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