging outlook that the nonalined countries had to face when they met
in Havana.

However, the nonalined countries did not allow themselves to be dragged to
frustrating and desperate positions, which would be understandable. At the
same time in which they drafted strategies that enable them to carry their
struggle forward, the chiefs of state and government reiterated their
demands and defined their positions. The first basic goal of our struggle
consists of reducing and eliminating the unequal exchange prevalent today
which converts international trade into a profitable instrument for the
additional plundering of our resources.

Today we in the underdeveloped countries must work 10 hours to match 1
hour's work in developed countries. The nonalined countries demand that
serious attention be given to the integrated program for basic products
which have been so far manipulated and disregarded in the so-called
North-South negotiations. They also demand that the common fund, which was
to be a stabilization instrument, be promoted in order to establish a
permanent connection between the prices they receive for their products and
the prices of their imports, a matter which has scarcely been integrated.
For the nonalined countries this connection, which permanently ties the
prices of the exports to the prices of basic equipment, industrial
products, raw materials and technology imported from developed countries,
constitutes an essential pivot for all future economic negotiations. The
developing countries demand that the countries which have caused the
inflation and encourage it with their policies adopt the necessary measures
to control it, thus ending the negative results of the unequal exchange.
The developing countries demand and will continue their struggle to insure
that the industrial goods of their incipient economies have access to the
markets of developed countries. They demand that the vicious protectionism,
which has been reintroduced into the international economy and which
threatens to lead us into a dismal economic war, be eliminated. They demand
that the generalized and nonreciprocal preference system be applied for all
without any deceptions as a way of permitting the development of their new
industries without have them crushed on the international market by the
superior technological resources of the developed countries.

The nonalined countries believe that the negotiations which are about to
conclude on the Law of the Sea must not, as certain developed countries
intend, ratify the existing imbalance regarding marine resources, but
correct it.

The Conference on the Law of the Sea has once again served to show the
arrogance and imperialistic stance of certain countries which, placing
their technological possibilities ahead of the spirit of under standing and
compromise that the developing countries request, threaten to unilaterally
mine the ocean floor. The developing countries' debt has already reached
$335 billion. It is estimated that the total payment for servicing the
foreign debt amounts to more than $40 billion each year with represents
more than 20 percent of their annual exports. Furthermore, the average per
capita income in the developed countries is now 14 times greater than that
of the underdeveloped countries. This situation is already unbearable. The
developing countries need new systems of financing through which they can
receive the necessary financial resources for the continuous and
independent development of their economies. The financing may be through
long-range terms or at low interest rates.

The use of financial resources must be a the complete disposal of the
developing countries so that they can establish the priority system which
corresponds to their industrial development plans. These funds must not be
absorbed, as is currently the case, by the transnationals which derive
additional benefits by taking advantage of their alleged financial
contribution to development in order to worsen the economic situation of
developing countries and obtain maximum profits from the exploitation of
the resources of these countries. The developing countries and the
nonalined movement in their name demand that a large part of the great
resources which mankind presently wastes in the arms race be devoted to
development which will simultaneously help to remove the threat of war and
facilitate an improvement in the international situation.

The nonalined countries, expressing the stand of all the developing
countries, demand a new international monetary system in order to prevent
the disastrous fluctuations of the currencies which prevail in the
international market, particularly the U.s. dollar. The financial disorder
is an additional blow to the developing countries which hope that they will
be included in the new monetary system and will participate in making
decisions as representatives of the largest group of countries in the
international community and of more than 1.5 billion men and women.

In summary, Mr. President and representatives, unequal exchange ruins our
peoples and must cease. Inflation exported to our countries ruins our
peoples and must cease. Protectionism ruins our peoples and must cease. The
exiting imbalance in the exploitation of marine resources is abusive and
must be abolished.

The insufficient financial resources developing countries receive should be
increased. Arms expenses are irrational. They should cease and these funds
should be used to finance development. The current international monetary
system is bankrupt and should be replaced. The debts of countries which are
relatively less developed and in disadvantageous situations are unbearable
and cannot be resolved. They should be canceled. [applause]

Indebtness economically overwhelms the rest of the developing countries and
it should be alleviated. Instead of narrowing, the economic abyss between
the developed countries and those that want to develop is widening and it
should disappear. These are the demands of the underdeveloped countries.

Mr. President, representatives: Attention to these demands, some of which
have been systematically presented by the developing countries at
international forums through the Group of 77 and the nonalined movement,
would make it possible to change the course of the international economic
situation. This would offer the developing countries the institutional
conditions necessary to organize programs that would definitely place them
on the path to development.

But even if all these measures were put into practice, even if the mistakes
and vices of the present system of international relations were rectified,
the underdeveloped countries would still lack a decisive element: external
financing. All internal efforts all the sacrifices that the peoples in
developing countries are making and are willing to make in the future, all
the chances to increase their economic potential, obtained upon eliminating
the inequalities between export and import prices and improving the
conditions under which their foreign trade is carried out will nonetheless
be insufficient.

In the light of their real and present financial situation they also need
sufficient resources to pay their debts and to undertake the enormous
international expenses that the leap toward development demands. Here too
the figures are too well known to need repeating.

The sixth summit showed concern over the fact that not only is the
underdeveloped countries' debt practically unbearable but it grow each year
at the galloping rate. And the data provided by a recent World Bank
report--released at the time of our conference in Havana--confirm that the
situation grows more serious each day. In 1978 alone the external public
debt of 96 developing countries increased by $51 billion. This rate
increases the debt to the astronomical figures mentioned.

Mr. President, we cannot resign ourselves to this somber panorama. The most
respected economist, both Westerners and those who follow Marxist concepts,
admit that the manner in which the developing countries' international
indebtedness system operates is totally irrational and that its maintenance
threatens to bring about a sudden change that will endanger the entire
precarious and unstable world economic balance.

Some people try to explain the surprising economic fact that the
international banking centers continue to supply funds to countries which
are technically bankrupt by alleging that it is a generous contribution
aimed at helping those countries bear their economic difficulties. But that
is not the case. It is in fact an operation to save the international
capitalist system.

In October 1978 the Commission of European Communities by way of admission
offered the following explanation: The current world economic balance
depends to a considerable on continuing the flow of private loans to those
developing countries that do not produce oil at levels unprecedented before
1974, and any obstacle to that flow will endanger that balance.

World financial bankruptcy would primarily be very hard for underdeveloped
countries and for workers in developed capitalist countries. It would also
affect the most stable socialist economies. But it is doubtful that the
capitalist system could survive such a catastrophe. It would be difficult
to keep the terrible economic situation that would result from inevitably
leading to a world conflagration. There is talk already about special
military forces to occupy the oil fields and raw materials sources.
Although all should be concerned over this somber panorama, it should
primarily be the concern of those who have greater wealth and material
well-being. After all, we revolutionaries are not too scared by the
prospect of a world without capitalism. [applause]

It has been proposed that instead of a spirit of confrontation we resort to
a sense of world economic interdependence that would permit a conjunction
of all economic forces in order to obtain common benefits. But this concept
of interdependence is acceptable only when one first admits the intrinsic
and brutal injustice of the present interdependence. The developing
countries have rejected the proposal to impose on them interdependence
based on acceptance of the unjust and arbitrary international division of
labor, which modern colonialism imposed on them after the English
industrial revolution and imperialism expanded.

If one want to prevent confrontation and struggle, which is the only path
apparently open to the developing countries--a path with offers long and
difficult battles whose proportions cannot currently be predicted--we must
all search and find formulas for cooperation and solve the big problems.
Although these problems affect our peoples, they cannot be solved without
affecting the more developed countries in some way.

A few years ago we said that the irrational waste of material goods and the
subsequent squandering of economic resources by developed capitalist
countries was inexcusable. What else cause the dramatic energy crisis which
we are experiencing? And who bears the worst consequences of this crisis?
The underdeveloped countries which do not produce oil. These views on the
need to end the squandering by the consumer societies are not generally
held. A recent document of the UN Industrial Development Organization
states that current lifestyles, particularly in the industrialized
countries, may have to undergo a radical and painful change.

It is clear that the developing countries cannot and do not expect that the
changes that they seek and the financing that they need will come as gifts
as a result of mere analyses of international economic problems. In this
process, which involves contradictions, struggles and negotiations, the
nonalined countries have to depend first of all on their own decisions and

This position clearly emerged from the sixth summit. In the economic
section of the final declaration, the chiefs of state or government
recognized the need to bring about the necessary structural changes in the
social and economic fields in their countries in view of the fact that this
is the only way to eliminate their economies' current vulnerability and to
convert simple statistical growth into true development. Only in this way,
the chiefs of state admit, would the people be willing to pay the price
that would be demanded of the main protagonists of the process. As we said
on that occasion, if the system is socially just, the possibilities of
survival and economic and social development are incomparably better. My
country's history is an irrefutable example of this.

The growing and undelayable need to solve underdeveloped makes us return,
Mr. President, to the problem which we touched upon a short while ago and
which we want to be the final one which we bring up at this 34th UN General
Assembly. I refer to international financing. One of the most serious
phenomena that accompany the increasing indebtedness of developing
countries is, as we said, the fact that these countries are forced to use
most of the money they receive from abroad to cover their trade balance and
current account deficits, to renew debts and to pay interest. If we take
the example of the nonpetroleum exporting developing countries--whose
situation I referred to in the Havana conference--in just the past 6 years
they have accumulated deficits in their trade balances which amount to over
$200 billion.

In view of this, the investments which the developing countries really need
are huge. They need them precisely and without exception in fields and
products of little profit which do not attract private foreign investors
and lenders. In order to increase food production to eliminate the
malnutrition of these 450 million persons which we have mentioned, new land
and water resources will have to be developed. According to specialized
estimates, the total cultivated land of developing countries has to be
increased by 76 million hectares in the next 10 years and irrigated lands
by more than 10 million. Forty-five million hectares must be prepared for
irrigation. It is for this reason that the most modest estimates show that
international financial aid--and we refer to aid and not the total flow of
resources--must annually amount to from $8 million to $9 million to achieve
an agricultural growth rate of 3.5 of 4 percent in developing countries.

If we examine industrialization, the estimates greatly exceed those
parameters. The UN Conference on Industrial Development, on drawing up the
goals which we mentioned, in its Lima meeting determined that financing
must be at the center of international development policy and that in the
year 2000 it must reach levels of $450 million to $500 million a year, of
which one-third, that is $150 million to $165 million, must be foreign

But development, Mr. President and representatives, is not just agriculture
and industrialization. Development deals mainly with human beings who must
be the protagonists and the goal of any development effort. To take the
example of Cuba, I will point out that in the past 5 years our country has
spent an average of almost $200 million a year in constructive investments
for education. The investments in construction and equipment for public
health amount to an average of more than $40 million a year. And Cuba is
only one of the almost 100 developing countries and one of the smallest
with regard to geography and population. Therefore, it can be estimated
that in the investments for education and public health services developing
countries will need to have tens of billions of dollars more a year to over
come underdevelopment.

This is the big problem we are facing. Gentlemen, this is not only our
problem. The problem of those countries which are victims of
underdevelopment and insufficient development is a problem of the entire
international community. On more than one occasion it has been said that we
have been forced to be underdeveloped by imperialists, colonialism and
neocolonialism. The task of helping us overcome undeveloped is therefore an
historic and moral obligation on those who benefited from the plunder of
our resources and the exploitation of our men and women during decades and
centuries. [applause]

It is also a task for mankind, as the sixth summit meeting has started. The
socialist countries did not contribute to the plundering of the world nor
are they responsible for the phenomenon of underdevelopment. However, they
understand and assume the obligation of helping to overcome it because of
the nature of their social system in which international solidarity is a
premise. Similarly, the world expects the developed countries which produce
oil to also contribute to the flow of resources that would encourage
foreign financing for development. Its expectation is not based on
historical obligations and duties which nobody could impose on them but on
a hope and duty of solidarity among underdeveloped countries. The great oil
producing countries must be aware of their responsibilities, even the
better developed countries must contribute. Cuba, which does not speak here
on behalf of its interests and is not defending a national goal, is willing
to contribute to the extent of its means, thousands or tens of thousands of
technicians, doctors, teachers, agronomists, hydraulic engineers,
mechanical engineers, economists, medium-level technicians qualified
workers and so forth. For this reason it is time for all to unite in the
task to bring complete nations and hundreds of millions of human being out
of backward state, misery, malnutrition, disease and illiteracy which
deprive them of fully enjoying the dignity and pride of calling themselves
men. [applause]

We must organize the resources for development and that is our joint
obligation, Mr. President, there are so many special, multilateral, public
and private funds whose objective is to contribute to one or another aspect
of development whether agricultural, industrial, or to compensate deficits
in the balance of payments that it is not easy for me--in bringing up the
economic problems discussed at the sixth summit meeting here at the 34th
assembly--to make a specific proposal for the establishment of a new fund.
However, there are no doubts that the problem of financing must be
carefully and thoroughly studied in order to solve it.

Aside from the resources already available through the various
channels--banks, lending organizations, international organizations and
private financial institutions--we must discuss and decide the way in which
the strategy for development will include the additional contribution of at
least $300 billion based on 1977 real values in order to start the new
decade. This figure will be distributed in annual amounts that should not
be less than $25 billion during the first few years and should be invested
in underdeveloped countries. [applause]

This aid must be made by way of donations and long-term soft loans at
minimal interest. It is very important to mobilize these additional funds
as a contribution from the developed world and the countries with resources
to the underdeveloped world over the next 10 years. If we want peace, these
resources are needed. Without them there will be no peace. Some might think
that we are demanding too much; however, I think that the figure is still
modest. According to statistics and as I stated at the inauguration of the
sixth nonalined summit, the world currently invests more than $300 billion
in military expenditures every year. With $300 billion we could build in 1
year 600,000 schools for 400 million children or 60 million comfortable
houses for 300 million persons or 30,000 hospitals with 18 million beds
20,000 factories with jobs for more than 20 million workers or irrigate 150
million hectares of land which, with adequate technology, could feed 1
billion persons. Mankind squanders that much money every year in military
expenditures. Let us consider the large number of human resources, who are
very young, the scientific and technical resources, the fuel, raw materials
and other goods which are squandered. This is the great price for not
having a true climate of trust and peace in the world. The United States
alone will spend six times that figure in military-related activities
during the 1980-1990 decade.

For 10 years of development we are demanding less money than is currently
spent every year by the war ministries, and much less than will be spent in
military expenditures 10 years from now. Some may think that this demand is
irrational but the truly irrational thing is the madness of our times and
the risks threatening mankind. The enormous responsibility of studying,
organization and distributing these resources should fall completely on the
United Nations.

The international community itself should administer those funds under
conditions of absolute equality for each country, be it a contributor or a
beneficiary, without political conditions and without the amount of
donations have anything to do with the power of certain groups to decide on
the right time to grant a loan or on the destination of the funds.

Although the flow of resources should be considered in financial terms it
should not be based exclusively on them. It should also be based on
equipment, fertilizer, raw materials, fuel and complete plants evaluated in
terms of international trade. Aid in the form of technical personnel and
the training of technicians should also be considered a contribution.

We are sure, Mr. President and representatives, that if the UN secretary
general with the aid of the president of the Assembly, with all the
prestige and weight carried by this organization supported at the outset,
moreover, by the influence that the developing countries and the Group of
77 would lend to this initiative, convoked the various sectors we have
mentioned in order to begin discussions in which there would be no place
for the so-called North-South antagonism or the so-called East-West
Antagonism but rather in which all forces would be in attendance sharing a
common task, a common duty, and a common hope. This idea we now present to
the General Assembly could be crowned by success. This project would not
just benefit developing countries. It would benefit all nations. As
revolutionaries, confrontations do not scare us. We have faith in history
and in the people. But as spokesman and interpreter for 95 countries we are
responsible for fighting on behalf of collaboration among the peoples and
if the collaboration is achieved on new and just bases, it will benefit all
countries which today comprise the international community and it will
particularly benefit world peace.

Development can be, in the short term, a task which requires apparent
sacrifices and even contributions that might seem unrecoverable. But the
vast world which today lives in backwardness, lacking purchasing power and
with its capacity for consumption extremely limited, will incorporate upon
its development a torrent of hundreds of millions of consumers and
producers, the only ones capable of rehabilitating the international
economy, including that of the developed countries which today are causing
and suffering from the economic crisis.

The history of international trade has shown that development is the most
dynamic factor of world commerce. The greatest part of the trade carried on
at present is carried out among countries which are fully industrialized.
We must insure that to the extent that industrialization and world progress
expands, there will also be an expansion in commercial exchange that is
beneficial to all. That is what we ask, in the name of the developing
countries, and we support the cause of many countries. We are not asking
for a handout. If we fail to find adequate solutions, we will all be
victims of the catastrophe.

Mr. President, distinguished representatives: There is often talk of human
rights, but it is also necessary to speak of the rights of humanity. Why
should some people walk around barefoot so that others can travel in
luxurious automobiles? Why should some live for 35 years so that others can
live for 70? Why should some be miserably poor so that others can be overly
rich? I speak in the name of the children in the world who do not have a
piece of bread. [applause] I speak in the name of the sick who do not have
medicine. I speak on behalf of those whose right to life and human dignity
have been denied.

Some countries have access to the sea; others do not. [applause] Some have
energy resources; others do not. Some have abundant lands on which to grow
food; others do not. Some are so saturated with machines and factories that
one cannot even breather the air of their poisoned atmosphere; [applause]
others have nothing more than their emaciated arms with which to earn their
bread. In other words, some countries have abundant resources; others have

What is the destiny of the latter? To starve to death? To be eternally
poor? Of what use, then, is civilization? What is the use of man's
conscience? Of what use is the United Nations? [applause] Of what use is
the world? It is not possible to speak of peace in the name of tens of
millions of human beings who die yearly of hunger, of curable disease
throughout the world. One cannot speak of peace in the name of 900 million
illiterate persons.

The exploitation of poor countries by rich countries must cease. I know
that in many poor countries there are also exploiters and exploited. I am
addressing the rich nations, asking them to contribute. I am addressing the
poor countries, asking them to distribute. Enough of words. Deeds are
needed. [applause]

Enough of abstractions. Specific actions are needed. Enough of talk about a
speculative new international economic order which no one understands.
[applause] It is necessary to talk of a real and objective order that
everyone understands.

I have not come here as the prophet of revolution. I have not come to
request or express the desire for violent upheaval in the world.

I am here to talk of peace and cooperation among nations. I am here to warn
that either injustice and inqualities are solved peacefully and wisely, or
the future is going to be apocalyptic. [applause]

The sound of weapons, of threatening words and prepotency in the
international arena must cease. [applause]

Enough of the illusion that the world's problems can be solved with nuclear
weapons. Bombs might kill the hungry, the sick and the ignorant, but they
cannot kill hunger, disease, ignorance and the people's just rebellion. In
the holocaust, the wealthy will also die. They are the ones that stand to
lose the most in this world. [applause]

Let us say farewell to arms and concentrate in a civilized manner on the
most urgent problems of our time. This is the responsibility and most
sacred duty of every statesman in the world. Furthermore, this is an
indispensable requirement for mankind's survival.

Thank you very much. [applause]