-
Asia 333
C h a p t e r V I
Asia
C o n t e n t s
Page PageSouth-East Asia. 333 Afghanistan situation 349
Kampuchea situation. 333 General Assembly resolution 37/37 . . .
. . . . . 354
General Assembly resolution 37/6 . . . . . . . . . 340 Afghan
refugees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
Credentials of Democratic Kampuchea 341 Iran and Iraq . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
Kampuchea-Thailand border. 342Security Council resolution
514(1982) 362
. . . . . . . . . .Security Council resolution 522(1982) . . . .
. . 363
China and Viet Nam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 General
Assembly resolution 37/3 . . . . . . . . . 363Peace and security of
South-East Asia 3 4 5 R e l a t e d t o p i c s :
General Assembly decision 37/405 348 Regional economic and
social activities: Asia and the Pacific.Western Asia . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 Human rights violations: Asia
and the Pacific.
For resolution and decisions of major organs mentioned but not
reproduced, refer to INDEX OF RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS.
South-East Asia
The situation in and around Kampuchea andthe country’s
representation in the United Nationscontinued to occupy the
attention of the Organi-zation in 1982.
The Ad Hoc Committee of the InternationalConference on Kampuchea
sent missions to fiveEuropean countries and to Thailand between
Julyand September, in pursuance of its mandate to as-sist in
seeking a settlement of the Kampuchea sit-uation. A Special
Representative of the Secretary-General, Rafeeuddin Ahmed, visited
South-EastAsia in February/March to consult with Govern-ments in
the region. In October, the General As-sembly restated its view of
the principal compo-nents of a just and lasting
solution-withdrawalof all foreign forces, restoration and
preservationof the country’s independence, sovereignty and
ter-ritorial integrity, the people’s right to determineits destiny,
and a commitment by all States to non-interference and
non-intervention in Kampuchea’sinternal affairs.
Numerous communications were received on var-ious aspects of the
situation and related issues, in-cluding the alleged use of
chemical weapons (p. 334),the situation along the
Kampuchea-Thailand borderand general aspects of peace and security
in South-East Asia. The credentials of representatives ofDemocratic
Kampuchea to the General Assemblyand other United Nations bodies
were discussedin other communications, as well as in the
As-sembly.
Kampuchea situationC o m m u n i c a t i o n s . T h e S e c r e
t a r y - G e n e r a l
received a number of communications during 1982on the situation
between Democratic Kampucheaand Viet Nam.
In a 19 March statement transmitted on 5April,(5) the Ministry
of Culture and Education ofDemocratic Kampuchea denounced Viet
Nam’sal legat ion that Democrat ic Kampuchea wasresponsible for the
destruction and looting of an-tiquities, works of art and other
national treasuresof Kampuchea, and accused Viet Nam of
per-petrating such acts, particularly at Phnom Penhand Angkor.
Assessments of the military situation in Kam-puchea were given
by the Military High Com-mand of the National Army of Democratic
Kam-puchea in two communiques reporting successfuloperations: the
first, covering the dry season (Oc-tober 1981-April 1982), issued
on 8 May and trans-mitted on 7 June,(8) said that 37,372 of the
enemyhad been killed or wounded and attached a mapof the military
situation; the second, covering therainy season (May-September),
issued on 15 Oc-tober and excerpts from which were transmittedon 15
November,(15) claimed an additional 22,000casualties.
Pointing to what it considered the military andpolitical defeats
it had recently inflicted on Viet-namese invading forces,
Democratic Kampuchea,in a 15 July statement transmitted on the
sameday,(11) labelled as propaganda Viet Nam’s an-nouncement (Ho
Chi Minh City, 7 July) of an im-minent partial withdrawal of its
troops from Kam-
-
334 Political and security questions
puchea and its proposal for an international con-ference on
South-East Asia; it reaffirmed that theKampuchea problem could be
solved only by im-plementation of the General Assembly
resolutionsof 1979,(38) 1980(39) and 1981(40) calling for the
totaland unconditional withdrawal of all foreign forcesfrom
Kampuchea. The same view had been ex-pressed earlier by a spokesman
of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs of China, in a statement dated
9July transmitted the next day.(31)
Viet Nam News Agency reports of partial troopwithdrawals were
transmitted by Viet Nam inJuly: dispatches of 17 and 18 July,
transmitted byViet Nam on 20 July,( 2 6 ) described and com-mented
on the withdrawal on 15 July of a num-ber of uni ts f rom nor thern
Kampuchea; andanother dispatch, dated 19 July and transmittedthree
days later,(27) described the passage throughPhnom Penh of t roops
leaving Kampuchea.Democratic Kampuchea, on the other hand,
for-warded on 27 July(12) information broadcast by theVoice of
Democratic Kampuchea that fresh Viet-namese troop reinforcements
had arrived in Kam-puchea between 20 June and 16 July.
On 18 October,(13) Democratic Kampuchea sub-mitted a list of
crimes it said had been committedby the Vietnamese army in
Kampuchea betweenJuly and September. On 9 November,(14) it
sub-mitted a telegram and extracts from a publishedinterview
ascribed to two former officials of theVietnamese régime at Phnom
Penh; their tes-timony showed, Democratic Kampuchea said inits
transmittal letter, that that regime was a Viet-namese puppet.
Charges of chemical weapons use in the con-flict between
Democratic Kampuchea and VietNam were again submitted in 1982, and
informa-tion was provided for transmittal to the Group ofExperts to
Investigate Reports on the Alleged Useof Chemical Weapons.
Democratic Kampuchea sent three communi-cations on the subject.
On 19 January,(2) it submit-ted a list of cases involving the
alleged use of chem-ical toxins by Vietnamese forces in nine
provincesduring November and December 1981, mostly foodand water
supply poisoning, resulting in 57 knowndeaths. On 19 March, it
transmitted a statementissued on 9 March by its Ministry of
Informa-tion,(3) condemning what it described as
intensifiedcriminal use of chemical weapons by the Hanoiregime,
including “yellow rain” attacks by aircraftagainst villages in the
Pailin district of Battambangprovince in north-western Kampuchea on
1 and2 March said to have resulted in 189 casualties in-cluding
three deaths, and on the villages of SalaKrao and Phnom Kuy, from
26 to 28 February,killing two villagers and placing 28 in critical
con-dition. Finally, by a letter of 19 April,(6) it annexeda list
citing these and other instances of aerial
spraying of chemical toxins and firing of poison-gas shells
between February and April, resultingin 66 deaths and 463 known
cases of seriouspoisoning.
By a note verbale of 24 February,(18) the UnitedStates forwarded
tabulated data, based on analysesof blood samples from victims of a
reported chem-ical attack in Kampuchea during the autumn of1981,
which it said tended to support the hypothesisthat an agent based
on trichothecenes (a class ofmycotoxins, or poisons produced by
fungi) hadbeen used in that attack. By another note verbaleof 22
March,(l9) the United States transmitted areport of the same date
which its Secretary of Statesent to the United States Congress,
containingwhat it termed a comprehensive compilation andanalysis of
information on the use of chemical andtoxin weapons by the USSR and
its allies in Af-ghanis tan, Kampuchea and the Lao
People’sDemocratic Republic; the report’s conclusion withregard to
Kampuchea was that Vietnamese forcesh a d u s e d l e t h a l t r i
c h o t h e c e n e t o x i n s o nDemocratic Kampuchean troops and
Khmer vil-lages since at least 1978, and that irritants,
in-capacitants and nerve agents had also been used.
Responding by a note of 5 April transmitted twodays later,(16)
the USSR called the United Statesreport a collection of
fabrications not based on evi-dence, designed to cover up traces of
past UnitedStates use of poisonous substances in South-EastAsia; it
added that it had never used chemicalweapons anywhere. A spokesman
for the Minis-try of Foreign Affairs of Viet Nam, in a statementof
13 April transmitted the following day,(23) simi-larly rejected the
United States allegation of Viet-namese participation in chemical
attacks on theSouth-East Asian countries named and added thatthe
United States had conducted in Indo-Chinathe biggest chemical war
in history. The USSRsubmitted on 20 May(17) a critique prepared
bySoviet scientists and other experts, evaluating thestatements in
the United States report and stat-ing that its conclusions were
unconvincing andcontradicted objective medical and technical
data.
On 20 May,(20) the United States submitted fur-ther information
based on analyses of blood andother human samples taken from
victims of areported chemical attack at Tuol Chrey, Kam-puchea, on
13 February, concluding that the evi-dence was consistent with
trichothecene exposureand indicated exposure to a high
concentration ofT-2 toxin. On 29 November,( 2 1 ) it
transmittedanother report from its Secretary of State to theUnited
States Congress, dated November and up-dat ing the March report ;
th is document con-cluded, with respect to Kampuchea, that
Viet-namese forces had continued to use lethal andincapacitating
chemical agents and toxins againstresistance forces in Kampuchea at
least through
-
Asia 335
June, and that trichothecene toxins had beenfound in the urine,
blood and tissue of victims of“yellow rain” attacks there and in
samples ofresidue collected after attacks.
Earlier, on 23 June,(30) Canada transmitted anote verbale of 21
June annexing a report to itsDepartment of External Affairs by a
member ofthe Tox ico logy Group o f t he Un ive r s i t y o
fSaskatchewan, on the alleged use of chemicalweapons in South-East
Asia; this study concludedthat the events reported to have taken
place at thetime of the alleged chemical-weapon attacks couldn o t
b e e x p l a i n e d o n t h e b a s i s o f n a t u r a
lphenomena and that neither mycotoxins nor dis-eases naturally
occurring in South-East Asia couldexplain the reported symptoms,
which were con-sistent with trichothecene mycotoxicosis (a
patho-logical condit ion caused by fungus-producedpoisons).
Other aspects of the Kampuchea situation wereaddressed by a
number of communications.
In a 7 January speech, excerpts of which weretransmitted by Viet
Nam on 13 January,(22) HengSamrin, President of the Council of
State of thePeople’s Republic of Kampuchea, reviewed theprogress he
said had been achieved by the Peo-ple’s Republic, domestically and
in relations withits neighbours and allies, during the more
thanthree years since the Kampuchean revolution hadoverthrown the
Pol Pot regime. A Viet Nam NewsAgency dispatch of 17 April,
transmitted threedays later,(24) gave highlights of a speech by
thePresident at a 17 April meeting at Phnom Penhto mark the seventh
anniversary of the victory ofthe Kampuchean revolution over the Lon
No1régime.
A communique of 10 March by the Ministryof Information of
Democratic Kampuchea, trans-mitted on 24 March,(4) described talks
held on 21and 23 February in Beijing, China, between PrimeMinister
Khieu Samphan and Samdech NorodomSihanouk aimed at the formation of
a tripartitenational union against the Vietnamese occupationforces,
which included arrangements for an earlymeeting with Son Sann, the
third party to the pro-posed union; it summed up four principles
agreedupon as the basis for the union-tripartism, equal-ity,
consensus for important decisions and preser-vation of the legality
of the State of DemocraticKampuchea.
The Council of Ministers of Democratic Kam-puchea, in a
statement at the close of a two-dameeting on 21 April and
transmitted on 6 May,(7)assessed the military, political and
diplomatic sit-uation; referring to efforts to form a
nationalunion, it appealed to all who opposed expan-s ion i sm to
suppo r t t he l eg i t ima te S t a t e o fDemocratic Kampuchea
and put an end to the un-just war.
The Declaration of the Formation of the Coali-t ion Government
of Democrat ic Kampuchea,signed on 22 June at Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia,by Samdech Sihanouk, Khieu Samphan, and SonSann—who under
the coalition became President,Vice-President in charge of Foreign
Affairs andPrime Minister, respectively-was transmitted on23
June.(9) It was followed by a proclamation on theformation of the
new Government, issued by thePresident on 9 July and transmitted on
13 July.(10)The documents defined the objectives,
operatingprinciples and composit ion of the Coali t ionGovernment
and its co-ordination committees.
An editorial in the 22 June issue of the Viet-namese daily Nhan
Dan, extracts of which were for-warded on 28 June by Viet Nam,(25)
called theCoalition Government a farce that had been inproduction
by China and the United States forover a year, and it regretted
support of that farceby the Association of South-East Asian
Nations(ASEAN).
By a letter of 22 September,(32) the Lao People’sDemocratic
Republic forwarded a transcript of aninterview granted to the SPK
(SamporameanKampuchea) news agency on 18 September by
theVice-President of the Council of Ministers andMinister for
Foreign Affairs of the People’s Repub-lic of Kampuchea, favourably
assessing the mili-tary and food production situations,
confirmingthe partial withdrawal of Vietnamese troops fromKampuchea
and dismissing the Coalition Govern-ment as a mask designed to
seduce Kampucheansinto restoring the genocidal Pol Pot regime.
On 6 October,(28) Viet Nam transmitted a 2 Oc-tober dispatch by
its News Agency on a press con-ference held the day before at Phnom
Penh by theMinistry of Culture and Information of the Peo-p l e ’ s
R e p u b l i c o f K a m p u c h e a , d e s c r i b i n
gdocumentary information that 110 foreigners hadbeen murdered at
Phnom Penh’s Toul Sleng pri-son by the former régime between April
1975 andNovember 1978.
Activities of the Committee of the Conferenceon Kampuchea. In
pursuance of the mandategiven it at the first session of the
Conference inJuly 1981,(41) which had been convened by theGeneral
Assembly, the Ad Hoc Committee of theInternational Conference on
Kampuchea reportedin September 1982(33) on its activities since its
es-tabl ishment . The lo-member Committee (en-larged from 7
members; see APPENDIX III) held anorganizational meeting on 28
October 1981 andseven other meetings between 11 January and
21September 1982. It sent missions to France, Bel-gium and the
Federal Republic of Germany (4-10July), to Thailand (27-30 July),
and to Sweden andAustria (29 August-2 September).
The report noted that the missions had held ex-tensive
discussions with Governments to explore
-
336 Political and security questions
prospects for a political settlement of the Kam-puchea
situation. They had made known the Com-mittee’s objective of
promoting a dialogue amongall parties and had stressed the
principles basic tosuch a settlement as identified by the
Conference.
The mission to Paris, Brussels and Bonn focusedon the newly
formed Coalition Government ofDemocratic Kampuchea (see above) and
on theproposals agreed upon at the sixth conference oft he Fo re
ign Min i s t e r s o f t he Lao Peop l e ’ sDemocratic Republic,
Viet Nam and the People’sRepublic of Kampuchea (Ho Chi Minh City,
VietNam, 6 and 7 July) (p. 346). At Bangkok, discus-sions centred
on relations between ASEAN coun-tries and Viet Nam. The Minister
for Foreign Af-fairs of Thai land, as Chairman of the A S E A
NStanding Committee, briefed the mission on thevisits in July of
the Minister for Foreign Affairsof Viet Nam to Burma, Malaysia and
Singapore,and on a 29 July meeting between the ForeignMinisters of
Thailand and Viet Nam. He statedthat those exchanges had made no
substantiveprogress towards a narrowing of differences butthat the
ASEAN countries were nevertheless will-ing to hold further
consultations with Viet Nam.
The mission to Vienna reported on the Com-mittee’s activities to
the Foreign Minister of Aus-tria, in his capacity as President of
the Interna-tional Conference on Kampuchea, and he in turnbriefed
the mission on his consultations with theparties and other
interested Governments.
In conclusion, the report noted the Committee’sdetermination to
continue its efforts and, in par-ticular, to seek to develop
further consultations inorder to initiate the desired negotiating
process.
Report of the Secretary-General. In a reportto the General
Assembly in October 1982,(34) sub-mitted pursuant to the Assembly
resolution of Oc-tober 1981 on the Kampuchea situation,(40)
theSecretary-General stated that, on assuming officein January
1982, he had consulted with the Statesmost directly concerned with
the Kampuchea sit-uation, in exercise of his good offices. His
SpecialRepresentative, Rafeeuddin Ahmed, had visitedSouth-East Asia
in February/March to consultwith Governments . Thereaf ter the
Secretary-General had continued his contacts with govern-ment
leaders while visiting Beijing, Moscow, Parisand other capitals.
More recently, in New York,he had talked with the Presidents of the
Philip-pines and Democratic Kampuchea, the PrimeMinister of
Malaysia, and the Foreign Ministerso f t h e L a o P e o p l e ’ s
D e m o c r a t i c R e p u b l i c ,T h a i l a n d , V i e t N a
m a n d o t h e r i n t e r e s t e dGovernments.
The Secretary-General regretted that, althoughconsultations
among the countries of the regionand with other States had acquired
new impetus,they had not achieved any substantial progress
towards a resolution of the problem. However, theyconstituted a
positive development in so far as theyhad led to a better
perception of the different po-sitions and had encouraged dialogue.
Communi-cations addressed to him during the year and cir-c u l a t
e d a s U n i t e d N a t i o n s d o c u m e n t s h a
ddemonstrated that, despite efforts and initiativesat various
levels, wide differences of position re-mained, both on the nature
of the problem andon the modalities for a peaceful solution.
The Secretary-General said it had become in-creasingly clear
that the region’s problems couldnot be solved by military means.
Only a compre-hensive political solution, reached through
genuinenegotiations, would allow the countries of theregion to
reconstruct their economies and look toa future of peace, stability
and co-operation. Hehoped that the recent trend towards sustained
di-alogue stemmed from a shared conviction thatthere was no
alternative to a negotiated settlement.
The report also noted that the Secretary-Generalcontinued to
implement the humanitarian assistanceprogramme for Kampuchea (See
ECONOMIC ANDSOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chapter III).
General Assembly action. On 28 October, theGeneral Assembly ado
ted a resolution on theKampuchea situation(37) by a recorded vote
of 105to 23, with 20 abstentions.
By this resolution, the Assembly reiterated itsconviction that
withdrawal of all foreign forcesfrom Kampuchea, restoration and
preservation ofits independence, sovereignty and territorial
in-tegrity, the right of the people to determine theirown destiny,
and commitment by all States to non-interference and
non-intervention in the internalaffairs of Kampuchea were the
principal compo-nents of a just and lasting solution. It
requestedthe Ad Hoc Committee of the Conference on Kam-puchea to
continue work, reaffirmed its decisionto reconvene the Conference
when appropriateand requested the Secretary-General to
continueexercising his good offices towards a comprehen-sive
settlement. It also urged continuation of hu-manitarian relief. The
Assembly urged the South-East Asian countries, after a
comprehensive po-litical solution, to establish a zone of peace
andreiterated the hope that an intergovernmentalcommittee would be
established to assist in thereconstruction of Kampuchea and the
develop-ment of the region.
Introducing the 49-nation draft resolution,which was revised by
the sponsors before adop-tion, the Philippines noted its similarity
to the 1981Assembly resolution on the item(40) and said
theincreased number of sponsors reflected the inter-national
community’s growing concern over theflagrant violation of Kampuchea
by Viet Nam.
Explaining their votes against the resolution, theCongo, the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic and
-
Asia 337
Nicaragua stated that it constituted unacceptableinterference in
the internal affairs of a sovereignState-the People’s Republic of
Kampuchea—aimed at re-establishing the genocidal Pol Pot ré-gime.
Nicaragua, while supporting the aim oftransforming South-East Asia
and every otherregion into a zone of peace, added that its vote
sig-nified rejection of any attempt to re-establish thePol Pot
regime.
In addit ion, the Lao People’s Democrat icRepublic, protesting
inscription of the item on theKampuchea situation on the Assembly’s
agenda,called attention to a 22 October message to
theSecretary-General, transmitted by Viet Nam on26 October.(29) By
this message, the Vice-Presidentof the Council of Ministers and
Minister for For-eign Affairs of the People’s Republic of
Kam-puchea s ta ted that that régime was the onlyauthentic and
legal representative of the Kam-pucheans; protested United Nations
discussionand all other discussions of the so-called situationin
Kampuchea as gross and inadmissible interfer-ence in Kampuchea’s
internal affairs; and consi-dered illegal, null and void all
decisions relatingto Kampuchea adopted without the participationand
consent of the People’s Republic.
Albania, which announced that it was not par-ticipating in the
vote, said it did not share the viewthat the resolution contained
new, positive andpromising elements; the text lacked
languagenecessary to create conditions for a just solutionand
prevent the super-Powers from taking advan-tage of the Kampucheans’
difficulties.
Vanuatu, although endorsing the humanitarianprovisions,
abstained in the vote because it consi-dered the text one-sided and
lacking in clarity; itdid not believe that a country which had
sufferedso much at the hands of outsiders and whichshared with
Kampuchea similar social and eco-nomic problems merited so strong a
condem-nation.
Brazil, though voting in favour, expressed reser-vations on the
fourth preambular paragraph (men-tioning the coalition), which it
felt prejudged thequestion of which was the legitimate Governmentof
Kampuchea. Ireland said its positive vote didnot imply any change
in its position on Kam-puchean representation. Sweden supported
thegeneral thrust of the resolution as a reaffirmationof principles
for a just settlement and the requestto the Secretary-General to
continue to exercisehis good offices, but said its positive vote
did notmean any change in Sweden’s position.
In the Assembly debate, Samdech Norodom Si-hanouk of Democratic
Kampuchea observed that,while talk of a political solution
abounded, the so-lution had already been identified in
Assemblyresolutions and the Declaration of the Conferenceon
Kampuchea,(41) which called for unconditional
withdrawal of all foreign troops, recognition of thep e o p l e
’ s s o v e r e i g n t y a n d r i g h t t o s e l f -d e t e r m
i n a t i o n , a n d t h e h o l d i n g o f U n i t e
dNations-supervised elections. However, Viet Namcontinued to
maintain a massive occupation armyin Kampuchea and was resettling
depopulatedareas in order to create a so-called
Indo-Chinesefederation, with Viet Nam as master and Kam-puchea and
the Lao People’s Democratic Repub-lic as satellites. Democratic
Kampuchea could notaccept such a federation; it would continue
tostruggle for national liberation until all Viet-namese forces
were completely withdrawn and itsright to self-determination
restored. It would thenbe ready to s ign a t reaty of peace and
non-aggression with Viet Nam, to include mutualrespect for the
territorial integrity of both nations.
A number of States, among them Australia,Austria, Fiji,
Malaysia, Senegal, Thailand, Togoand the United States, saw the
Kampuchea situa-tion as arising from a failure to observe
fundamen-tal pr inciples of the Charter of the
UnitedNations-non-interference in the internal affairsof States,
respect for their national independence,sovereignty and territorial
integrity, inadmissibil-ity of the threat or use of force to settle
disputesand the right of States to determine their own des-tiny.
Japan, Mauritania, Nepal and Paraguayviewed the situation as a
threat to peace and secu-rity in South-East Asia, and the Central
AfricanRepublic, to international peace and security.
Fiji saw the situation as an example of the dan-gerous logic,
which appeared to be developing else-where as well, that
instability in sovereign Stateswas sufficient justification for
foreign invasion. Forthe Sudan, the Kampuchean issue reflected
thedanger of intervention in the internal affairs ofStates-a danger
which compelled the smaller na-tions, especially the non-aligned,
to devote theirlimited resources to military forces rather than
de-velopment. Any solution, said Sweden, must in-volve the right of
the Kampuchean people to self-determination, and that right could
not be exer-cised in the presence of foreign military forces.
Yu-goslavia said the attempt to change the politicalmap by foreign
intervention in Democratic Kam-puchea had been a hard blow to the
stability ofSouth-East Asia and had had negative conse-quences for
international peace and security.
Canada observed that the number of encourag-ing initiatives
taken on this issue by the UnitedNations had been seriously
compromised by theintransigence of certain Members; the root
causeof the problem was Viet Nam’s continued occu-pation of
Kampuchea and rejection of all UnitedNations efforts to bring about
a solution.
Singapore stated that the ASEAN countries un-equivocally opposed
Viet Nam’s occupation ofKampuchea as a violation of the Charter
and
-
338 Political and security questions
because Viet Nam, after digesting its conquest ofKampuchea and
its domination over the Lao Peo-ple’s Democratic Republic, might
cast its avari-cious eye on other South-East Asian States. Den-m a
r k ( f o r t h e E u r o p e a n C o m m u n i t y ( E C
)members), Fiji, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay andTunisia added that
that record could not justifythe invasion and continued occupation
of Kam-puchea by a foreign Power. Australia, Malaysiaand Nepal,
among others, regarded the immedi-ate withdrawal of Viet Nam’s
forces from Kam-puchea as an essential first step towards a
com-prehensive solution. Mauritania appealed for thetotal
withdrawal of all foreign troops from Kam-puchea.
The Central African Republic, also calling onViet Nam to
withdraw, said its well-armed troopswere fighting an unequal battle
against a handfulof patriots who were sacrificing their lives for
theircountry’s independence and territorial integrity.The United
States said the Kampuchean dictatorhad been installed and was being
maintained onlyby the presence of some 180,000 troops sent byViet
Nam, which in turn was heavily dependenton USSR supplies and some
10,000 military ad-visers in Viet Nam.
Australia, Austria, China, Indonesia, Japan,Malaysia, Nepal, New
Zealand, Pakistan, PapuaNew Guinea, the Philippines, Senegal,
Singapore(for the ASEAN States), the Sudan, Thailand,Togo, Tunisia
and Yugoslavia reaffirmed their sup-port for the Declaration of the
Conference onKampuchea as a reasonable, balanced and
properframework for a just and comprehensive set-tlement.
Japan appealed to Viet Nam to respond to thewill of the
overwhelming majority as reflected inthe Declaration and Assembly
resolutions, and tonegotiate in accordance with them. Indonesia,
Sin-gapore and the United States appealed to VietNam to participate
in good faith in future effortsof the Conference. Willingness by
Viet Nam to ac-cept the United Nations initiative and to seek apoli
t ical set t lement in co-operat ion with theASEAN countries, said
Pakistan, would help bringpeace to South-East Asia and have a
salutary im-pact on the international situation as a whole.
The formation of the Coalition Government ofDemocratic Kampuchea
was welcomed by Aus-tralia, Canada, China, Egypt, Indonesia,
Japan,Malaysia, Mauritania, Nepal, Norway, Pakistan,Papua New
Guinea, the Philippines, Senegal, theSudan, Thailand, Togo,
Tunisia, the United Statesand Yugoslavia. The Central African
Republicsaid it reflected the will of the Kampucheans.Malaysia
viewed the coalition as an important steptowards a comprehensive
political solution andurged Viet Nam to negotiate seriously with
it. In-donesia and New Zealand welcomed the coalition’s
broad representation. The Philippines regarded theevent as
signalling Kampuchean unity in the com-mon effort to liberate the
country from foreign in-vaders, disproving the myth that the Heng
Sam-rin régime was in complete control of Kampuchea;it put Viet Nam
on notice that, while DemocraticKampuchea preferred a peaceful
solution, it wasprepared to defend its sovereign rights as long
asnecessary.
Australia said it would recognize no Governmentin Kampuchea
until an act of self-determinationhad taken place; none the less
Australia welcomedthe re-emergence through the coalition of
SamdechSihanouk and Son Sann. The United States tookthe
participation of these two leaders in the coali-tion as giving
substance to hopes that popular,democratic, nationalist Kampuchean
movementswould provide the Kampucheans with an alterna-tive to the
grim choice between the Khmer Rougeand a Vietnamese-dominated
régime. Canada, not-ing the inclusion of Khmer Rouge elements in
thecoalition, said it would steadfastly oppose the returnof the Pol
Pot régime. Paraguay, though welcom-ing the coalition’s
establishment, also said it hadserious reservations about the
participation of KhmerRouge elements.
Referring to Viet Nam’s announcement of a partialwithdrawal of
its troops from Kampuchea, Sene-gal considered it a positive though
inadequate de-velopment. However, Australia called it no morethan
seasonal troop rotation, as did China, whichadded that it was
designed to offset the coalition’simpact and head off another
Assembly resolutioncalling for the unconditional and total
withdrawalof Viet Nam’s forces. Thailand and the United Statesalso
viewed the action as simply a trade of troopunits, reinforcing the
army of occupation. Tunisia,however, believed that the announcement
of a partialwithdrawal could, if put into effect, constitute
anencouraging point of departure for the peace process.
Several speakers commented on the proposal byViet Nam and others
for an international confer-ence on South-East Asia. Australia,
while ac-knowledging that any willingness by Viet Nam tonegotiate
must be welcomed, described theproposal as ambiguous since it left
unspecified thecentral issue for negotiation and the matter of
par-ticipation. China termed it a rehash of the regionalconference
previously promoted by Viet Nam, aruse to forestall application of
United Nations reso-lutions and to remove the item from the
Assem-bly’s agenda. Calling the proposal deliberatelyvague,
Malaysia, Thailand and the United Statessaid it ignored the central
issue of the continuedpresence of foreign forces in Kampuchea,
apresence that such a conference would legitimizeand entrench;
Thailand added that it would un-dermine the negotiating framework
established bythe United Nations.
-
Asia 339
Commenting on Viet Nam’s proposal for ademilitarized zone along
the Thai-Kampucheanborder, Thailand said it appeared to be an
attemptto enlist Thai support against the legitimate strug-gle of
the Kampuchean patriots; such a zoneshould more properly be
established along theVietnamese-Kampuchean border after Viet
Namwithdrew its troops.
China, declaring that it did not wish to controlKampuchea, said
that after Viet Nam withdrewits troops from that country China was
willing tojoin others in an international guarantee that noState
would occupy Kampuchea and use it to vio-late the independence and
sovereignty of any otherState or interfere in Kampuchea’s internal
affairs.Denmark said the EC members would support anyinitiative to
establish a representative governmentin a neutral and independent
Kampuchea, main-taining friendly relations with all States of
theregion.
Sweden said it did not consider the CoalitionGovernment a true
government, since it was notin control of the territory of the
nation it purportedto represent; a more positive development,
inSweden’s view, was the ministerial contacts of theGovernments
most directly involved.
India, which abstained in the vote on the reso-lution, restated
its opposition to the presence offoreign troops or bases in any
country and its con-viction that a peaceful political solution must
bebased on non-use of force and non-interference;at the same time,
it considered unproductive anyattempt to reverse the normalization
under waythrough the commendable efforts of the People’sRepublic,
thought it inconceivable that the Kam-pucheans would allow
restoration of the status quoante under any guise and recommended
that thecountries in the region strive for a comprehensivepolitical
solution.
Those speaking against the resolution protestedthe inscription
of the item on the Kampuchea sit-uation on the Assembly’s agenda.
The USSR con-sidered it completely illegal; Afghanistan, Bul-g a r
i a , t h e B y e l o r u s s i a n S S R , t h e G e r m a nD e m
o c r a t i c R e p u b l i c , t h e L a o P e o p l e ’
sDemocratic Republic, Mongolia, Poland and VietNam said it
constituted interference in the affairsof an independent, sovereign
State-the People’sRepublic of Kampuchea-in gross violation of
theUnited Nat ions Charter and, Czechoslovakiaadded, of
international law. The USSR assertedthat attempts by China, the
United States and cer-tain ASEAN countries to use the United
Nationsto interfere in the affairs of Kampuchea had com-plicated
normalization of the situation in South-East Asia.
Once again, Bulgaria remarked, the United Na-tions was engaged
in a sterile discussion withoutthe participation of the only
legitimate represen-
tative of the Kampucheans. Viet Nam added thatthe debate
militated against the legitimate aspi-rations and undermined the
efforts of a peoplewho, having survived genocide, were in the
processof reconstructing their country amid innumera-ble
difficulties.
The States holding this view pointed to thegeneral elections of
May 1981, the improving foodsituation and other developments as
evidence ofthe irreversible consolidation of the People’sRepublic
of Kampuchea. They called for recog-nizing the People’s Republic as
the legitimaterepresentative of the Kampucheans and giving itits
rightful place in the United Nations. ThatG o v e r n m e n t , s a
i d t h e G e r m a n D e m o c r a t i cRepublic, exercised
effective power and control inthe country. The Lao People’s
Democratic Repub-lic remarked that the People’s Republic had
forthree years devoted itself to the development of itscountry and
sought to live on good terms with itsneighbours. For Viet Nam, the
international com-munity had the choice of either declaring itself
infavour of the irreversible rebirth of the Kam-puchean people
brought about by the People’sRepublic of Kampuchea or promoting
restorationof the genocidal Pol Pot regime in the guise of
theGovernment of Democratic Kampuchea.
Strongly opposed to the Coalition Governmentwere Afghanistan,
Albania, Bulgaria, the Bye-lorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the
Ger-man Democratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia,Poland, the
Ukrainian SSR and the USSR; mostof them saw it as a coalition of
the forces that hadbeen totally discredited as criminally
responsiblefor the massacre of 3 million Kampucheans. Theremnants
of the Pol Pot régime, India said, werethe driving force behind the
coalition; it was ironictherefore that, while the legitimate
Governmentof the People’s Republic enjoyed the esteem andaffection
of its people, a delegation with neithera capital nor a country
should have gained sup-port for remaining in the Assembly. The
label of“coalition”, said the Ukrainian SSR, was used tomake it
possible for the followers of Pol Pot toreceive assistance not only
from China but fromother sources as well.
Viet Nam contended that, while China calledfor the withdrawal of
Vietnamese t roops, i tprevented Viet Nam from withdrawing
becauseChina, by increasing assistance to the Pol Pot rab-ble
operating from their Thailand sanctuary,maintained a continual
state of tension on theKampuchea-Thailand border; once that threat
wasremoved, Viet Nam’s troops would be withdrawn.Hungary observed
that the military presence ofViet Nam in Kampuchea was based on a
treatyconcluded between them and was thus a matterof concern only
to those two States. The Byelorus-sian SSR viewed the partial
withdrawal that had
-
340 Political and security questions
taken place as a manifestation of the good will ofthe People’s
Republic and Viet Nam.
A reliable basis for the settlement of the region’sproblems, the
USSR said, was the constructive andflexible proposals put forward
by the Indo-Chinesecountries in a 15 September letter from the Lao
Peo-ple’s Democratic Republic to the Foreign Ministersof ASEAN (p.
346). Also endorsing those proposalswere Afghanistan, Bulgaria, the
Byelorussian SSR,Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Repub-lic,
Mongolia and Poland. Afghanistan believed thatonly a negotiated
settlement with the participationof all countries of the region,
including the Peo-ple’s Republic, could eliminate obstacles in the
wayof normalized relations and co-operation. Cubaviewed dialogue as
the only sensible step towardsa region of peace, stability and
co-operation.
In the view of Albania, Kampuchea and all ofIndo-China continued
to be the arena of hegemonis-tic and expansionist rivalry among
China, the USSRand the United States; it urged an end to such
ac-tions so as to allow Kampuchea to decide its own fate.
Other action. Action relating to Kampuchea wastaken by other
United Nations bodies during theyear. The Commission on Human
Rights, in a reso-lution of 25 February on self-determination in
re-lation to Kampuchea, reaffirmed that the primaryviolation of
human rights in Kampuchea was thepersistence of foreign occupation,
which preventedits people from exercising their right to
self-determination.(95) The Economic and Social Coun-cil, on 7 May,
endorsed this action and the call forthe withdrawal of all foreign
forces so as to allowthe Kampucheans to exercise their fundamental
free-doms and human rights.(1) On 4 May, the Councilcalled on the
international community to assist Kam-puchean refugees and
displaced persons, and ex-pressed grave concern at the plight of
women andchildren.(36)
The United Nations continued to organize emer-gency relief for
Kampucheans and to assist refu-gees in neighbouring countries,
mainly Thailand.(See ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS, Chap-ter III
and Chapter XXI).
Decision 1982: (1)ESC: 1982/143, 7 May.Letters and notes
verbales (nv).
Democratic Kampuchea: (2)19 Jan., A/37/72; (3)19
Mar.,A/37/152-S/14915; (4)24 Mar., A/37/158-S/14926; (5)5
Apr.,A/37/171-S/14955; (6)19 Apr., A/37/202-S/14986; (7)6
May,A/37/221-S/15054; (8)7 June, A/37/268-S/15179; (9)23
June,A/37/307-S/15252 & Corr.1; (10)13 July,
A/37/340-S/15291;(11)15 July, A/37/344-S/15298; (12)27 July,
A/37/363-S/15314;(13)18 Oct., A/37/551-S/15460; (14)9 Nov.,
A/37/609-S/15486;(15)15 Nov., A/37/628-S/15491.
USSR: (16)7 Apr., A/37/173; (17)20 May, A/37/233.United States:
(18)24 Feb., A/37/102 (nv); (19)22 Mar.,
A/37/157 (nv); (20)20 May, A/37/234 & Corr.1 (nv);
(21)29Nov. A/C.l/37/10 (nv).
Viet Nam: (22)13 Jan., A/37/64; (23)14 Apr., A/37/180;(24)20
Apr., A/37/204; (25)28 June, A/37/315; (26)20 July,A/37/350; (27)22
July, A/37/356; (28)6 Oct., A/37/523; (29)26Oct., A/37/575.
Others: (30)Canada: 23 June, A/37/308. (31)China: 10July,
A/37/337-S/15286. (32)Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic: 22 Sep.,
A/37/477.
Reports. (33)Committee of Conference on Kampuchea,A/CONF.109/6;
(34)S-G, A/37/496.
Resolutions (1982). (35)Commission on Human Rights
(report,E/1982/12): 1982/13, 25 Feb. (36)ESC: 1982/25, 4
May.(37)GA: 37/6, 28 Oct., text following.
Resolution (prior). GA: (38)34/22, 14 Nov. 1979 (YUN 1979,306);
(39)35/6, 22 Oct. 1980 (YUN 1980, p. 334);
(40)36/5, 21 Oct. 1981 (YUN 1981, p. 246).Yearbook reference.
(41)1981, p. 242.Financial implication. 5th Committee report,
A/37/577; S-
G statement, A/C.5/37/21.Meeting records. GA: General Committee.
A/BUR/37/SR.l (22
Sep.); plenary, A/37/PV.44-48 (26-28 Oct.); 5th Commit-tee,
A/C.5/37/SR.21 (28 Oct.).
G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y r e s o l u t i o n 3 7 / 6
28 October 1982 Meeting 48 105-23-20 (recorded vote)
49-nation draft (A/37/L.l/Rev.1 and Rev.1/Add.1): agenda item
20.Sponsors: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium,
Botswana,
Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia,
Comoros, Costa Rica,Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji,
Gambia, Germany, Federal Republicof, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia,
Italy, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Malaysia,Mauritania, Nepal,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Omen, Pakistan,Papua New
Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and
theGrenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands Somalia,
Swaziland,Thailand, United Kingdom, Upper Volta, Uruguay,
Zaire,
T h e s i t u a t i o n i n K a m p u c h e a
The General Assembly,Recalling its resolutions 34/22 of 14
November 1979, 35/6 of 22 Oc-
tober 1980 and 36/5 of 21 October 1981,Recalling further the
Declaration on Kampuchea and resolution 1(I)
adopted by the International Conference on Kampuchea, which
offerthe negotiating framework for a comprehensive political
settlement ofthe Kampuchean problem,
Taking note of the report of the Secretary-General, submitted in
pur-suance of General Assembly resolution 36/5,
Noting the recent developments resulting in the coalition with
Sam-dech Norodom Sihanouk as President of Democratic Kampuchea,
Deploring that foreign armed intervention end occupation
continueand that foreign forces have not been withdrawn from
Kampuchea,thus causing continuing hostilities in that country and
seriouslythreatening international peace and security,
Greatly concerned that the continuing deployment of foreign
forcesin Kampuchea near the Thai-Kampuchean border has maintained
ten-sion in the region,
Grave/y disturbed that the continued fighting and instability in
Kam-puchea have forced Kampucheans to flee to the
Thai-Kampucheanborder in search of food end safety,
Recognizing that the assistance extended by the international
com-munity has continued to reduce the food shortages and
healthproblems of the Kampuchean people,
Emphasizing that it is the inalienable right of the Kampuchean
peo-ple who have sought refuge in neighbouring countries to return
safelyto their homeland,
Emphasising further that no effective solution to the
humanitarianproblems can be achieved without a comprehensive
political settle-ment of the Kampuchean conflict,
Convinced that, to bring about durable peace in South-East
Asia,there is an urgent need for a comprehensive political solution
to theKampuchean problem which will provide for the withdrawal of
all for-eign forces and ensure respect for the sovereignty,
independence, ter-ritorial integrity and neutral and non-aligned
status of Kampuchea, aswell as the right of the Kampuchean people
to self-determination freefrom outside interference,
Convinced further that, after the comprehensive political
settlementof the Kampuchean question through peaceful means, the
countriesof the South-East Asian region can pursue efforts to
establish a zoneof peace, freedom and neutrality in South-East Asia
so as to lesseninternational tensions end to achieve lasting peace
in the region,
Reaffirming the need for all States to adhere strictly to the
princi-ples of the Charter of the United Nations, which call for
respect for
-
Asia 341
the national independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity
of allStates, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal
affairs ofStates, non-recourse to the threat or use of force, and
peaceful settle-ment of disputes,
1. Reaffirms its resolutions 34/22. 35/6 and 36/5 and calls for
theirfull implementation;
2. Reiterates its conviction that the withdrawal of all foreign
forcesfrom Kampuchea, the restoration and preservation of its
independence,sovereignty and territorial integrity, the right of
the Kampuchean peo-ple to determine their own destiny and the
commitment by all Statesto non-interference and non-intervention in
the internal affairs of Kam-puchea are the principal components of
any just and lasting resolu-tion to the Kampuchean problem;
3. Takes note with appreciation of the report of the Ad Hoc
Com-mittee of the International Conference on Kampuchea and
requeststhat the Committee continue its work, pending the
reconvening of theConference;
4. Aurhorizes the Ad Hoc Committee to convene when necessaryand
to carry out the tasks entrusted to it in its mandate;
5. Reaffirms its decision to reconvene the Conference at an
ap-propriate time in accordance with Conference resolution
1(I);
6. Renews its appeal to all States of South-East Asia and
othersconcerned to attend future sessions of the Conference;
7. Requests the Conference to report to the General Assembly
onits future sessions;
6. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to consult with
andassist the Conference and the Ad Hoc Committee and to provide
themon a regular basis with the necessary facilities to carry out
theirfunctions:
9. Expresses its appreciation once again to the
Secretary-Generalfor taking appropriate steps in following the
situation closely and re-quests him to continue to do so and to
exercise his good offices inorder to contribute to a comprehensive
political settlement;
10. Expresses its deep appreciation once again to donor
countries,the United Nations end its agencies and other national
and interna-tional humanitarian organizations which have rendered
relief assistanceto the Kampuchean people, and appeals to them to
continue existingarrangements to assist those Kampucheans who are
still in need, es-pecially along the Thai-Kampuchean border and in
the holding centresin Thailand;
11. Reiterates its deep appreciation to the Secretary-General
forhis efforts in co-ordinating humanitarian relief assistance and
in monitor-ing its distribution, and requests him to continue such
efforts as arenecessary;
12. Urges the countries of South-East Asia, once a
comprehensivepolitical solution to the Kampuchean conflict is
achieved, to exertrenewed efforts to establish a zone of peace,
freedom and neutralityin South-East Asia;
13. Reiterates the hope that, following a comprehensive
politicalsolution, an intergovernmental committee will be
established to con-sider a programme of assistance to Kampuchea for
the reconstructionof its economy and for the economic and social
development of allStates in the region;
14. Requests the Secretary-General to report to the General
As-sembly at its thirty-eighth session on the implementation of the
presentresolution;
15. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its
thirty-eighthsession the item entitled “The situation in
Kampuchea’:
Recorded vote in Assembly as follows:ln favour: Antigua and
Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Bhutan,
Botswana, Brazil,Burma, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic,
Chad, Chile, China, Colom-bia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Democratic
Kampuchea, Denmark, Djbouti, Dominica,Dominican Republic, Ecuador,
Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, France,Gabon, Gambia,
Germany, Federal Republic of, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala,Guinea,
Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, lvory
Coast,Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Liberia, Luxembourg,
Malaysia, Mal-dives Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco,
Nepal, Netherlands, NewZealand, Niger Nigeria, Norway, Oman,
Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay,Peru, Philippines, Portugal,
Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and theGrenadines Samoa,
Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Solomon Islands SomeIia, Spain,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia,
Tur-key, United Kingdom, United Republic of Cameroon, United
States, Upper Volta,Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia, Zaire,, Zambia,
Zimbabwe.
Against: Afghanistan, Angola, Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Congo,
Cuba,Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, German Democratic
Republic,
Grenada, Hungary, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya,Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Poland, Seychelles,
Syrian Arab Republic,Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam.
Abstaining: Algeria, Benin, Cape Verde, Finland, Guinea-Bissau,
Guyana, India,Lebanon, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Panama, Sao Tome
and Principe, SierraLeone, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates, UnitedRepublic of Tanzania, Vanuatu.
Credent ia l s o f Democra t ic Kampuchea
T h e c r e d e n t i a l s o f t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v
e s o fDemocratic Kampuchea were discussed and ac-cepted at two
1982 General Assembly sessions(twelfth special, July;
thirty-seventh regular, Oc-tober) together with those submitted on
behalf ofother United Nations Member States. In October,the
Assembly rejected by vote a proposal not toapprove those
credentials. Several communicationson the subject were also
received.
By a letter of 12 February,(5) the Lao People’sDemocratic
Republic transmitted a telegram to theSecretary-General from the
Vice-President of theCouncil of Ministers and Minister for Foreign
Af-fairs of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea, stat-ing that it
was the sole Government empoweredto represent Kampuchea, as
so-called DemocraticKampuchea had been overthrown by the
Kam-pucheans in January 1979.
A telegram of 17 September to the AssemblyPresident and the
Secretary-General from the For-eign Minister of the People’s
Republic of Kam-puchea, forwarded by Viet Nam on 23 Septem-ber , (
8 ) demanded the expulsion of Coal i t ionGovernment
representatives at the Assembly’sthirty-seventh session and asked
that Kampuchea’sseat in the United Nations be restored to the
Peo-ple’s Republic as the sole authentic and
legitimaterepresentative of Kampuchea; he added that allresolutions
adopted in the absence of the People’sRepublic would be considered
null and void.Responding by a le t ter of 28 September, ( 4 )
Democratic Kampuchea requested an emergencymeeting of the
Assembly’s Credentials Commit-tee to rule on the credentials
question and reportits findings without delay.
The quest ion of Democrat ic Kampuchea’scredentials was raised
in the Credentials Commit-tee on 6 October when it met to consider
thecredentials of representatives to the thirty-seventhsession. At
that meeting the Committee acceptedthe credentials of all States
that had submittedthem, which included Democratic Kampuchea.On 26
October, the Assembly adopted a resolu-tion(14) approving the
report of its Credentials Com-mittee(13) after rejecting the day
before, by arecorded vote of 90 to 29, with 26 abstentions,
an11-nation amendment, introduced by the Lao Peo-ple’s Democratic
Republic, to have the report ap-proved except with regard to the
credentials ofDemocratic Kampuchea.(1) Voting in favour of
theamendment were: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria,Angola, Benin,
Bulgaria , Byelorussian SSR,
-
342 Political and security questions
C o n g o , C u b a , C z e c h o s l o v a k i a , D e m o c r
a t i cYemen, Ethiopia, German Democratic Republic,Grenada, Guyana,
Hungary, India, Lao People’sDemocratic Republic, Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya,Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Poland, SaoTome and
Principe, Seychelles, Syrian ArabRepublic, Ukrainian SSR, USSR,
Viet Nam.
T h e A s s e m b l y ’ s d e c i s i o n i n f a v o u r o
fDemocratic Kampuchea was categorically rejectedby the Foreign
Ministry of the People’s Republicof Kampuchea in a 25 October
statement, trans-mitted by Viet Nam on 29 October,( 1 0 )
whichreiterated that the right to authentic and legalrepresentation
of Kampuchea belonged solely tothe People’s Republic.
Similar Assembly ‘decisions in 1979,(15) 1980(16)
and 1981(17) were earlier challenged in a 15 Septem-ber
memorandum issued at Brussels, Belgium, bythe International
Association of Democratic Law-yers, and transmitted by Viet Nam on
14 Oc-tober.(‘) Stating that the overriding criterion wasthe
objective one of a Government’s effectivenessrather than the
subjective one of legitimacy, thememorandum argued that the
Assembly’s deci-sions with respect to Kampuchean credentials
vio-lated its rules of procedure and consistent practice.
Three communications were also sent to theChairman of the
Commission on Human Rights.A protest against the presence of
DemocraticKampuchean representatives at the
Commission’sFebruary/March session was lodged by the Vice-President
of the Council of Ministers and Ministerfor Foreign Affairs of the
People’s Republic ofKampuchea in a 27 January message reported
bythe SPK news agency on 28 January and transmit-ted by Viet Nam on
6 February.(7) The text of thisprotest in a te legram was t ransmit
ted to theSecretary-General on 30 April by the Lao
People’sDemocratic Republic.( 6 )
On 4 February, 14 Eastern European and otherS t a t e s p r o t
e s t e d D e m o c r a t i c K a m p u c h e a ’ srepresentation
at the Commission’s session as ille-gal, claiming that the only
existing KampucheanState was the People’s Republic.(12) Replying
to
puchea accused Viet Nam and its supporters ofimpugning the
Assembly resolutions recognizingit as the legitimate representative
of Kampuchea,and of trying to exploit the Commission as a plat-form
to force acceptance of Viet Nam’s fait accom-pli in Kampuchea.
Two letters, one dated 12 July(11) and the other16 July,(3) were
addressed to the President of theEconomic and Social Council. By
the first, 15Eastern European and other States said they
con-sidered the presence of Democratic Kampuchea’sdelegation at the
July session of the Council to beillegal, since the only existing
Kampuchean Statewas the People’s Republic of Kampuchea. By the
second letter, Democratic Kampuchea transmit-ted the 9 July
proclamation on the formation ofthe Coalition Government of
Democratic Kam-puchea (p. 335).
Amendment rejected. (1)Angola, Congo, Cuba, DemocraticYemen,
Ethiopia, Grenada, Guyana, India, Lao People’sDemocratic Republic,
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Viet Nam,A/37/L.8 & Add.1.
Letters.Democratic Kampuchea: (2)10 Feb., E/CN.4/1982/12;
(3)16 July. E/1982/108: (4)28 Sep., A/37/492.Lao People's
Democratic Republic: (5)12 Feb., A/37/87-
S/14871: (6)30 Apr., E/1982/63.Viet Nam: (7)6 Feb.,
E/CN.4/1982/11; (8)23 Sep.,
A/37/481; (9)14 Oct., A/37/549; (10)29 Oct., A/37/588.Others:
(11)Bulgaria, Byelorussian SSR, Cuba, Czechos-
lovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia, German DemocraticRepublic,
Hungary, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Poland, SyrianArab Republic,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam: 12July, E/1982/107. (12)Bulgaria,
Byelorussian SSR, Cuba,Czechoslovakia, Democratic Yemen, Ethiopia,
GermanDemocratic Republic, Hungary, Mongolia; Nicaragua,Poland,
Ukrainian SSR, USSR, Viet Nam: 4 Feb.,E/CN.4/1982/9.
Report. (13)Credentials Committee, A/37/543.Resolution (1982).
(14)GA: 37/5 A, 26 Oct.Yearbook references. (15)1979, p. 291;
(16)1980, p. 331; (17)1981,
p. 248:
Kampuchea-Thailand borderDuring 1982, the Secretary-General
received a
number of letters concerning the situation on
theKampuchea-Thailand border, conveying com-plaints against
Thailand submitted by the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic and Viet
Nam, andcomplaints by Thailand against Viet Nam.
A statement by the spokesman for the Ministryof Foreign Affairs
of the People’s Republic of Kam-puchea, as reported on 2 January by
the SPK newsagency and transmitted on 12 January by VietNam,(16)
demanded the return of a Kampucheanpatrol boat and five crew
members, captured inKampuchean territorial waters by three Thai
navyvessels. The full text of the Ministry’s statement,giving the
date of the incident as 28 December1981, was t ransmit ted by the
Lao People’sDemocratic Republic on 14 January 1982.(1)
Two further statements by the Foreign Minis-try spokesman were
transmitted. One, dated 19February and transmitted on 28 April by
the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic,(2) protested Thaishelling with
toxic chemicals of Phnom Melai inBattambang province on 12 and 14
February, saidto have injured 20 civilians. Another statement,dated
13 May and transmitted on 25 May by VietNam,(19) protested
Thailand’s intensified airspaceviolations in early May, the most
serious on 9 Maywhen two Thai jet fighters had fired rockets at
ahelicopter on a mission over the Anlung Wengregion, 14 kilometres
inside Kampuchea. Earlierreports, of 19 and 28 April, by the SPK
newsagency, transmitted by Viet Nam on 12 May,(18)
listed Thai incursions between 7 and 20 April into
this letter on 10 February,(2) Democratic Kam-
-
Asia 3 4 3
Kampuchean territorial airspace (over 10 recon-naissance flights
between 16 and 20 April) andwaters (186 violations by armed vessels
cited in thefirst report and 134 in the second), as well as some190
incidents of shelling, killing a civilian andwounding two others in
an attack in the Preah Vi-hear region.
The Viet Nam News Agency, in a statement of25 September
transmitted four days later,(23) re-jected an allegation by the
Supreme Command ofThailand, as broadcast by Radio Beijing,
thatVietnamese armed forces operating from Kam-puchea had recently
killed more than 100 Khmersat a village in Preyveng province,
Thailand.
Focusing on what it called Thai provocationsagainst the People’s
Republic of Kampuchea anda propaganda campaign against Viet Nam,
areport of an interview granted to the SPK newsagency on 30
September by the Vice-Chairmanof the Counci l of Ministers and
Minister ofDefence of the People’s Republic, transmitted on11
October by Viet Nam,(24) accused Thailand ofcollaborating with
Khmer reactionaries by allow-ing them to use its territory to
conduct armed at-tacks on Kampuchea and of rejecting the
repeatedproposal for a demilitarized or security zone alongthe
border.
A 26 November statement by the spokesman ofthe Foreign Ministry
of the People’s Republic,transmitted on 2 December by the Lao
People’sDemocratic Republic,(3) alleged that, according toWestern
sources, Singapore had secretly suppliedthe Son Sann forces with
some 2,640 automaticr i f l e s t r a n s p o r t e d a c r o s s T
h a i l a n d a n d h a dpromised a similar supply for the Samdech
Noro-dom Sihanouk forces.
For its part, Thailand complained of numerousincursions into its
territory and violations of its air-space and waters by Vietnamese
forces operatingfrom Kampuchea. In most instances,
Thailandcondemned these violations as unprovoked acts ofaggression
and reaffirmed its right to take stepsto defend its territorial
integrity and protect thelife and property of its nationals.
Viet Nam, in several letters, rejected the Thaiallegations as
groundless and slanderous, statingthat they served only to promote
China’s schemeto foment tension along the Kampuchea-Thailandborder,
incite hostility between Thailand and theIndo-Chinese countries,
and undermine the de-veloping dialogue between those countries and
theAssociation of South-East Asian Nations.
By a letter of 22 January,(4) Thailand reportedthat, after
having been tired upon by an armedtrawler in Thai territorial
waters near Kut Islandon 28 December 1981, Thai naval patrol ships
hadsunk the trawler and rescued 7 of its 13-membercrew, 2 of whom
had later died; the survivors hadstated that the trawler was an
illegally seized Thai
fishing vessel and that, at the time of the sinking,6 of its
crew had been Vietnamese.
By a 29 January letter,(5) Thailand cited threeincidents on 16
December 1981 and 18 January1982 involving bombardment of Thai
territory byVietnamese aircraft, and shelling and intrusionby
Vietnamese forces. Further incidents of shell-ing and an armed
attack between 31 January and9 February, mainly on villages in
Prachinburiprovince, resulting in 5 deaths, injury to 8 includ-ing
a Thai soldier and damage to property, weredetailed in letters of
10 February(6) and 16 Febru-ary.(7) A 22 February letter(8)
reported that, on 17February, 40 Vietnamese soldiers had attacked
a15-man Thai border patrol unit inside Thai ter-ritory in
Chanthaburi province, leaving 5 of theborder patrol dead and a
civilian injured. Alsoon 22 February,(17) a letter from Viet Nam
annexedtwo statements by the Viet Nam News Agency,d a t e d 6 a n d
1 9 F e b r u a r y , r e j e c t i n g a T h a inewspaper report
of shellings of Thai territory byVietnamese troops and the reported
Vietnameseattack on Thai border guards.
A c c o r d i n g t o a 3 0 A p r i l l e t t e r f r o mT h a i
l a n d , ( 9 ) a r e a s o f P r a c h i n b u r i a n d T r a
tprovinces had been shelled between 2 and 7 Aprilin fighting
between Democratic Kampuchea andthe Vietnamese-Heng Samrin forces;
casualtiesincluded 2 dead and 10 injured, among them 5border
police.
A 16 August letter,(10) covering May and June,reported more than
30 incursions into Thailand,20 shelling incidents resulting in loss
of life andproperty, 3 airspace violations, and intrusions
intoterritorial waters during which 3 Thai fishingboats had been
captured. Shelling attacks between9 and 29 August on Chanthaburi,
Prachinburi,Si Sa Ket and Trat provinces, resulting in damageto
houses and to a village school, were detailedin a letter of 7
September.(11) Rocket attacks be-tween 1 and 12 September on
Prachinburi andSurin provinces were described in a 5 October
let-ter,(12) in which Thailand charged that the conflictin
Kampuchea and the continued presence in thatcountry of 200,000
Vietnamese troops threatenedthe security of its eastern border. By
letters of 23August(20) and 24 August,(21) Viet Nam denied theMay
and June violations enumerated by Thailandand, on 15 September(22)
and 19 October,(25) thealleged violations in August and
September.
A press release by the Ministry of Foreign Af-fairs of Thailand,
forwarded on 7 October,( 1 3 )
reported the return to Viet Nam, as attested bydocuments signed
by the two countries on 1 Oc-tober, of a Vietnamese military
aircraft that hadcrash-landed in Thailand on 11 February; 12 ofits
crew had been repatriated on 21 May, alongwith the remains of one
who had died of injuriesfrom the crash. A press release by the
Permanent
-
344 Political and security questions
Mission of Viet Nam to the United Nations, for-warded by a
letter of 29 October,(26) asserted thatthe Vietnamese aircraft had
strayed into Thailanddue to bad weather and technical trouble.
On 8 December,(14) Thailand reported 5 shellingincidents during
the second half of September and,throughout October, at least 6
incursions into Thaiterritory and regular barrages of artillery and
mor-tar fire, killing a Thai soldier, injuring more than6 others,
damaging property and killing livestock.On 16 December,(27) Viet
Nam forwarded a VietNam News Agency statement of the same
daydenying the Thai charges.
A 2 1 D e c e m b e r l e t t e r f r o m T h a i l a n d ( 1 5
)
reported that, following 20 serious violations since1 November,
resulting in 3 civilian deaths, anotherincursion had occurred on 1
December in whichVietnamese troops fired at a bus with a
rocket-propelled grenade, killing 2 passengers, injuring11 others
and destroying the bus; and, on 10 De-cember, a shelling incident
had killed a woman,injured several other civi l ians and
damagedhouses.
Letters.Lao People's Democratic Republic: (1)14 Jan..
A/37/66-
S/14837; (2)28 Apr., A/37/212; (3)2 Dec.,
A/37/690-S/15507.Thailand: (4)22 Jan., A/37/76-S/14846; (5)29
Jan.,
A/37/78-S/14853; (6)10 Feb., A/37/86-S/14868; (7)16
Feb.,A/37/88-S/14872; (8)22 Feb., A/37/98-S/14882; (9)30
Apr.,A/37/216-S/15035; (10)16 Aug., A/37/391-S/15366; (11)7Sep.,
A/37/429-S/15388; (12)5 Oct., A/37/524-S/15450;(13)7 Oct.,
A/37/529-S/15453; (14)8 Dec., A/37/729-S/15517;(15)21 Dec.,
A/38/56-S/15542.
Viet Nam: (16)12 Jan., A/37/63-S/14833; (17)22
Feb.,A/37/97-S/14881; (18)12 May, A/37/224-S/15075; (19)25May,
A/37/254; (20)23 Aug., A/37/400; (21)24 Aug.,A/37/403; (22)15 Sep.,
A/37/451-S/15395; (23)29 Sep.,A/37/504; (24)11 Oct., A/37/537;
(25)19 Oct., A/37/559;(26)29 Oct., A/37/589; (27)16 Dec.,
A/37/781.
China and Viet NamBetween January and November 1982, the
Secretary-General received communications fromChina and Viet
Nam, each continuing to chargethe other with aggressive acts along
their commonborder. The communications also contained an ex-change
of views on cease-fire proposals. Relationsbetween the two
countries were also discussed dur-ing the General Assembly’s
discussion in Novem-ber on peace and security in South-East
Asia.
On 14 January,(10) Viet Nam transmitted a state-ment of the same
date by the spokesman for itsMinistry of Foreign Affairs stating
that, as an ex-pression of good will, Viet Nam would unilater-ally
act on its 28 December 1981 proposal to Chinafor a cessation of
hostilities along their commonborder on the occasion of Têt (20-29
January1982), the Lunar New Year festival. China hadearlier
rejected the proposal as hypocritical, in a4 January memorandum by
its Ministry of For-eign Affairs, transmitted on 22 January,(1)
reiter-
ating that tension along the border was due to VietN a m ’ s a n
t i - C h i n a p o l i c i e s a n d r e g i o n a lhegemonism; as
long as Viet Nam refrained frommilitary provocations and incursions
into Chineseterritory, China would not counter-attack.
A proposal for an immediate end to armed con-flict in the border
area and for the start of a thirdround of China-Viet Nam talks, to
take place dur-ing the first half of the year at either Beijing
orHanoi, was made in a note of 30 January fromthe Vietnamese to the
Chinese Foreign Ministry,transmitted on 10 February.(12) In a
telegram for-w a r d e d o n 1 5 M a r c h b y t h e L a o P e o p
l e ’ sDemocratic Republic,(9) the Chairman of the Com-mittee for
the Defence of Peace in Kampuchea,speaking of a recent improvement
in Viet Nam-China relations, welcomed Viet Nam’s initiativeas well
as its earlier proposal for a suspension ofhostilities along the
border.
By letters of 15 February( 2 ) and 8 March,( 3 )
China transmitted two notes from its ForeignMinistry to the
Embassy of Viet Nam in China,strongly protesting Viet Nam’s
intensified armedprovocations and incursions across China’s
border.The first note, dated 11 February, said there hadbeen 416
incidents between 21 December 1981 and29 January 1982, resulting in
6 people dead, 11injured and property damage; the second, dated8
March, charged that on 3 March Vietnamesenaval vessels had attacked
11 Chinese fishing boatson the high seas, leaving 18 people
missing, 6others wounded, a boat blown up and anotherseized with
its crew. Viet Nam rejected this chargeas groundless by a letter of
17 March,(13) to whichwere annexed: a note of 5 March from its
ForeignMinistry to the Chinese Embassy, countercharg-ing that on 2
and 3 March 40 Chinese armed boatshad intruded into Viet Nam’s
territorial waterssome 4 to nautical 10 miles off its coast in an
actof espionage and provocation; and a Viet NamNews Agency dispatch
of 10 March stating thatthe captain of the boat captured on 3 March
inVietnamese territorial waters had confessed tooperating an armed
boat that had intruded intoViet Nam’s territorial waters on orders
from higherauthorities.
A note of 25 May from the Vietnamese to theChinese Foreign Minis
try, t ransmit ted on 27May,(14) protested numerous armed
incursions byChina into Viet Nam’s territory since the begin-ning
of the year, charging that they had beendesigned to destroy Thoong
Khoang dam nearNgoc Khe in Cao Bang province, as part of a planto
sabotage Viet Nam’s economy and perpetuateborder tension.
On 27 June,(4) China transmitted a 26 June notefrom its Foreign
Ministry to the Vietnamese Em-bassy, alleging that, on 16 June,
armed Vietnamesevessels had attacked and seized a Chinese
fishing
-
Asia 345
vessel in its territorial waters; it demanded the declared that
Viet Nam would not tolerate en-return of all vessels seized,
together with their crew, croachment on resources within its
territorialand compensation for resulting losses. waters and
continental shelf.
In a statement of 25 August, transmitted the fol-lowing day, ( 1
5 ) Viet Nam’s Foreign Ministryreported that on 14 August i t had
proposedanother cessation of hostilities along the China-Viet Nam
border from 27 August to 7 October,to allow National Day
celebrations on both sides;it added that, despite China’s lack of
response, VietNam, in a spirit of friendship with the
Chinesepeople, had ordered its forces to observe a cease-fire
during that period.
On 30 August,(5) 13 September(6) and 14 Oc-tober,(7) China
transmitted three notes from its For-eign Ministry to the
Vietnamese Embassy. Thefirst note, dated 25 August and responding
to VietNam’s proposal of 14 August, charged that ten-sion on the
China-Viet Nam border was due solelyto Viet Nam’s repeated acts of
provocation in pur-suit of its anti-China policies. The second,
dated12 September, protested the intrusion into China’sairspace on
10 September by two MIG-21 jetfighter aircraft on a reconnaissance
mission. Thethird, dated 13 October, protested 102 incidentsof
tiring into Chinese territory, 3 of shelling, 2 air-space
intrusions and 2 incursions by armed Viet-namese, resulting in 3
deaths and injury to 11 per-sons; observing that these acts had
taken placeduring the period of National Day celebrations,the note
concluded that Viet Nam’s latest call fora cessation of hostilities
and its announcement ofa unilateral cease-fire were sheer
hypocrisydesigned to cover up intensified efforts to
increasetension.
A government statement of 12 November, trans-mitted. on 30
November,(19) defined the coastalbaseline from which Viet Nam
measured its ter-ritorial sea and other maritime zones in the
Gulfof Bat Bo (Tonkin) between China and Viet Nam,and added that
the lines around the Hoang Sa andTruong Sa archipelagos would be
determined ina future instrument. The spokesman of the Minis-try of
Foreign Affairs of China, in a statement of28 November transmitted
the next day,(8) declarednull and void the maritime boundaries in
theBeibu (Tonkin) Gulf as described by Viet Nam andreiterated that
the islands claimed by Viet Nam-which the Chinese called Xisha and
Nansha—were an inalienable part of China’s territory.
Letters. China: (1)22 Jan., A/37/77-S/14847; (2)15
Feb.,A/37/90-S/14874; (3)8 Mar., A/37/110-S/14898; (4)27
lune,A/37/318-S/15264; (5)30 Aug., A/37/417-S/15381; (6)13
Sep.,A/37/440-S/15390: (7)14 Oct.. A/37/546-S/15457: (8)29Nov.,
A/37/682&15505. (9)Lao People’s DemocraticRepublic: 15 Mar.,
A/37/117-S/14907. Viet Nam: (10)14Jan,, A/37/67-S/14839: (11)4
Feb., A/37/83-S/14861; (12)10Feb., A/37/85-S/14865; (13)17 Mar.,
A/37/120-S/14911;(14)27 May, A/37/258-S/15133; (15)26 Aug.,
A/37/410-S/15375; (16)20 Sep., A/37/475-S/15425; (17)29
Sep.,A/37/507-S/15441; (18)9 Oct., A/37/558; (19)30
Nov.,A/37/697.
Peace and security of South-East AsiaA number of letters
addressed to the Secretary-
A Viet Nam News Agency statement of 12 Sep-tember, transmitted
on 20 September,(16) deniedthe allegation that Vietnamese MIG jet
fightershad intruded into China’s airspace. A 10 Octobernote from
the Vietnamese to the Chinese ForeignMinistry, transmitted on 19
October,(18) expressedregret at China’s rejection and distortion of
VietNam’s cease-fire proposals and rejected as slan-derous
fabrications the incidents listed in China’s13 October note.
General during 1982 concerned general aspects ofrelations among
the nations of South-East Asia.Most were circulated as documents
under theGeneral Assembly’s agenda item on the “Ques-tion of peace,
stability and co-operation in South-East Asia‘-an item on which the
Assembly helda two-day debate in November.
With regard to the maritime boundary betweenChina and Viet Nam,
a white paper published bythe Foreign Ministry of Viet Nam was
forwardedon 4 February,(11) presenting historical evidence ofits
claim to sovereignty over Hoang Sa (Paracels)and Truong Sa
(Spratly) archipelagos in the SouthChina Sea (called by the
Vietnamese the East Sea),and refuting China’s claim over them. A
statementby the Viet Nam News Agency, dated 25 Septem-ber and
transmitted on 29 September,( 1 7 ) pro-tested contracts which,
according to foreignsources, had been entered into by China and
for-eign petroleum companies for the exploration ofoil and gas
around the two archipelagos, and
Communications, On 19 February,(3) the LaoPeople’s Democratic
Republic transmitted a com-munique issued by its Minister for
Foreign Affairsand those of Viet Nam and the People’s Republicof
Kampuchea at a conference held at the Lao cap-ital of Vientiane on
16 and 17 February. The com-munique affirmed their readiness to
discuss withThailand questions of common concern and alsowith the
members of the Association of South-EastAsian Nations (ASEAN), if
they were still not readyfor a regional conference as proposed in
January1981 (23) to discuss questions of peace and stabililtyin
South-East Asia; such contacts could be director indirect,
bilateral or multilateral, but in no way,the communiqué stressed,
could they be linked tothe question of mutual de facto or de jure
recogni-tion (of the People’s Republic of Kampuchea).These
proposals were denounced in an 18 Febru-ary statement by the
spokesman of the Ministryof Foreign Affairs of Democratic
Kampuchea,
-
346 Political and security questions
transmitted on 22 February,(2) which said theywere attempts to
gain acceptance for the fait ac-compli brought about by Viet Nam’s
invasion ofKampuchea.
Referring to the General Assembly’s December1981 request for
suggestions on the developmentand strengthening of
good-neighbourliness be-tween States,(22) the Deputy Foreign
Minister ofViet Nam, in a 4 June message to the Secretary-General
transmitted on 7 June,(12) said Viet Namhad expressed its good will
to resolve disputedproblems with the other Indo-Chinese countries,w
i t h A S E A N m e m b e r s i n g e n e r a l a n d w i t
hThailand in particular, and it hoped that Chinawould resume talks
with Viet Nam in order tosolve mutual problems.
By a joint communique issued on 16 June at theconclusion of a
three-day meeting in Singapore,excerpts of which were transmitted
by Thailandon 30 June,(6) the ASEAN Foreign Ministers reiter-ated
their commitment to General Assembly reso-lutions calling for the
immediate and total with-drawal of Viet Nam’s forces from
Kampuchea,reaffirmed that a comprehensive political settle-ment of
the conflict could be achieved only withinthe framework established
by those resolutions,and stated that such a settlement was
essential tothe establishment of a zone of peace, freedom
andneutrality in South-East Asia.
On 25 June,(14) Viet Nam forwarded the tran-script of an
interview given on 18 June by its For-eign Minister to the Viet Nam
News Agency onhis scheduled visits to Burma, Indonesia, Malay-sia,
the Philippines and Singapore, which, he said,were intended to
increase mutual understandingand trust and to discuss bilateral
problems andquestions of peace and stability in South-East
Asia.Visits to three of the countries (Singapore, 18-20July; Burma;
Malaysia, 25-28 July) were charac-terized as frank and useful
exchanges of views inViet Nam News Agency interviews with the
For-eign Minister and other dispatches of 22 July,transmitted by
Viet Nam on 29 July,(16) and 28July (three dispatches), transmitted
on 3 Au-gust.(18) While each side retained its viewpoint,
theForeign Minister stated, there was agreement thatdialogue should
continue; to that end invitationsto visit Viet Nam had been
accepted.
A press statement issued by the ASEAN ForeignMinisters at the
conclusion of a meeting at Bang-kok, Thailand, on 7 August,
transmitted on 10 Au-gust,(‘) concluded that Viet Nam’s policy on
Kam-puchea remained unchanged. Making the samepoint, an information
paper issued by ASEAN andtransmit ted by Thai land on 20 September
( 8 )
stated that the proposals by the visiting Viet-namese Foreign
Minister evaded the central issueof total withdrawal of foreign
forces, ignored thebasic question of the Kampucheans’ right to
self-
determination and rejected the United Nationsframework for a
negotiated solution.
O n 8 J u l y , t h e L a o P e o p l e ’ s D e m o c r a t i
cRepublic and Viet Nam transmitted a commu-nique issued by their
Foreign Ministers and thatof the People’s Republic of Kampuchea on
7 Julyat the end of a two-day conference held at Ho ChiMinh City,
Viet Nam. The Ministers called anewon China to respond positively
to past proposalsfor a bilateral or multilateral treaty of
peacefulcoexistence and supported Viet Nam’s proposal toresume the
China-Viet Nam talks; reaffirmed theirreadiness to negotiate with
Thailand and considera further partial withdrawal of Vietnamese
troopsif Thailand denied asylum and support to theforces intent on
sabotaging Kampuchea’s revival;reiterated their proposal for a
demilitarized zonealong the Kampuchea-Thailand border but, fail-ing
that, proposed a safety zone where only thearmed forces of the
People’s Republic and ofThailand would be stationed, on their
respectiveside of the border; reiterated their readiness to en-gage
in dialogue with ASEAN; proposed an inter-national conference on
South-East Asia, with thepart icipat ion of the Indo-Chinese countr
ies ,ASEAN and Burma, as well as of China, France,I n d i a , t h e
U S S R , t h e U n i t e d K i n g d o m , t h eUnited States and
the Secretary-General; anddemanded the expulsion of representatives
ofDemocratic Kampuchea from the General Assem-bly, leaving
Kampuchea’s seat vacant.
Elaborating on these proposals, a letter of 15September from the
Deputy Prime Minister andMinister for Foreign Affairs of the Lao
People’sDemocrat ic Republic to the ASEAN ForeignMinisters,
transmitted on 22 September,(4) addedthat disagreements between the
Indo-Chinese andASEAN countries could be settled by
negotiationthrough dialogue based on mutual respect for eachother’s
legitimate interests and on equality andmutual agreement, free from
imposition and out-side interference.
Replying by a memorandum forwarded on 21October by Thailand,(9)
ASEAN observed that theIndo-Chinese proposals appeared to have
beendesigned to further Viet Nam’s objective of bring-ing about a
fait accompli in Kampuchea; it insistedon total withdrawal of all
foreign forces from Kam-puchea and the right of the Kampucheans to
de-termine their own destiny.
Several letters from Viet Nam complained ofUnited States
activities against Viet Nam andagainst peace and stability in
South-East Asia.
A 5 January statement by the spokesman forViet Nam’s Foreign
Ministry, transmitted on 8January,(10) stated that the peace and
security of the
was be ing se r ious ly j eopa rd ized byThailand's reported
authorization to the United
-
Asia 3 4 7
States Seventh Fleet to reuse its U Taphao air basefor a joint
training programme, marking a UnitedStates attempt to re-establish
itself militarily inSouth-East Asia with Thailand’s
collaboration.The same statement, as further reported by theSPK
(Samporamean Kampuchea) news agency on11 January, was transmitted
by Viet Nam the nextday.(11)
A statement of 24 June by the Viet Nam NewsAgency, transmitted a
day later,( 1 3 ) rejected aUnited States allegation that a group
of its des-troyers had been attacked by Vietnamese fishingboats
south of Con Son Island, Viet Nam, on 20June. Two dispatches from
the same source, oneon a press conference held on 13 July by
VietNam’s Vice-Minister of Culture in charge of in-formation,
transmitted on 15 July,(15) and the othera Hanoi dispatch of 24
July, transmitted on 29July,(17) detailed the confessions of an
alleged agentof the United States Central Intelligence
Agency,according to which China and the United States,with
Thailand’s assistance, were organizing reac-tionary forces of Lao,
Kampuchean and Viet-namese exiles to infiltrate their former
countriesfor sabotage. By a letter of 6 August,(l9) Viet
Namcirculated the second part of a dossier on chemi-cal warfare
waged by the United States againstViet Nam and the other
Indo-Chinese countriesfrom 1969 to 1971 and its long-term effects
onpopulation, ecology, soil and climate.
General Assembly act ion. The quest ion ofpeace, stability and
co-operation in South-EastAsia was discussed by the General
Assembly on5 and 8 November.
A number of speakers expressed the view thatthe policy of
intervention and aggression pursuedby China and the United States,
with the aid ofcertain circles in ASEAN, were responsible for
thetension in South-East Asia. To resolve this situa-tion, they
supported the July proposals by the LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic
on behalf of theIndo-Chinese countries, as clarified in
September(see above), in particular the proposal for an
in-ternational conference, which they considered asoffering a
viable prospect for normalization.Among the countries taking this
position, Bulgariasaid the complications and dangers in
South-EastAsia stemmed from the long-term strategy of thosewho
sought to maintain a permanent hotbed oftension in the region, to
hamper the establishmentof good-neighbourly relations and to
interfere inthe internal affairs of various countries in orderto
establish their superiority in that part of theworld.
Events in Kampuchea, Afghanistan maintained,were internal
developments which could not nega-tively affect the situation in
the region and whichpresented a major obstacle to China’s
hegemonicambitions. In the context of continuing threats
from hegemonism and imperial ism, Czecho-slovakia said, the
presence of Vietnamese troopsin Kampuchea had been made imperative
by thereal need to strengthen security there. In Hun-gary’s view,
reducing the region’s multifariousproblems to issues exclusively
related to Kam-puchea was the strategy of forces which would
notallow tension in the region to ease and prospectsfor a
settlement to materialize.
Mongolia stated that foreign forces were acquir-ing military
bases in some countries, maintainingenormous troop concentrations
on frontiers ofStates whose legitimate Governments they
weresubverting, pulling others into their orbit andtransforming
their territories into bridgeheads forarmed action against
neighbouring States. Thoseforces, the USSR added, were trying to
presentthe root cause of tension in the region as thepresence of
Vietnamese troops in Kampucheawhen in reality it was their attempts
to hinder theirreversible process of Kampuchea’s national re-birth
and to pit the Indo-Chinese countries againstthe A S E A N States .
The USSR added that theUnited States was seeking to strengthen its
stra-tegic position in the region-a point also made bythe
Byelorussian SSR, Poland and the UkrainianSSR-and said Australia
was pandering to theUnited States by following its line of
aggressionand hostility against the Indo-Chinese peoples.Viet Nam
stated that, without interference byChina and the United States,
the Indo-Chinesecountries and ASEAN, inspired by good will,
wereperfectly capable of settling their problems them-selves; those
who called for the total withdrawalof Viet Nam’s troops from
Kampuchea were si-lent about the serious threat from 400,000
Chinesetroops massed on the China-Viet Nam border.
Viet Nam said it was encouraging that all dele-gations, except
China, had clearly spoken in favourof the need to pursue dialogue
and negotiationsfor a solution acceptable to the parties; the
choicewas either to accept the unilateral solution a num-ber of
countries would impose or to seek a solu-tion in the spirit of the
February 1981 declarationby the Conference of Ministers for Foreign
Affairsof the Non-Aligned Countries, which urged dia-logue among
all States of the region.(24) The LaoPeople’s Democratic Republic
emphasized that theIndo-Chinese countries, in proposing a
conferenceon South-East Asia, had taken into account notonly the
principles and objectives of the Movementof Non-Aligned Countries
but also the practice fol-lowed by regional intergovernmental
bodies, whichhad always insisted that regional problems be set-tled
primarily by the States of the region. Bulgaria,Cuba and the German
Democrat ic Republ ic ,among those supporting the conference,
consi-dered it a viable prospect for normalizing the sit-uation in
the region.
-
348 Political and security questions
Afghanistan supported the proposal and observedthat, by
assigning a major role to the United Na-tions in the conference,
the Indo-Chinese countrieshad accepted an important condition put
forwardby ASEAN. The Byelorussian SSR made a similarobservation
and, with Hungary and Mongolia, addedthat the United Nations was
prevented from play-ing a fully positive role towards normalization
ofthe region so long as Democratic Kampuchea con-tinued to usurp
the seat that rightfully belongedto the People’s Republic of
Kampuchea.
Hungary at tached great importance to theproposals made by Viet
Nam for normalizing itsrelat ions with China and considered equal
lynoteworthy Viet Nam’s recent gestures in thedirection of the
United States, since improved re-lations between them could prove a
keystone ofpeace and stability in South-East Asia. The
Bye-lorussian SSR, Poland, the Ukrainian SSR andthe USSR urged the
United Nations to supportand encourage dialogue. Viet Nam said it
was en-couraging to note that throughout the year a cli-mate of
dialogue and detente had begun to emergein relations between the
countries of Indo-Chinaand those of ASEAN.
In the view of Albania, the complicated situa-tion in the region
was a direct consequence of thep o l i c y o f s p o l i a t i o n
, e x p a n s i o n i s m a n dhegemonism of the USSR, China and
the UnitedStates, showing that their rivalry for hegemonyand
spheres of influence was on the increase; thepeoples of the region
must not fall into the trapset by the super-Powers.
The ASEAN States, along with Australia, Chinaand Democratic
Kampuchea, maintained that VietNam’s invasion and continued
occupation of Kam-puchea was the main cause of regional tension.
UntilViet Nam faced up to that fact, Australia said, therecould be
little scope for moving seriously on theprinciples which the Lao
People’s Democratic Repub-lic and Viet Nam maintained should govern
inter-State relations in the region. It remained the ASEANview,
Thailand said, as well as that of the greatmajority of United
Nations Members which hadvoted for the Assembly resolution of 28
Octoberon the Kampuchea situation,(20) that a comprehen-sive
political settlement of the Kampuchea problemmust first be found
within the framework of As-sembly resolutions in order to pave the
way forrenewed efforts to establish a zone of peace, free-dom and
neutrality in the region. A similar viewwas expressed by the
Philippines.
Democratic Kampuchea observed that for thethird year the
Assembly had to sit through sterileand futile debate on an item on
which no resolu-tion had ever been adopted; that was a
diversion-ary tactic by Viet Nam to distract attention fromits
invasion and occupation of Kampuchea and todisguise its
expansionist plans in South-East Asia.
Japan believed the item should be taken up onlyafter a
comprehensive political settlement of theKampuche