A/47/PV.15 General Assembly
The Assembly will now hear an address by the
President of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania.
Mr. Vytautas Landsberqis. President of the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour
to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania, His Excellency Mr. Vytautas Landsbergis, and to invite
him to address the Assembly.
President LANDSBERGIS (spoke in Lithuanian; English text furnished
by the delegation): Allow me to express to you, Mr. President, and to the
free people of Bulgaria my sincere congratulations on behalf of Lithuania on
your election to such an eminent post. It is fitting that you, an active
participant in the creation of a new Europe, should preside over the
deliberations of this Assembly as it seeks to establish the foundations for a
revitalized United Nations. The task that confronts us is a result of the
many significant changes in the world.
Exactly four years ago in Lithuania, in the Cathedral Square of Vilnius,
people were beaten because they sought freedom. They had gathered to
commemorate the day in 1939 when, the Second World War having already begun,
Hitler sold to Stalin the as yet unconquered land of Lithuania with all its
people and all their rights. Almost half a century later, in 1988, no more
rights had been secured. So on that day, 28 September 1988, in Cathedral
Square, some staged hunger strikes for the release of political prisoners and
others sang songs and demanded freedom for their homeland, while still others
attacked with shields and rubber truncheons, beating those that sang.
Such was the struggle for rights and ideas a struggle that needed to be
understood and appreciated. And in the international commentary and portrayal
of this struggle, there also ensued a battle of ideas for right and truth.
Such was the non-violent struggle for liberation waged by Lithuania in the
name of independence and universally acknowledged Christian principles
unifying the ideas of truth and freedom.
A year has passed since that day in September when the Lithuanian flag
was raised at United Nations Headquarters. In that year we watched as the
Soviet Union - that great totalitarian empire stretching from the Baltic to
the Sea of Japan flickered and disappeared, and how that country was
replaced in its seat here at the United Nations by a new democratic Russia
assuming its predecessor's rights and obligations.
We also watched as parallel movements for national independence brought
down a small communist empire in the south of Central Europe on the Adriatic
coast. And we watched as both of these processes were accompanied by the
rather ambivalent sentiments and positions of the Western States that is, of
their leaders. The world order is moving in a positive direction we will
see less evil yet these changes seem to bring about a nostalgia for the old
order to which so many had grown accustomed.
Lithuania's position was not one of ambivalence. We supported
politically Armenia, Georgia and Moldova and the Muslim nations of the former
Soviet Union, proposing peaceful solutions to their problems. We were the
first to recognize the independence of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, and this
year we recognized the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia.
Although this may not have been much, these policies nevertheless reflected a
position arising from our own experience and the principles we cherish.
(President Landsbergis)
And what is that experience?
The campaign against us was waged by magical means that perhaps can be
best described as communist voodoo politics, in which nothing is called by its
proper name. So we learned how to identify these phantoms and shadows and we
found that such ghosts, when called by their proper names, soon begin to fade.
The evil empire continues to fade away, but it has not vanished
altogether. Sometimes quite the opposite appears to be true its spirit is
so lively that it just may rise again among us and above us. For this reason,
when we call for the condemnation and trial of Soviet communism, when we see
and expose attempts to restore the USSR, we are in effect supporting
democratic Russia and international peace. Democratic Russia, which condemned
the 1940 Soviet annexation of Lithuania and recognized our independence,
re-established in 1990, should not refer to the Baltic countries as "newly
emerged" States. Those officials who continue to promulgate this misnomer do
a disservice to the truth and to their country, which is struggling to renew
itself, to rise above the lies of the past. This applies also to some other
labels and intentions.
We do not think, for example, that the Serbian army, operating in
neighbouring countries, could be called a "peace-keeping force", even if the
troops painted their helmets blue. We do not think that such forces,
authorized to act both on their own and on neighbouring territory, should
unilaterally establish their outposts wherever they please, without the
neighbouring country's consent.
We think that States and their armies should be called by their proper
names. "Serbia" and "Montenegro" are fine names, appropriate enough for a
federation title, so let old ghosts fade away. Defending one State's actions
against another under the guise of ethnic protection is dangerous.
specifically if the goal is to politicize what is clearly a legal matter. It
is even more dangerous to hide in this way the true nature of military
actions. When an assault is called by a more neutral term, such as
"conflict", this third-party position benefits the aggressor and that position
becomes neither objective nor neutral.
(President Landsberqis)
Lithuania has experienced this and I think that Lithuania's experience of
defending itself with the truth, and by avoiding political entrapments, can be
a useful example to others, including the Organization.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have a big neighbour where a variety of
political forces are vying for power in sectors of society and government.
Some elements are democratic, some less so, and others not at all. Those
media circles in neighbouring Russia that inherited the characteristic
mind-set of the old empire are at present promoting aggressive anti-Baltic
sentiments, a substitute "cold-war" policy which surfaces in the statements of
its officials time and time again.
Allow me to share some concepts and statements, emanating from the
conservative elements of the Russian Parliament and the Foreign Ministry,
which alarm Russia's smaller neighbours. Foreign countries are there divided
into two categories: the inner sphere and the outer sphere.
Similarly, Lithuanian composer Bronius Kutavicius's musical score for
four of the instruments used have the designations of near violin, distant
violin, near piano and distant piano. The stage violin is the one that the
listener can reach from the front row and thus may feel the inclination to
grab as his "vital interest". Universal musical harmony is of less concern to
him. The 30 June 1992 document of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the
Russian Parliament recommends this position. The concept is not new; it has
been around since the time of Ivan the Terrible. It was used by other States
less successfully.
The "inner sphere" is designated as an extraordinary or special-interest
zone. This concept having been defined - and, if necessary a
Molotov-Ribbentrop-type pact may be signed military force may be used and
the former inner sphere is no longer a foreign land. Then the outer sphere
becomes the inner sphere and subsequently a special-interest zone.
Territorial expansion continues, and will continue, if resources permit, until
no foreign countries at all remain.
For those who believe this process of territorial expansionism to be
natural the opposite process is quite painful. For this reason attempts are
made to block it, to stop the withdrawal of troops from the neighbour's
territory; for this reason one must find someone to protect with this army as
a pretext not to remove troops. Those politicians like President Yeltsin who
think democratically and have a broader perspective, who want to withdraw the
army and to normalize relations, are called traitors who do not defend the
State's imperial interests. "Your interests are our interests", and "Your
rights are our rights", is said to fellow nationals abroad, especially to
those who think that their prime interest and right is the restoration of the
order and traditions of the former empire.
I take a different view. For example, in my opinion the best interest
and natural right of the Russian community in Estonia is to learn a little of
the Estonian language and after a few months to acguire Estonian citizenship,
according to the law about which there is so much outcry at present. We hear
no protest from Lithuanians living in Estonia, and Lithuania does not plan any
sanctions against that country. We will not suspend any of our treaties with
Estonia and we will not ask the United Nations to impose any sanctions against
it. I have not heard that similar actions have been demanded by Israel or
Ukraine, although the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation in his
statement to the Assembly at this session was also concerned about other
nationalities residing in Estonia.
(President Landsberqis)
We disagree with the opinion expressed in the Russian periodical
Diplomatic Bulletin that a referendum or other type of vote in one State may
be regarded as an act of force against another State, with a presumed right of
that State to resort to
"reactive measures, and not necessarily ones of an equivalent character".
Such diplomacy is based on the hope that:
"Russia will not be condemned, at least by those nations which at that
moment will be directing their planes towards a Libya or an Iraq".
These are words uttered in August 1992, but they sound as if they were uttered
in January 1991.
When we hear from this very rostrum that it is necessary to use force to
protect human rights we immediately begin asking ourselves who is this
policeman-defender who comes, let us say, from Russia to Moldova or from
Serbia to Bosnia. In Dubrovnik and in Sarajevo he defends his minority rights
in very strange ways. It reminds me of an old and macabre dissident joke from
the days of Stalin. The first man asks "Will there be a third world war?"
The second answers "No, there will not, but there will be such a battle for
peace that not one stone will be left on another."
For this reason we would not want to see Russian peace-keeping forces
transforming themselves into forces that would impose a Russian peace, a "Pax
Ruthenia", in the inner sphere of foreign countries. We wish that somebody
would remember the human rights of the hundreds of thousands of people
deported from the Baltic countries, including the right to compensation, and
that someone, possibly the United Nations, would help to raise from the bottom
of the Baltic Sea the poisons of the Second World War that were dropped off
our shores by the Soviet army. The right of anyone to live on the shores of
the Baltic Sea is now in danger.
We would like to see the world community help all nations rising from the
Red plague and to see the family of nations assist Russia economically and
also in its search for democracy and justice. It should be a matter of
universal concern that the dead hand of communism should not drag down into
its marble mausoleum the entire nation and possibly all mankind. We should
resist this danger by upholding other values, not those from the realm of
ghosts of the past.
Lithuania and the other Baltic States again present a challenge to
Russia, and the world will see how it responds. Maybe the economic pressure
and measures of an undeclared blockade directed against us are not direct
punishment for destruction of the empire or help to our leftist opposition in
Lithuania. Maybe these are just the difficulties of Russia itself, although
probably not exclusively of an economic nature. We also have these
difficulties and thus we know them well.
Recently signed bilateral agreements on the withdrawal of the Russian
armed forces from Lithuania give us hope. These agreements were welcomed by
the democratic world and a multitude of people of good will. I do not doubt
that the United Nations will urge that such agreements should also be signed
between Latvia and Russia as well as between Russia and Estonia. Moreover,
the process of withdrawal of the armed forces should be carefully monitored in
order that the four States may as soon as possible achieve normalization of
their relations under conditions of security, prosperity and friendship
between all the nations of the region.
(President Landsberqis)
I thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to express that hope.
In conclusion, I should like to say a few words about United Nations
structural reforms. These reforms are also tied to our experience.
When a large State pressures and accuses a small neighbour, the latter
should find support here, at the United Nations, which is duty-bound to defend
small States. Changes in representation could be made, such as establishing a
Group of Small European States at the United Nations with its specific vision
of global problems and shared concern for preserving national identity.
Perhaps that "Little Europe" could initiate a solidarity movement in behalf of
small States around the globe.
The Security Council could be expanded to include three new permanent
members - Japan, Germany and India and the exercise of the right to veto
from that day forward could require not one but at least two permanent
members' invoking that right at the same time.
I respectfully request that these ideas be included in the ongoing debate
of ideas being considered at the United Nations.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank
the President of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania for the
statement he has just made.
Mr. Vytautas Landsberqis. President of the Supreme Council of the
Republic of Lithuania, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall.
9. GENERAL DEBATE Mr. EVANS (Australia): I congratulate you, Mr Ganev, on your election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-seventh session. You take this important position at a very challenging time for the United Nations and its Member States, not least for your own country, which is so admirably consolidating the gains of the democratization process. The Australian delegation looks forward to working closely with you as the session progresses. I also extend, at the outset, Australia's very warm welcome to the 13 States for which this session will be their first as Members of the United Nations: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, San Marino, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Croatia, Slovenia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. We have, I believe, in our own highly multicultural Australian population immigrants from every one of those States, and we already feel, as a result, that we know them well. In the past year we have seen the total collapse of the bipolar global structure which had underpinned international relations since 1945. The risks of a global nuclear holocaust have receded almost to the vanishing point. So too have the sterile ideologies of the past which for so long set obstacles in the way of the development of a new international system of cooperation under the authority of the United Nations and its agencies. But while the opportunities for cooperation have never been greater, the challenges to the international community posed by regional conflicts, humanitarian crises and unresolved transnational problems have also never been greater. What is expected of the United Nations system is now immense, but there is still a very big question mark over the capacity of our system to deliver. In the past twelve months the international community has had some conspicuous success in meeting some of these challenges. We have seen, for example, the signing of the Paris Agreements on Cambodia last October, the recently completed negotiation of a chemical-weapons Convention text, the (Mr. Evans. Australia) United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) summit in Rio in June, movement forward in the Middle East peace process, and hopes for the resolution of the long-standing problems in Afghanistan, Cyprus and Western Sahara. But a number of problems have to date been beyond the capacity of the United Nations, or international cooperative efforts more generally, to resolve in a timely and wholly effective way. The most significant and tragic of these have been the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia. Equally, the world has failed so far in efforts to strengthen and expand the liberal international trading system through the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), a failure of just as much concern to the developing nations as to the developed. This session of the General Assembly gives us the opportunity of systematically reviewing where we have got to and how far we still need to go on the range of acute problems - political, economic and humanitarian - now confronting us around the globe. We are much assisted in this respect by the Secretary-General's report entitled "An Agenda for Peace", on some key aspects of which I want to focus in this statement. The report, although concentrating specifically on the role of the United Nations in peacemaking, peace-keeping and related areas, was of course written very much against the background of the total challenge facing the United Nations international system, and in particular the critical importance of finding lasting solutions to the age-old problems of basic human survival and, in the words of the Charter, "better standards of life in larger freedom". If we have learned anything from the passage of years about the sources of conflict and war, and what is necessary to achieve peace and security, it is that these problems have to be addressed at many different levels. Threats to security arise not only from military ambition and the race to acquire armaments, but also from economic and social deprivation, from ignorance of countries about each other, from a failure to address problems that by their nature cross international boundaries, and from a failure by national leaders to trust the sense and judgment of their own people. An effective system of international cooperation to meet threats to peace and security itself has to operate at all these levels simultaneously. In the first place, when unbridled aggression occurs across national frontiers, the international community has to have a credible collective capacity to resist that aggression. Chapter VII of the Charter provides for such a peace-enforcement function. There is now in the post-cold-war era a manifest willingness in the international community to utilise interventionist Chapter VII functions, so long rendered impotent by the veto in the Security Council, in cases of overt aggression and other obvious cross-border threats to international peace and security. Of course not every case of aggression, or the deliberate infliction of suffering, occurs across State borders or in such a way as to clearly and unambiguously constitute a threat to international peace and security. And there will be a number of such situations in which the intervention of the international community could make a difference, so much so that there are large moral and political pressures upon us all to take action. It seems likely, unhappily, that the United Nations will increasingly be confronted with situations in which the principle of non-intervention in internal affairs will be matched by a compelling sense of international conscience. It may be (Mr. Evans. Australia) that our Charter will never be capable of formal amendment so as to precisely define those circumstances in which such intervention is legitimate and those in which it is not. But recent experience has shown that there is an emerging willingness - which my country has certainly shared to accommodate collective intervention in extreme, conscience-shocking cases, and it may well be that a body of customary precedent will emerge over time and will constitute its own source of authority for such intervention in the future. The second level of necessary United Nations involvement in peace and security matters is peace-keeping: that activity which falls short of actual enforcement, but involves assistance on the ground in monitoring, supervising, verifying and generally securing the implementation of agreements once made. As the various peace-keeping operations now in place or planned for Cambodia, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere amply make clear, an increasingly wide variety of activities, involving both military and civilian personnel, are being subsumed under this general umbrella: none of them are very clearly described in the letter of the United Nations Charter, but all of them are very clearly within its spirit. Australia strongly endorses the call by President Bush on 21 September to strengthen United Nations peace-keeping and related operations, and welcomes in particular the stated intention of the United States to look at ways of ensuring adequate financial support for these activities as well as for United Nations humanitarian activities. Financing and administration of United Nations peace-keeping operations are obviously key areas of its activity where decisions are necessary at this year's General Assembly. It is a source of regret that we, the nations of the world, have still not given the Secretary-General the financial resources or flexibility needed to undertake United Nations peace-keeping operations expeditiously. For its part, Australia would support the Secretary-General's call in "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277) for the establishment at this session of a peace-keeping reserve fund, and for virtually automatic approval of one third of the anticipated budget for a peace-keeping operation to enable it to be deployed speedily and efficiently. We would also recommend that the Secretary-General consider further structural changes in the Secretariat as a (Mr. Evans. Australia) means of improving the administration of peace-keeping operations, including the relocation of the Field Operations Division into the Department of Peace-keeping Operations. The third level of United Nations involvement in peace and security, and the most basic and important of all, is the prevention of conflict. We in the international community should be working hardest through the United Nations to create conditions that minimize insecurity and threats to peace, and which make it possible for specific high-risk situations to be addressed before they get to the point of requiring either peace-keeping or, worse still, coercive peace-enforcement responses. The effective prevention of conflict and risk minimization involve three quite distinct kinds of activity. In the first place, it involves addressing a variety of non-military threats to security; secondly, addressing the military risk to security posed by uncontrolled arms build-ups; and thirdly, putting in place the most effective possible preventive diplomacy and peacemaking arrangements to deal at an early stage with specific high-risk situations. I want to concentrate my remarks on what we should be doing, in this General Assembly and beyond, in each of these areas in turn. Among the gravest of all life-threatening non-military risks are those posed by humanitarian disasters, especially famine. The recurring tragedy of mass starvation in Africa often made worse by accompanying military conflict, but not wholly explained by that conflict underlines the need for the United Nations system as a whole, and the Security Council in particular, to strengthen its capacity to meet the problems of potential famine. Australia proposes the establishment of a group of senior officials from developed and developing countries and relevant United Nations agencies, (Mr. Evans. Australia) supported by a strengthened Department of Humanitarian Affairs and by a comprehensive database, which would convene regularly to conduct high-level reviews of the global famine situation and identify emerging crisis situations. Such a group would be responsible for turning pledges into timely, life-saving deliveries of food to people in need, and would seek to ensure that donor contributions were complementary, properly coordinated and well-targeted. That high-level review group would report regularly, with appropriate recommendations, to the Security Council. Famine is only the most extreme example of a much more widespread global problem. The Secretary-General, in his address to the summit of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, identified our "ultimate enemy" as poverty. He argued for the indivisibility of peace and prosperity, of political and economic security, of democracy and development, and environmental protection and sustainable development, making the point that unless we meet the threat posed by poverty, it will undermine all the advances we make elsewhere. We need to have this firmly in mind as we act for the rest of this decade and beyond to meet non-military threats to peace and security. Two issues in particular will have a crucial influence on our ability to prevail over these threats. One is the retreat to protectionism, which could well result from a failure to reach agreement in the Uruguay Round, which will do untold damage to many economies around the world, particularly those of the poorest nations, which would effectively be excluded from the benefits of an expansion in world trade. We cannot let pass the opportunity, provided by this round of negotiations, to further liberalize world trade and establish equitable disciplines for the new components of world trade. The recent summit of the Non-Aligned Movement illustrated beyond a doubt that this is a view shared equally by developed and developing countries. (Mr. Evans. Australia) The other important need in this context is for prompt and effective follow-up to the outcomes of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, and in particular the creation of an effective Commission on Sustainable Development. We cannot waste now the opportunity offered to us at Rio to make a serious attack on the elimination of global poverty, based on the principles of sustainable development. Ignoring these will produce, at best, only short-term solutions which will have little impact on our ability to secure the future of this planet. This places a particular onus on us at this session. Our decisions and actions will have a crucial bearing on how the concerns identified at Rio are taken forward. Natural disasters, acute poverty, famine and environmental degradation are all, along with war itself, major contributors to another great humanitarian problem and by extension security problem with which the international system is barely coping: the problem of unregulated population flows. Much important relief and rehabilitation work continues to be done for refugees and displaced persons by the relevant agencies, in particular the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and some useful attention has been recently given to the problem by the General Assembly. But crises continue to escalate, and there are still problems evident in the coordination of responses between operating and supervising bodies. Those problems have to be addressed as a matter of urgency, and one obvious way to do so is, again, to strengthen the capacity of the new Department of Humanitarian Affairs. There is at least one other non-military threat to peace and security that Australia hopes will get increased attention from this General Assembly, and that is the failure of Governments to observe the fundamental standards of human rights as set out in the Universal Declaration and the more detailed Covenants, to which so many of us have subscribed. The Secretary-General in his report "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277) very properly emphasizes in this context the question of the rights of minorities. It is understandable that, freed from the iron restraints of totalitarian regimes, some ethnic and linguistic groups have sought and no doubt will continue to seek - to establish their own political entities. As has been all too graphically demonstrated in the States of former Yugoslavia, Iraq and elsewhere, there is no easy answer to these aspirations, particularly when self-determination would in such cases be synonymous with fragmentation and itself be a source of threat to international peace and security. War, particularly civil war, also engenders many of the greatest abuses of human rights. The bulk of such aspirations to self-determination might, in fact, be met by stricter observance of human rights and guarantees of the rights of all minorities ethnic, religious, linguistic or social within democratic frameworks. The General Assembly will have before it at this session a draft declaration on the rights of minorities, endorsed earlier this year by the Commission on Human Rights. And the launch, later this session, of the International Year of the World's Indigenous People to which Australia is very strongly committed will be a further indication of our concern in this regard. (Mr. Evans. Australia) Breaches of universal human rights standards remain, unhappily, all too common. In a country such as Burma or Myanmar - the security of the State is based on a denial of fundamental human rights and the application of democratic processes. In South Africa, the promise of a peaceful, negotiated transition to majority rule continues to be put at risk by recurring violence of appalling intensity, itself an all too obvious legacy of the apartheid system. These and too many other examples that could be mentioned show the dimensions of the problem still ahead of us. They confirm the importance of next year's World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, particularly for those Governments needing further encouragement to adopt human rights policies - founded, I emphasize, not on so-called Western values, but on internationally accepted, universal standards of practice. Discussion at this session should play an important role in developing a consensus approach to the Conference. At the very least, I hope it will resolve the outstanding question of the agenda, which was left undecided at the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva. The General Assembly at this session might also usefully consider some other steps to consolidate respect for human rights. There is, for instance, a growing call by the international community for a mechanism to try individuals for breaches of international humanitarian law and other international crimes. Australia supports consideration being given to an international criminal jurisdiction to deal with such offences, and considers that the International Law Commission should continue its important work on this topic, specifically by drafting a statute for an international criminal court. The end of the cold war notwithstanding, a major preventive effort by the international community is still necessary in relation to the military threat to security posed by continuing arms build-ups. The climate for such an effort is certainly now encouraging. International endeavours in this field are finally producing results. After over 20 years, agreement has finally been reached on a chemical weapons Convention text. It is a historic achievement, and one for which Australia has worked particularly hard. Unanimous endorsement of this Convention, with a recommendation for its universal signature and ratification, would be one of the major outcomes of this forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. We should also build on the success we have had in concluding the chemical-weapons Convention to reinvigorate our efforts to reach agreement on other elements of the multilateral disarmament agenda. The benefits to mankind of the end of the cold war will be quickly lost unless progress, which is being made in bilateral arms control and disarmament negotiations between the United States and the former Soviet Union, is carried into the multilateral arms control process. We must redouble our efforts to achieve a world free from nuclear weapons, and the threat of nuclear war. We must work harder to obtain universal membership of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and ensure its indefinite extension unamended in 1995. We should also continue the progress that has been made since the Gulf War to strengthen the nuclear safeguards system of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and tighten export controls on nuclear and nuclear-related dual-use items. We should build on the moratorium on nuclear testing advanced by Russia and France. And I urge Member States to support once again the draft resolution (Mr. Evans. Australia) that Australia will co-sponsor at this session on the comprehensive test-ban treaty. Increased transparency in military activities should continue to be a key objective for all Members of the General Assembly. I regard the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms Transfers, established by the forty-sixth session of the General Assembly, as an important step in this process. Australia welcomes the Secretary-General's report on the operation of the Register and supports its adoption. At the recent summit of non-aligned countries in Jakarta, leaders expressed their deep concern over the negative impact of global military expenditure, and their support for the attainment of security at lower levels of armaments. We must all work to make good these pledges, thereby releasing sorely needed funds to help free the peoples of the world from want, as well as from the fear of war and destruction. Pursuing an effective arms control agenda and addressing a variety of non-military threats to security are all important ways of creating a general environment in which risks to security are minimized. So too are the peace-building strategies described in the Secretary-General's report, many of which are as much applicable to pre-conflict as to post-conflict situations. But the tools with the cutting edges in specific situations of conflict prevention and avoidance of conflict escalation are preventive diplomancy and peace-making. In "An Agenda for Peace", the Secretary-General emphasized the importance of preventive diplomacy as a cost-effective means of avoiding the human and material costs of conflict and the burdens involved in using armed force to resolve conflicts. Indeed, if we examine the worst conflicts over the last 12 months in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Afghanistan we could plausibly argue that, at least in the first two cases, more attention to preventive diplomacy may have avoided the catastrophes that befell those nations and peoples. Australia considers, therefore, that the challenge before the United Nations in the coming year will be to establish more effective processes for converting the promise of preventive diplomacy in all its aspects into reality. Effective preventive diplomacy cannot be ad hoc or peripheral to the other activities of the United Nations. What is reguired is a strengthened capacity within the United Nations to encourage and assist parties to disputes to resolve their differences peacefully. The crucial elements in making preventive diplomacy work are timing, adequate resources and the willingness of Member States to invest the United Nations with the authority to use all the means available for its effective implementation. In practice, the trigger for United Nations action, and the threshold for defining a situation as a threat to international peace and security, has tended to be the outbreak of armed hostilities. The earliest possible attention to potentially significant disputes is crucial if they are to be addressed before the parties have become committed and entrapped by their own rhetoric and actions. This in turn calls for the formation of a permanent unit within the Secretariat with an enhanced capacity to gather, receive and analyse not only basic facts, but'also information about the concerns and interests of the parties to a dispute, in order better to prepare recommendations on possible action. This requires a more systematic approach to information-gathering and analysis, for which a professionally dedicated support unit in the Secretariat is essential. (Mr. Evans. Australia) This will need in turn a sophisticated level of expertise and skill in the form of a nucleus of foreign affairs specialists and policy analysts experienced and knowledgeable in conflict resolution, with the skills that are necessary to encourage parties to a dispute to improve communication, minimize inflammation, define issues and create innovative and imaginative ways of reconciling their conflicting interests. Regular and routine field visits should allow an improved capacity for fact-finding, early-warning information gathering and the opportunity quietly to provide good offices. Staff should have the capacity to develop in-depth knowledge of emerging disputes and to gain the confidence of all parties at an early stage. An evaluation mechanism should be developed to collect, analyse and retain experience from such activities that could prove useful in other similar situations. I therefore applaud the decisions Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has so far taken to create geographically based divisions within the Department of Political Affairs, whose tasks will include the collection of information on various regions and the early identification and analysis of possible conflicts, and I do urge all Members to support the Secretary-General in further efforts to establish a professional and effective mechanism for preventive diplomacy. There is also scope, in encouraging greater use of preventive diplomacy, for more extensive training in the principles underpinning the concept. It is good to hear, in this context, that the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) is planning to launch a new fellowship programme in preventive diplomacy in 1993. I think it will be important for relevant United Nations Secretariat staff and diplomats and officials from Member States to participate in this fellowship programme. I am pleased to announce today that Australia will contribute US$ 50,000 to UNITAR to assist with the costs of the first year of the fellowship. I would urge that other Member States also consider a contribution, and participation by their officials. A significant challenge to an enhanced Secretariat role in preventive diplomacy will, of course, be the deep reluctance of many States to accept any suggestion that a contentious bilateral issue be internationalized. While there will no doubt continue to be caution about too early resort to Articles 35 and 99 which enable Member States and the Secretary-General, respectively, to bring disputes to the Security Council there should not be the same degree of reluctance to have regard to Article 33, which requires parties to a dispute to first seek a solution by negotiation, mediation or the like. (Mr. Evans. Australia) What has been lacking hitherto is any real institutional capacity within the United Nations system to respond to such approaches on other than a wholly ad hoc basis. The building of such a capacity for quiet diplomacy in the way I have been describing would be a major step forward, and help over time to increase the confidence of Members in other more formal United Nations processes. I have today sought to give some substance, not just rhetorical support, to the proposition that the changed conditions of the post-cold-war world call for new responses from the United Nations. The Secretary- General has shown us some new directions in his "Agenda for Peace". What is needed now is action. In nearly all cases, no major new international machinery is called for or necessary, because the machinery is already there in the Charter rusty, in some cases, but still serviceable. What is needed, however, in virtually every case, is the lubrication of adequate financing and restructuring within the United Nations system to meet the increasing demands being made on it. One of the really fundamental tasks we need to move forward at this session is continuation of the process, accordingly, of United Nations reform. There is no single, or simple, enemy to peace in the contemporary world. The appalling situation in Somalia, and the looming crises in Mozambique and the Sudan, are demonstrations if any are still needed - that problems do not come in neatly defined packages. The Somalian situation involves, simultaneously, humanitarian assistance, peace-keeping and political negotiation, with no one of these elements being capable of delivery in isolation. The United Nations is now organizing itself in Somalia to deliver these elements in an integrated way, although it has been a difficult and Protracted process to get to this point. The task for the United Nations in the future is to learn from this experience and to devote the necessary resources to achieving the kind of cooperation between humanitarian and political strategies that is going to be increasingly necessary in the future if durable solutions are to be found to many real world problems. More and more attention is going to focus, as indeed it has already focused in this general debate, on the role and representativeness of the Security Council itself. As President Soeharto said last week, speaking in this respect on behalf of the whole non-aligned Movement, the post-cold war world is not the world as it was after the Second World War. Our guiding light should by all means continue to be the present terms of the Charter, but it should be within our collective capacity to work out the changes in the composition and methods of decision of the Security Council that will ensure that it can both fulfil its duty and command overwhelming consensus for its decisions in the years ahead. In many respects the task ahead of us, and ahead of the United Naions, is daunting. It is clear that we are part of an evolutionary process, with both the world and the United Nations adjusting to new demands. We must draw strength from the success achieved in the last 12 months, and from the progress we have made in improving global co-operation. But our success has not been uniform: we were not able to respond adequately to some key challenges. We must not ever lose sight of the goal ahead of us: a more stable and secure world, devoid of abject poverty, with all peoples able to enjoy basic rights and freedoms. And we must never avoid the responsibility we all have to achieve those goals. ADDRESS BY MR. ALEKSANDER MEKSI, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
The Assembly will now hear an address by the
Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania.
Mr. Aleksander Meksi. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the
Republic of Albania, was escorted to the rostrum.
I have great pleasure in welcoming the Chairman of
the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania, Mr. Aleksander Meksi, and
inviting him to address the Assembly.
Mr. Meksi (Albania) (interpretation from French): It is an honour
and a particular pleasure for me, on behalf of the Albanian delegation and the
Albanian people, to extend my heartfelt congratulations to you, Sir, upon your
election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-seventh session.
It is a tribute to your personal accomplishments, an honour to your country,
and an expression of the qualitatively new role that countries in transition
are playing in the international arena. I believe that the current session,
under your presidency, will successfully attain its goals, which are the goals
of the international community at large. I should like to assure you of the
support of the Albanian delegation in the Assembly's work during this session.
I take this opportunity to convey my thanks and express my highest
consideration to your predecessor, Mr. Samir S. Shihabi, for the admirable way
in which he presided over the General Assembly at its forty-sixth session.
Allow me also to extend my greetings to Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, for his commendable role at the head
of the world Organization, for his contribution to the strengthening of the
spirit of cooperation, and especially for his personal contribution to solving
various problems in different hotbeds of tension in the world of today.
My special greetings go also to the 20 newly admitted Members of the
Organization, which are going to play their part in upholding the common
values of the new society that is taking shape. Their accession to membership
of this world body has enriched the universal character of the United
Nations. The Republic of Albania has strongly supported their membership,
believing that it will further promote the peace process and strengthen the
democratic way of development.
Since the last session of the General Assembly we have witnessed a
number of significant events which followed the cold war and which will have
an effect on the future of mankind. The fundamental values of the
post-cold-war era are being established. Confrontation between the blocs,
and the attendant political tension, has been supplanted by the universal
values of democracy and equality in international relations, which are
interdependent in terms of the economic and social development and security of
every country. This has been confirmed. Today, the aspirations of the
peoples towards self-determination and their striving to establish their
national identity, which had been marred under communism, as well as their
thirst for democracy and equality, have become the driving forces of the
situations we are faced with today. Nationalism is not a product of
democracy. Nationalism is the affirmation of national identity which, only
afterwards, will work towards integration.
The blows dealt by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe to the
paralytic system of some years ago are today translating euphoria into onerous
efforts to overcome a very difficult period of trial and transition. The year
that has passed has strengthened the tendency towards political union and has
witnessed the victory of the basic principles of respect for human rights,
democracy, the rule of law and the move towards the market economy system.
(Mr. Meksi. Albania)
The contribution of the United Nations and in particular of the Security
Council to these ends since the last session of the General Assembly has been
remarkable. In seeking to add a human dimension to the delicate balances to
be struck, the United Nations is shouldering historic responsibilities. The
political vector of its activities is aimed precisely at promoting those
principles and thus at creating a common political psychology of thought and
action. Unity in diversity that is, the realization of one's national
interests in the overall equation of world development is undoubtedly the
foundation and the raison d'etre of the Organization; it is the very
embodiment of the predominance of peaceful reasoning over passionate action
and the preservation of the very delicate balance between the two.
The resolutions of the Security Council, especially the one imposing
sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro; the Middle East peace talks that are
increasing the chances of finding a solution; the talks on resolving the
conflict between the communities in Cyprus, as well as other activities, all
reaffirm the universality of the Organization and the overall impact of its
unique and inalienable role, which is the universal yardstick in measuring
compliance with implementation of the principles of international law and
tacit norms of world civilization.
In this context, Albania welcomes the recent contribution of the
Secretary-General in the form of his report entitled "An Agenda for Peace" as
a comprehensive approach to the challenges of the world of today and of the
Organization.
This session of the General Assembly gives Albania the opportunity to
proclaim from this rostrum the remarkable victory scored by the democratic
anti-communist forces in my country in the general parliamentary elections of
22 May 1992 and in the local elections of 26 July. Those events finally
determined the course upon which Albania has embarked and which it is
persistently pursuing. Those events laid the foundations, in Albania, of the
rule of law which is becoming institutionalized. They marked the beginning of
our first epoch of non-communist, democratic governments, the first of which
is implementing a very profound reform as the only course towards the overall
transformation and development of the political, economic, social and other
fields, at the level of the individual and of society as a whole.
My Government's main goal is to establish the legal framework needed to
facilitate that reform in order to harmonize the integration of the Albanian
economy with the world economy, in order to eradicate the disastrous
consequences of isolation and to overcome the economic collapse which the
Government inherited from many years of totalitarianism.
That, however, is not all the Government inherited. It also inherited
active human resources inclined to change, human beings full of potential who
are endeavouring to follow the models of the new system, people who, for no
fault of their own, lack experience. These are the people who are working to
shape the new Albanian society, and to do so they have turned to international
political life to find remedies against impatience. In this context, the
involvement of various United Nations agencies such as the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United
Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), already active in the country, is a valuable contribution
to democracy in Albania. I would single out in particular the remarkable
contribution of the IMF in working out the programme of economic reform that
is being implemented.
Albania is faced with a very challenging economic crisis resulting from
the total failure of the centralized economy which it inherited and from the
inevitable difficulties of transition itself. At present, Albania is living
on the emergency humanitarian aid offered by the European Community and the
Italian Government on the one hand, and on the modest contribution of the
growing private sector on the other. The Albanian economy, in this initial
phase of recovery, badly needs financial support, substantial investments and
raw materials to invigorate industry and employ the large work force, one of
the youngest in Europe. Everything cannot of course be done overnight; hence
the difficulties of transition. Understanding, support and assistance on the
part of the international community are the sole guarantees of improvement of
the situation in Albania and of the success of the reform.
In that process, Albania is trying to develop its economy against a
background of environmental safety. We are fully aware of the possible
consequences of neglect, and equally aware of what we have inherited as a
result of underdevelopment in this regard. We look forward to benefiting from
the relevant experience which the United Nations has to offer. In this
context, we welcome the outcome of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development held earlier this year in Rio.
(Mr. Meksi. Albania)
Under those conditions, Albanian foreign policy has also acquired a new
dimension and orientation. Concrete proof of its new orientation is the
establishment of diplomatic relations with a number of countries such as
Estonia, Lithuania, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Croatia, the United Arab Emirates,
Paraguay and Qatar; the active participation of Albanian delegations in
various activities such as the Black Sea initiative and the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). In the course of this year, the
Republic of Albania has joined the International Fund for Agricultural
Development and has adhered to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol on
the status of refugees.
The situation in my country is unfolding against a very tense and
perilous background in the Balkans. In some parts of the region,
unfortunately, the practices being carried out go against the general
political orientation and acceptable norms of behaviour of a civilized
society. All-out war has been going on in the former Yugoslavia for more than
a year now. The persistent efforts of the international community have been
stubbornly flouted by malicious proponents of Serbian nationalism in its
unprecedented affront to civilization and the norms of common democratic
life. For more than a year now, a number of international organizations have
been directly seized of that crisis, which is ravaging more human lives by the
day. The United Nations, the CSCE and the European Community, among others,
have been forced to consider stern measures to counter that uncivilized
challenge. The war, however, is still going on.
Albania, a neighbouring country in that region, is suffering the
consequences of regional insecurity. Moreover, my country, situated as it is
beside that region, is living under the constant threat and real danger of a
(Mr. Meksi. Albania)
spill-over of the conflict into Kosovo. That threat is even greater if we
take into account the continuing repression of the third group of peoples of
the former Yugoslavia, the anti-constitutional amendments there, the laws
governing special circumstances, and the complete and total paralysis of
institutional life. The danger becomes alarming if we take into account the
cruel refusal by the Belgrade authorities to allow the exercise of
institutional power by the Albanians of Kosovo, who are peacefully and
democratically organized, in conformity with all the norms of international
law.
Kosovo is one of the most delicate issues of the Yugoslav crisis. The
conflict there is a highly political one, a conflict deriving from the
impossibility of coexistence with the occupier. It is a conflict between the
peaceful exercise of the principle of self-determination and blatant
hegemonistic refusal to allow that exercise. Consequently, the situation
remains explosive. That is also the conclusion of a number of missions of the
European Community and the CSCE which have visited Kosovo. The international
community, fully aware and desirous of avoiding violence, is seized of the
situation.
The Albanian delegation, however, cannot but notice that preventive
diplomacy has not as yet yielded the desired results. The legitimate leaders
of Kosovo, on their part, although determined to pursue the road of
unconditional political dialogue to which the CSCE Helsinki summit gave its
blessing, and which was refused by the authorities in Belgrade, are finding it
more and more difficult to keep the agitation of their people under control.
The sacred principles of the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Final
Act and other fundamental documents of world political life apply equally to
the Albanian people of Kosovo. Principles cannot be selectively applicable.
The Albanian side has, for a long time now, voiced its concern and called on
the international community to concert its efforts towards finding a just and
lasting solution that would be acceptable to the parties involved.
The Yugoslav crisis is a complex one. As such, it has been considered by
a number of international bodies. The London Conference, the most recent
initiative, has set itself the task of finding an overall solution. Albania
appreciates and endorses the praiseworthy contribution rendered by the United
Nations in trying to solve the crisis over the last year, especially now, as
Co-Chairman of that Conference, which we believe will be able to ensure the
political commitment of all parties.
Albania is participating in that Conference in order to make its
contribution to its proceedings, particularly as regards the question of
Kosovo. And in those endeavours, it will continue to advocate the findinq of
an acceptable solution. In our view, the Yugoslav crisis is the crisis of
peoples who cannot live under Serbian hegemony any longer; it is not a
constitutional crisis or a crisis among republics only. Accordingly, a
solution will entail broader direct participation. It will entail the full
participation of the legitimately mandated representatives of Kosovo when
their future is being discussed. It will entail international mediation.
That is the only way to control the various factions which are seeking to
obstruct the way to peace. The Republic of Albania trusts that the United
Nations, with its valuable contribution, will ensure the triumph of reason
over passions, and will adopt the measures necessary to enforce the
implementation of its decisions and to stand forcefully against the policy of
fait accompli.
(Mr. Meksi. Albania)
The social model to come embodies the loftiest standards of respect for
the human being. The new world order, based on security, understanding and
cooperation, is the guarantee that current structures will be strengthened and
further developed. All of us must contribute to strengthening this edifice.
The United Nations will continue to provide us with a framework in which
peoples can count on good will and mutuality.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank
the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Albania for the
statement he has just made.
Mr. Aleksander Meksi. Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Albania.
was escorted from the rostrum.
Mr. CHAMBAS (Ghana): It is a great pleasure and privilege for me to
congratulate you. Sir, in the name of the Ghana delegation, on the honour that
the Assembly has conferred on you by electing you to preside over the affairs
of its forty-seventh regular session. The cordial relations that exist
between our two countries give us added pleasure in your presidency. We
pledge you our support and cooperation during your tenure as President of the
most representative organ of our United Nations.
Permit me to express our gratitude to your predecessor,
Mr. Samir Shihabi, for the excellence that marked his stewardship. He tackled
his assignment with a steadfast sense of commitment, fully charged with a deep
awareness of the historic role that the General Assembly must continue to play
in the expanding importance of our Organization.
We salute the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for his
energetic leadership. Within the short period since his assumption of office
he has demonstrated his remarkable skills as an administrator and as an
accomplished diplomat. We renew our pledge to support him in his difficult
and delicate task.
My delegation would also like to take this opportunity to extend a warm
welcome to the new Member States, whose presence among us further enhances the
universality of our Organization.*
It was with deep regret and sorrow that we learned of the crash of a
Nigerian military aircraft and of a Pakistan International Airlines aircraft,
with such loss of life. Preliminary information indicates that among the
163 officers reported dead in the crash of the Nigerian military aircraft were
officers from other West African States, including Ghana. We share in the
grief at such a tragic loss. Our condolences go to the bereaved families of
these gallant men, who died in the course of service to our subregion. We
also wish to convey through you. Sir, to the people and Government of Pakistan
our heartfelt condolences on their tragic bereavement.
Once again we, the representatives of the Governments and peoples of the
United Nations, have assembled here to combine our efforts for the promotion
of peace and prosperity for all our peoples. The search for peace is part of
the eternal guest of humanity for a relationship in society that, though
recognizing differences and conflicts of interests, strives for their
resolution without resort to means that could destroy humanity itself. Twice
in recent world history this search has engulfed us in wars. Regrettably, the
period after the Second World War turned the quest into confrontation and
competition marked by unrestrained and costly acquisition of deadly arsenals
* Mr. Leal (Nicaragua), Vice-President, took the Chair.
of war on the untenable assumption that peace could be guaranteed only by the
highest level of preparedness for war.
This untenable policy of deterrence overshadowed the real causes of
tension in society factors that, in the words of the Charter, have twice
"brought untold sorrow to mankind" and are at the root of conflicts that have
sent our Blue Helmets to the continents of Africa, America, Asia and Europe.
The world now stands on the ashes of the cold war, celebrating the end of
that war. Yet the harsh reality of our world, divided as it is between the
rich and the poor, the strong and the weak, has not been obliterated by the
ending of the cold war nor by the emerging new world order, the contours of
which are far from clear. In this uncertain new world order, we are told that
history must resume. Which history? Is it the history at whose hands vast
areas of our globe suffered so much, and from whose predatory effects we have
yet to fully recover as nations? Or is it the history that launched many of
us into freedom and independence?
Juxtaposed with the challenge of the reality of our world is a historic
and unparalleled opportunity to construct peace, not as an alternative to war,
but as the prerequisite for social progress and better standards of life in
larger freedom, anchored in faith, in true human rights, and in human dignity
and equality.
In the grim reality of our world, which has not been wiped away by the
end of the cold war, we would hear the anguished cries of the more than 30,000
children who will die today, largely from preventable intestinal disorders; of
the 2 million children who will die this year from vaccine-preventable
illnesses; and of the 5 million to 6 million people who will die this year
from diseases that the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) says could
almost certainly be prevented by the development of new vaccines. Four
million people will die by the end of this year, their pleas and those of
their nations for help to cure them of diarrhoeal ailments ignored. We would
also see the plight of the 1.3 billion human beings with no access to safe
drinking water and the 2.3 billion people world-wide who have no access to
sanitation services. We would see the 135 million human beings who live in
areas afflicted with desert conditions, particularly in Africa, where almost
nothing grows. We would also see that in that part of the world one out of
every five children dies at birth. For those who survive life expectancy
ranges from 42 to 63. During their short span on Earth many of these
relatively lucky ones will be uprooted from their homes by poverty, drought
and natural disasters, all compounded at times by rivalries that are ethnic in
character but emanate largely from quarrels over scarce resources.
(Mr. Chambas. Ghana)
These are but a few of the graphic and dehumanizing manifestations that
only partly reflect the world reality in which 70 per cent of the world's
income is produced and consumed by 15 per cent of the world's population
located in the industrialized countries. The World Bank forecasts that there
will be no significant upturn in this lopsided relationship until 1995 or well
beyond.
And the international community is not unaware of the factors that have
conspired to frustrate the efforts of developing countries. Falling commodity
prices, rising protectionism, huge agricultural subsidies, various price
support mechanisms and suffocating debt-servicing may now sound like
repetitive platitudes in some ears. But they are the realities that have
undermined the gallant efforts of the developing countries.
In Africa overall economic output continues to revolve around
3 per cent still lagging behind the population growth. The impact on
investment and growth of the structural reform programmes, which many African
countries continue to undertake, remains disappointing. Debt relief through
rescheduling has proved to be of little real benefit to African countries,
which continue to part with $10 billion a year on debt servicing alone an
expenditure that is several times higher than the expenditure on health and
education put together.
Prospects that such a dehydrating financial outflow would be contained by
increased aid infusion have proved illusory. In its annual report.
Development Cooperation 1991, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) has confirmed, though indirectly, the fears of the
international community that the preoccupation with developments in Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union would aggravate the marginalization of
Africa. According to the OECD, not only did aid from the former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe to sub-Saharan Africa almost fall to zero, but also aid
disbursements to the same area from other countries remained stagnant.
In contrast, the OECD estimated that pledges from its members in November
1991 to Eastern Europe amounted to $45 billion as compared with its annual
official commitments to Africa of about $34 billion. Furthermore, at their
meeting in Munich in July this year, the Group of Seven industrialized
countries endorsed a package of financial assistance worth $24 billion to the
Russian Federation alone. It is of little wonder, then, that the World Bank,
in its report entitled African External Finance in the 1990s, foresees for
sub-Saharan Africa a financial shortfall ranging from $1 billion to $7 billion
by 1995. It is against this discouraging backdrop that my Government supports
not only the call for the write-off of debts by official creditors and
commercial banks, as well as by multilateral institutions, but also the
convening of the proposed international conference on the financing of
development, which assumes a new urgency in the face of these facts.
The end of the cold war has not brought peace to the world either. It is
true that the danger of nuclear holocaust has now receded into a very remote
possibility. But the world has not become any safer. In its "Jakarta
Message: A Call for Collective Action and the Democratization of
International Relations", the Non-Aligned Movement has aptly observed
"Simmering disputes, violent conflicts, aggression and foreign
occupation,-interference in the internal affairs of States, policies of
hegemony and domination, ethnic strife, religious intolerance, new forms
of racism and narrowly conceived nationalism are major and dangerous
obstacles to harmonious coexistence among States and peoples and have
even led to the disintegration of States and societies".
The disintegration and descent of Yugoslavia into a region of
instability, war, strife and misery is a source of concern to the people and
the Government of Ghana. Unrestrained nationalism that is projected as an
expression of the much-cherished principle of self-determination and the use
of force for the homogenization of populations are as unacceptable and as
warped as they are incapable of promoting peace in an ever-increasingly
interdependent world. Underlying such policies is the obnoxious element of
racial intolerance, which inexorably leads to racism and racial
discrimination. Ethnic homogeneity cannot, and should not, be a prerequisite
for coexistence in a civic society. Fundamental human rights, human dignity
and eguality can be meaningful for man only in a society that respects the
worth of the human person, irrespective of colour, race, ethnic origin, creed
or sex. We condemn the notion of "ethnic cleansing" in the strongest terms
possible, just as the world has rejected and condemned every thought and
manifestation of racial superiority.
In our search for a new world order that emphasizes cooperation rather
than confrontation as the means to international peace and security, we have
to monitor developments carefully, if only to draw attention to threats to
peace. We are, therefore, disturbed by the increasing dangers to peace caused
by intolerance, xenophobia, racial and ethnic tensions elsewhere in Europe.
The raising of symbols reminiscent of an ignominious chapter of history, the
baiting of religious minorities, including the desecration of their tombs and
sacred places, as well as racial attacks, constitute inherent threats to
peace. While these manifestations may reflect the frustrations of those who
stand on the fringes of their societies marginalized, unemployed and
neglected the manifestations are none the less unacceptable. We therefore
call upon our Organization and individual Member States to redouble efforts in
promoting peaceful coexistence through respect for each other's race, colour,
ethnicity, religion and sex. My Government is ready to play its full part in
this renewed endeavour.
While my Government does recognize the complexity of the Middle East
crisis, we, nevertheless, regret that the hopes raised by the commendable
initiative launched last year by the United States for a lasting peace in the
subregion still remain only hopes. We urge all parties to be persistent and
cooperative in the search for peace. We also urge the United Nations to be
fully involved in the process so as to assure the speedy realization by the
Palestinian people of the full restoration of their rights and the attainment
of their self-determination in accordance with the relevant United Nations
resolutions.
The full restoration of Kuwaiti sovereignty and territorial integrity was
a reaffirmation of basic principles of inter-State relations. The time has
now come to bury the hatchet and enter a new era of genuine peace and
reconciliation. In that regard, it is our cherished hope that all States will
demonstrate respect for the principles of non-aggression, mutual respect and
non-interference in the internal affairs of others. Outstanding issues, such
as the question of Kuwaiti prisoners of war, must now be promptly resolved to
open the way for Islamic brotherhood, fraternal cooperation and solidarity.
Our Organization needs to remind itself that even though the conflict in
Liberia has been stopped from exploding into a major subregional crisis, it is
far from over. Now that the United Nations, particularly the Security
Council, has been able to define a role for itself in the Yugoslav situation,
it is imperative that our Organization assume its responsibilities in Liberia.
The developing countries of the subregion which have so far borne the weight
of the ECOWAS (Economic Commission of West African States) Cease-fire
Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) deserve the recognition, the encouragement, and the
material and financial support of our Organization. The active involvement of
the United Nations is now required to arrest the deteriorating situation,
brought about largely by the intransigence of one faction.
In our view, the involvement of the United Nations would, furthermore,
not only accelerate the peace process, but also facilitate the restoration of
peace and security in the entire subregion, enabling its countries to focus
their full attention on their economic and social development.
The pervasive breakdown of law and order in Somalia which is hampering
the peace process and relief efforts also deserves the attention of our
Organization. The people and Government of Ghana have heaved a sigh of deep
relief that at long last the Security Council has shown appreciation of the
serious threat that the Somalia situation poses to the political and economic
stability of the subregion and conseguently to international peace and
security. The Security Council's handling of the Yugoslav situation should
encourage it to continue, in a more steadfast manner, its efforts in the
search for peace in Somalia. We also call upon the Somali factions currently
engaged in senseless fratricide to desist from placing obstacles in the path
of United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations in their efforts
to provide humanitarian assistance to the millions of starving Somali people.
We all continue to look on as the Government of Sudan seeks a military
solution to an essentially political problem in the southern part of the
country, thereby resulting in gross abuses of human rights, untold suffering
of the people and an unbearable refugee problem for neighbouring States. The
humanitarian dimension of this problem now calls for United Nations action.
Developments during the year have reminded all of us that determined
efforts would be required to complete the total political emancipation of the
continent of Africa. We regret the postponement of the referendum which was
to have been held in Western Sahara under United Nations supervision to
complete its decolonization. We urge the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, in cooperation with the Secretary-General of the Organization of
African Unity (OAU), to settle all questions of voter eligibility, delays in
the exchange of prisoners and the repatriation of bona fide Saharawis in order
to facilitate the task of the United Nations Mission for the Organization of a
Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). The inability of the parties to
adhere to the implementation of agreements reached raises questions as to
their commitment to the peace process. We take this opportunity to appeal to
all parties concerned to cooperate fully with the United Nations and the OAU
to bring this chapter of colonial struggle to a close.
In South Africa, the international community had hoped that the
Convention for a Democratic South Africa would contribute to the introduction
of "profound and irreversible changes". In anticipation of the establishment
of an interim government and firm processes leading to a democratically
elected constituent assembly to draw up a constitution for a united,
non-racial and democratic South Africa, the General Assembly at its
forty-sixth session adopted a series of measures to encourage the racist
(Mr. Chambas. Ghana)
regime in its efforts to dismantle apartheid. Recent developments would seem
to confirm the view that De Klerk's Government is, on the contrary, pursuing a
double agenda in order to perpetuate the obnoxious system of apartheid.
Whilst posturing and stating its willingness to negotiate, it seeks ways and
means to entrench white supremacy. The Boipatong and Ciskei massacres are
disingenuous provocations of the racist regime designed to derail the process
towards the establishment of an interim government which would work out a new
constitutional framework. The white minority regime and its cohorts stand
accused of violence. They instigate and perpetuate violence against unarmed
peaceful protesters in an attempt to hold on to a moribund and unjust system
and to prevent the march towards a united, democratic, non-racial South Africa.
It is becoming clear that the international community relaxed its
pressure on the racist regime far too early and without due regard for the
warnings of the democratic forces of that country. It should, however, be
made clear to the South African Government that the programmed-management
approach to the lifting of sanctions is intended as a reaction to measures it
would take for the total elimination of apartheid. It should be stressed, in
this regard, that even the people-to-people sanctions would be re-imposed if
the Government does not abandon its stalling of the peace process.
History is littered with instances of situations in which desperation has
driven people to actions which have spilled over their narrow confines to pose
challenges and threats to others. Many peoples have waged heroic struggles to
overthrow the forces of tyranny and exploitation. In spite of the belief that
the Second World War was fought to end the threat to international peace and
security that a particularly racist ideology posed, the greater threat to the
common peace remains an international order that seems bent on denying many of
us our fair share of the very fruits of our labour in a truly free and
equitable market-place.
The world cannot be seen to be encouraging a policy founded on the
dangerous notion that it is only through military might that a sovereign State
can gain respect and acceptability in the international economic system
already dominated by a few.
Popular demands for changes in the world order that manifest themselves
as conflicts the world over cannot be contained by the dispatch of United
Nations peace-keeping forces alone. The people and Government of Ghana salute
the Member States of the United Nations, our distinguished Secretary-General
and his dedicated staff, and all who have been associated with the sterling
successes achieved so far. We share in their pride. But we need to be
reminded often of the self-evident truth that the presence of United Nations
peace-keepers does not by itself guarantee enduring peace. The harrowing
events in Bosnia attest to this. The peace-keeping presence does not even
directly contribute to the solution of the underlying problems that give rise
to the conflict or threat to peace. The United Nations peace-keeping role
should be seen for what it is: an invaluable contribution to containing a
conflict and to the search for a lasting political solution. An international
order that can be secured only through military presence or intervention is
clearly inadequate. It is a rather sad reflection on our search for peace
that as of the end of April 1992, close to $3 billion had been assessed on
Member States for peace-keeping purposes alone, while the United Nations
relatively neglected the economic and social underpinnings of most of these
conflicts and those yet to rear their heads.
(Mr. Chambas. Ghana)
The inability of the United Nations since its creation to respond
effectively to our Charter's injunction to combine our efforts to achieve
international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic,
social, cultural or humanitarian character deserves serious and careful review
now that the cold war has been pronounced over.
(Mr. Chambas. Ghana)
The relative inaction by the international community and within the
United Nations itself on the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of
Africa in the 1990s speaks eloquently of our misplaced emphasis in our efforts
regarding the establishment of a new world order. The opportunity presented
by the consensus General Assembly resolution 46/151 on the final review and
appraisal of the implementation of the United Nations Programme of Action for
African Recovery and Development 1986-1990, in which the international
community accepted the principle of shared responsibility and full partnership
with Africa, must be a spur to our good intentions, if the continent of Africa
is not to be condemned to a fate worse than that which it has been enduring
this last decade and a half. The unseemly wranglings, which turned into
disappointment for many, at the summit of the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro over the transfer of
financial resources and technology to the majority poor, attest to an
insufficient appreciation on the part of many of the developed nations that in
the final analysis world peace depends on the economic and social well-being
of all peoples.
The statement that the Security Council adopted at the end of its
historic summit on 31 January 1992 represented as the Secretary-General has
stated in his report entitled "An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking and peace-keeping" an unprecedented recommitment at the highest
political level to the purposes and principles of the Charter. In this
document, however, the primacy of economic relations - nay, the necessity for
a redefinition of the new world order underpinned by economic, trade,
technological and development issues to promote peace sadly received little
attention. Preventive diplomacy cannot and should not be limited to efforts
(Mr. Chambas. Ghana)
to prevent the outbreak of conflicts. No standing army, however well-equipped
and well-garrisoned is a bulwark against underdevelopment, poverty and natural
disasters. Preventive diplomacy should also, and even more significantly, be
directed at eliminating the factors that contribute to conflicts. In the
context of international peace and security it should focus on the
establishment of a just world order in which everyone has access to good
drinking water, food, shelter, health and education.
The first significant steps should be taken within our Organization, the
United Nations. The pre-eminent position of the General Assembly in the work
of the Organization should be asserted and reconfirmed. The Charter
provisions, notably Articles 15 and 24(3), must be given full meaning and
effect. It should be emphasized that the Security Council was not conceived
as an executive organ. It is to facilitate decision-making in urgent
situations of the eruption of conflicts that the Members of the Organization
have conferred on it, under Article 24, the primary responsibility for the
maintenance of international peace and security.
Above all, the present composition of the Security Council, with the
outmoded and obviously undemocratic permanent-five arrangement that reflects
the post-Second-World-War situation and its 10 two-year rotative seats for the
rest of the world, flies in the face of a global reality in which we are all
expected to play our part in maintaining the peace. The creeping tendency on
the part of certain nations to see themselves as policy-makers and executors
on behalf of the entire United Nations membership through their predominance
in the Security Council does not send out welcome signals to the rest of us as
equal partners in world affairs. The Security Council, we submit, should be
enabled to perform its functions in a more democratic manner to enhance its
legitimacy in acting on behalf of the membership of the United Nations in
accordance with Article 24 of the Charter.
In this regard we welcome the decision of the Non-Aligned Movement at its
tenth summit in Jakarta to empanel a working group on the revitalization and
restructuring of the United Nations, and hope that the working group will make
a positive contribution towards the democratization of the Organization.
The people and Government of Ghana retain faith and we wish hereby to
reaffirm it in the United Nations to lead the efforts of the international
community in the establishment of a truly new order. We believe that the
United Nations remains the only hope of mankind for peace and prosperity.
Together we must resist the temptation to see some Member States as more equal
than others; to see some Member States as leaders, with all others as mere
followers. For it is through the efforts of all Members, large and small,
acting in concert through our United Nations that we can craft and ensure a
new world order that is just and equitable and reflects the diversity of
mankind, an order in which all nations have a legitimate share and interest as
equals. The people and Government of Ghana rededicate themselves to this
pursuit.
Mr. ALARCON de QUESADA (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): I wish
to congratulate Mr. Ganev on his election to the presidency of the General
Assembly at this session. He can be sure of the cooperation of the Cuban
delegation.
We shall soon be commemorating the five hundreth anniversary of the clash
between two worlds and the beginning of an era that was to transform radically
relations between nations. That dramatic and as yet unfinished piece of
(Mr. Chambas. Ghana)
history started in the Caribbean Sea and forever left its mark upon the fate
of the peoples of the area.
Our deepest root, which gave us life as a nation and a place in history,
is our rebelliousness. For centuries the Caribbean was the victim of the
brutal greed of all sorts of intruders, the crossroads of slave-traders and
pirates, of traffickers and invaders; violence and cruelty were its constant
scourges. But it was also witness to the heroic resistance of its peoples,
which time and again rose up, pushed by the powerful and anonymous force of
the Caribbean winds, in their eagerness to achieve their freedom. While the
plundering of its resources and the iniguitous exploitation of its people led
the Caribbean to its encounter with the rest of the world, it was the struggle
to abolish all kinds of servitude and to have no master other than our own
conscience, which shaped our profound and irreducible identity and allowed us
to discover ourselves.
The Assembly is meeting at a crucial moment of definition. Today, as
five centuries ago, we are faced with attempts to reshape the world and
reorder relations between nations. Today, as in the past, the idea is to
determine whether the future will allow human solidarity to flourish or
whether it will still be weighed down by selfishness; whether it will one day
lead to the emancipation of the dispossessed, or whether it will for ever
perpetuate their tragedy; whether we are on the verge of a new colonizing
adventure, or whether, at long last, hope will begin to emerge for the poor of
this Earth.
In recent years humanity has been surprised by a series of developments
which have radically changed important elements of international relations and
have led to an avalanche of hasty interpretations and conclusions promoted by
the unrestrained haste of the privileged and the naive optimism of many others.
The end of the cold war, and with it the lessening of the danger of a
nuclear holocaust, should not be used to attempt to conceal what everyone
knows. It is true that military confrontation between the super-Powers
which threatened mankind with extermination never happened, and that the
rancorous antagonism of yesteryear was transformed through the unilateral
incantation of a baffling kind of alchemy into complacent subordination and a
show of fondness. That that war never occurred is of course salutary and
deserving of praise, but to identify with that fact the emergence of universal
peace is an absurdity which can make sense only from the profoundly racist
perspective of the new conquerors.
The period which now seems to be coming to an end was for the third world
a period of hard-fought struggles for independence and freedom. While
threatening with a battle which never occurred, imperialists used
all their means and resources to invade, attack, repress and oppress the
peoples of the South; many of their sons and daughters fell in confrontations
which had nothing to do with the rivalries between the powerful, and they died
without knowing how that antagonism was to be transmuted into a bizarre
convergence.
Just as the existence of the cold war did not alter the fate of the
third world, its disappearance does not, so far, seem to be benefiting its
peoples. The previous balance of power that contained the opposing blocs and
avoided a direct military conflict between them did not prevent the practice
of war, aggression and intervention against the third world.
We have no reason to imagine that the effects of the present conditions
of unipolarity and hegemonism will be more favourable to our peoples. On the
contrary, dangers are greater than ever in the face of a triumphant ecstasy on
the part of those who are in possession not only of the largest military power
but also of an insurmountable historical ignorance and the most gross moral
callousness.
The cold war is disappearing, but the arms race is not being reduced in
parallel, nor are militarism and bellicose mentalities being abandoned. If
the danger of war has been reduced, why does the United States aspire to
continue developing its military superiority, as was recently announced by the
occupant of the White House? Against whom will the empire now direct its
weapons?
We hear unending rhetoric about the end of confrontation and the
beginning of a new era of international cooperation, but it seems to exist
only in the imagination of those so gullible as to believe it. If a spirit of
international cooperation does really exist and if the cold war has ended, why
are the military expenditures of the big Powers not being drastically reduced
and why are the resources thus released not being channelled to the promotion
of development in underdeveloped countries? How can it be explained that
now precisely now attempts are being made to reduce international
cooperation for development to an even more subordinate and hypothetical role,
further to diminish the already limited presence of the United Nations in that
field and also to introduce unacceptable conditionalities and restrictions?
The changes that have occurred between the countries of the North have
no meaning for the majority of the inhabitants of the planet. If those
changes are to make some sense for them, it is necessary to undertake decisive
and effective action against the hunger and poverty which affect hundreds of
millions of people in the third world; and against infant malnutrition and
incurable diseases which are daily taking the lives of thousands of children
in an ongoing and silent war that some choose to ignore.
The economic crisis, the external debt of the third world, which has
risen to the figure of $1.50 trillion, unequal exchange, and increased hunger
and poverty have never been greater amongst the immense majority of mankind.
Their effects are staggering even for the most solid economies of the world.
Open subsidies and other selfish policies threaten to impede the conclusion of
agreements which have been in course of negotiation for years to regulate
international trade and which may provoke disastrous confrontations between
the large economic Powers. This clearly demonstrates that the history of
capitalism cannot escape its terrible and self-destructive laws.
There is meagre cause for optimism at present, when many cannot even
defy the consequences of recalling the principles of the new international
economic order solemnly proclaimed by the Assembly in times that were
supposedly less favourable for international cooperation.
True, universal and durable peace will be possible only in a world full
of hegemony, based on the rights, interests and aspirations of all peoples, in
a world in which the purposes and principles of the San Francisco Charter will
become a reality and, in particular, in a world which pays full respect to the
sovereign equality of States, non-intervention and non-interference in the
internal affairs of States, self-determination of peoples, and the right to
development.
But to achieve this, it is indispensable to democratize international
relations and the United Nations, providing the Organization with the
conditions necessary for it to fulfil the mission for which it should exist.
The United Nations cannot be reduced to a simple instrument of
domination by the powerful. Member States must prevent that; if they do not
they would in practice be permitting its termination and the elimination of
all possibility of achieving an equitable and peaceful world.
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
We must not accept the Security Council's operating as a secret society,
turning its back on the Organization which created it and in whose name it
should be acting; we must not accept its assuming functions which it does not
have and which no one has conferred upon it. The Security Council's
composition, functions and modus operandi must be urgently examined in depth
so that it can become a truly representative body, so that the anachronistic
and anti-democratic veto privilege can be eliminated and transparency can be
introduced into its activities, while limiting them strictly to those set down
in the Charter, and so that it will fully respect the obligation enshrined in
the Charter to be accountable to the General Assembly, which, in turn, should
strictly fulfil its responsibility to exercise control over the Council.
The Security Council has no authority whatsoever to interpret the Charter
or to broaden the scope of its powers, or to carry out all the orders coming
from its surreptitious informal gatherings. We must not tolerate the use of
the Council by those who so frequently defile the ideals of democracy as an
instrument for carrying out a virtual coup d'etat in the United Nations. Nor
can we we allow ideas to take hold that would introduce the concept of limited
sovereignty and promote the creation of mechanisms that would result in
converting the Organization into a permanent source of intrusion, interference
and intervention, to the benefit of the interests of the powerful.
The Organization must be democratized in order to strengthen its role and
enhance its efficiency. To that end, it is indispensable to reinforce, not to
weaken, the responsibilities of the General Assembly as the sole body in which
all of us have equal responsibilities and which therefore has the capacity to
represent the international community as a whole.
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuha)
During the tenth summit conference that we held at Jakarta early this
month, the non-aligned countries adopted a common platform to face the present
international situation and to ensure concerted action in the United Nations.
The Jakarta Message, the Final Document and the resolutions that were adopted
should become our tools to mobilize the third world in defence of its rights
and to organize our resistance to those who are attempting to impose a
self-styled new world order, which was conceived against, and without taking
into account the interests of, the peoples of the South and which would
constitute nothing but the installation on a global scale of the kind of
hegemonistic delusions upon the cinders of which this Organization was created.
The aims of those who are concocting the reorganization of the world,
with a view to dominating it, are becoming increasingly obvious.
Underdevelopment and poverty would be permanently reserved for the peoples of
the South, which constitute three quarters of humankind, and they would
continue to be the providers of wealth for the affluent minorities of the
North. International bodies would be converted into mechanisms for domination
and intervention to guarantee a world system where the powerful would impose
their corrupted ideas and values. The new conquerors are not bearers of the
cross; rather, they brandish the sword and the moneybag, and the only gospel
they preach is profits.
Cynically they proclaim themselves the representatives of a superior
society and they go so far as to attempt to present themselves as the very
image of democracy, freedom and human rights. With the same arrogance shown
by their colonialist ancestors, with the same haughtiness shown by their
fascist inspirers, today's hegemonists boast about the alleged superiority of
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
their societies, their way of life, their ideas, beliefs and values, and use
every means in attempting to impose them upon other peoples.
They are attempting to impose not only their ideas, but also their
"justice", which lacks the slightest equity and which, even within the
territory of the United States, and with an openly racist point of view,
pronounces the harshest sentences, including the death penalty, on, almost
exclusively, blacks and hispanics. What is the sense of, and how can we
condone, the decision of that country's Supreme Court which legalized the
right to kidnap anyone of any nationality in any part of the world? Has
mankind ever seen such an abuse of power and high-handedness at any other
stage in its history?
At the same time, encouraged by the setbacks of European socialism, they
are trying to decree the end of socialist ideals and to impose capitalism, in
its most uncontrolled fashion, as the sole, definitive and permanent model to
be applied around the world. They proclaim the so-called neo-liberal formulas
as dogma which everyone must observe and they do not even blush when they
portray themselves as having the exclusive recipe for mankind's prosperity and
happiness.
Millions of dollars that could be devoted to more noble purposes are
being spent today in selling those ideas. But the peoples of the third world
have not forgotten that it was the unrestrained voraciousness of capitalism
that compelled them to endure the long and harsh experience of colonialism,
that crushed them with racism and discrimination, that subjected them to the
backwardness and poverty still besetting them. Capitalism was and is the
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
essential cause of the evils afflicting our peoples; it can never be their
solution.
The euphoric promoters of so-called neo-liberalism are overcome with joy
when they see the bankruptcy of a number of socialist projects which, as is
well known, lasted barely a few decades and were tested in adverse conditions
and in comparatively less developed countries.
Those who exult over the failure of some socialist societies should be
capable of demonstrating that capitalism is solving the problems of mankind or
at least that it is doing so somewhere. After all, capitalism has been the
predominant system in the world for centuries and has come to full development
in some of the more wealthy countries. But, after more than 200 years of
capitalism in a rich, developed and powerful country such as the United
States, the population as a whole still lacks a health system; millions are
calling for employment, housing, education and protection in their old age or
are suffering the consequences of drug addiction, violence and other social
evils; and tens of millions are victims of the worst expressions of racism and
racial discrimination. The most powerful country has not been able in two
centuries to solve any of those problems through capitalism, although it not
only has been able to rely on its own wealth but also has been pitilessly
exploiting other peoples during that lengthy period.
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
Certain turncoats may kneel before that deceptive golden calf, but to
understand the failure of capitalism as a social project it is not necessary
to read Karl Marx one need only take stroll through the New York or Los
Angeles inner city. The American dream may dazzle some weak minds, but for
broad, and growing, sectors in this country and, above all, for tens of
millions of Afro-Americans, Latinos, native Americans and Asians, the
unemployed, the poor and the destitute - that dream has been, and is, a
bitter, sad and perpetual nightmare.
On what moral grounds can profoundly unjust societies present themselves
as a universal archetype when the inordinate consumption patterns and the
extravagance of their insolent minorities mock the plight of countless others
in their midst who are suffering a life as miserable as that of the poorest in
the third world? In terms of human solidarity they have nothing to teach us;
on the contrary, they have much to learn from us.
In truth, not only is the type of society that would be imposed upon us
intrinsically unjust and inhuman: it threatens the survival of the human
species - indeed, life itself on our planet. The irrational consumption
patterns of the wealthy exhaust non-renewable resources, poison oceans and
rivers, make the air in our cities unbreathable, adversely change the climate,
dangerously raise the sealevel, irreparably damage the soil, destroy forests,
enlarge deserts and deepen the poverty of hundreds of millions of human
beings. The environment is also the victim of a relentless war that has
already caused the death of numerous species and is putting many others in
danger of extinction.
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
When will it be man's turn to fall victim to his own folly? For how long
will a lifestyle that condemns each and every one of us to death continue to
be worshipped?
I address this Assembly at what is, for Cuba, a particularly difficult
time. The economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United
States against the Cuban people has been in force for more than 30 years, but
it is now being intensified and extended. While talking hypocritically of
peace and international cooperation, the Government in Washington forbids
foreign vessels involved in any business with Cuba to enter United States
ports and tries to compel corporations based in other countries to follow its
anti-Cuban policy. Thus it is grossly violating not only the most basic
rights of my people but also the sovereignty of other countries and the
fundamental principles and norms of international law.
While former adversaries become partners, and while the number of
countries to which Washington applies economic restrictions diminishes, the
budget and resources of the Government office entrusted with enforcement of
those restrictions have been increased, and it is publicly acknowledged that
those actions are geared towards reinforcement of the blockade against Cuba.
The United States obstructs Cuban economic and commercial activities world
wide. It strives to prevent us from purchasing oil, foodstuffs and medicines;
puts pressure on investors and businessmen; and, more than once, has been able
to intimidate others, and thus frustrate entirely legitimate operations, by
its stubborn and criminal attempts to starve our people into surrender.
Never before, other than in the course of war, has a people been
subjected to such rigorous, prolonged and total attack. This aggression is
being carried out against a small and poor country - a country with very few
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
natural resources, and no substantial sources of energy; a country whose
development prospects are totally dependent on foreign trade; a country that
receives no credit or finance from international organizations; a country to
which even various types of humanitarian aid are restricted. And now attempts
are being made even to prevent us from trading.
The blockade is being intensified at a time when Cuba is suffering an
extremely trying situation arising from the dissolution of the Socialist bloc,
the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the sudden and radical change in
relations with the countries with which we conducted 80 per cent of our trade,
as well as from the abrupt disappearance of the fair and equitable prices that
governed those relations. This has meant the loss of 70 per cent of Cuba's
purchasing power the figure having fallen from $8,139 million in 1989 to
$2.2 million this year. In truth, Cuba is confronted by a double blockade
that is becoming harsher and more implacable every day.
Indeed, the enormous damage to our economy has had inevitable
repercussions for the living standards and consumption levels of the
population, as well as for the country's production and development
programmes. In these grave circumstances the imperialists nurture the hope
that, by making their blockade tougher and more oppressive, they will be able
to create conditions of poverty and hunger and, thus, make our people
surrender. However, that is nothing but a foolish hope. Those who seek to
annihilate us are ignoring the fact that Cuba's main resource - its only true
wealth is its people.
Only a united, informed and resolute people, a people prepared to fight
for what it wants to achieve, a people whose social relations are governed by
equity and solidarity, can confront and overcome such adversity. Only in a
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
society such as that of Cuba could such disastrous conditions have occurred
without leading to the closure of a single school, to neglect of the health of
a single child or elderly man or woman, or to the abandonment of a single
citizen. Can the same be said of our rabid enemies or our hypocritical
critics?
There is no greater proof of the strength of our social system or of the
implacable resolve and unity of the Cuban people in defence of its revolution
than the heroic popular resistance to this imperialist onslaught. How many
countries have endured such a trial?
But this large-scale economic warfare is not the only action being taken
against Cuba. Part of our territory continues to be illegally occupied by a
United States military base, which is the source of frequent provocation; the
air above and the sea around the country are constantly being used for
manoeuvres by the mighty who assault us; more than 1,500 hours of aggressive
radio broadcasts are transmitted to Cuba weekly, and there have been
unsuccessful attempts to invade our television spectrum; the territory of the
United States is used openly and shamelessly, and with the apparent complicity
of the authorities of that country, for the purpose of carrying out terrorist
attacks against us; and Cuba is being subjected to a systematic campaign of
slander to distort the image of a country which the United States has not been
able to defeat and which refuses to renounce its independence.
As it has not been able to bend us to its will, imperialism threatens us
with extermination and endeavours to compel the rest of the world to acquiesce
to its genocidal infamy. The Yankee blockade is a brutal violation of the
rights of all the Cuban people and of international norms and the sovereignty
of other countries. It is, above all, a moral disgrace.
Those who think they can bring Cuba to its knees are mistaken. Our
people has travelled a long road to achieve its full emancipation. It started
its trek, totally alone, more than 120 years ago. Within its limited island
space, without allies, without the material support of any Government, it
struggled for three decades against a better and larger military force than
the total of the forces which Spain had used to combat rebellion in all its
other colonies. Attempts were made even then to isolate our people from the
rest of the world; even then the oppressor found accomplices; even then
attempts were made to compel our people to surrender because of hunger, and a
substantial part of our population was annihilated.
The Puerto Rican patriot, Eugenio Maria de Hostos, described those
painful times for Cuba in the following words:
"It is necessary to imagine oneself in that terrifying situation,
the most tragic ever faced by any people: deprived of everything itself,
while its enemy possesses all the power and resources of civilization;
abandoned, while its enemy is abetted; disdained, while its enemy is
flattered by the complicity of all. It is necessary to be able to feel
all the torments of the agony of many years to understand how long a
revolution lasts, to realize how much time passes, to understand the
prodigious resistance of the combatants, to appreciate their heroism, to
be worthy of admiring those admirable men ...
"It is necessary to live in such infamous times, stumbling through
the darkness of injustice, to feel for those men, elevated by their own
efforts to the dignity of complete men, all the enthusiastic reverence,
all the impulsive admiration, inspired by those capable of heroically
representing the highest virtues of mankind."
Those times referred to by Hostos were certainly even more difficult for
our people. Today we are facing an enemy more powerful than Spain was then,
but we have a united, brave people, worthy heirs of those combatants who never
retreated despite the greatest misfortunes. We will never betray their
memory; we will never renounce a fatherland which we liberated with rivers of
blood and sacrifice.
We also rely on the solidarity of peoples. We know that the oppressed,
the exploited and the victims of discrimination on this Earth who place their
hopes in Cuba's survival are many.
For our dead, and for those who hope for a worthy life, we will continue
resisting. We will not betray the mandate of our ancestors and the confidence
of peoples. We will prove ourselves capable of resisting and we will know how
to resist.
We will continue to pursue our most sacred duty: to save the fatherland,
the revolution and socialism. For their sake, we shall continue our struggle,
without hesitating, despite all obstacles, hard and difficult though
circumstances may be; ever onward to victory.
(Mr. Alarcon de Quesada. Cuba)
Mr. WONG (Singapore): In 1989, the year in which the Berlin Wall
fell and the cold war came to an end, there were 159 Member States represented
in this Hall. Today, three years later, there are 179, an increase of 20.
Will this trend continue? If so, there could be 200 Member States represented
in this Hall when we meet here again in 1995. Will these new countries come
from Africa, Asia, Europe or the Americas? And will the birth pangs of these
new States be as traumatic as those of some our newer Members, like Croatia,
Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova and Georgia? Or will they emerge
peacefully?
I begin my statement with these questions because I believe that our
first task at this session is to rid ourselves of the euphoria that many of us
here experienced when the cold war ended. From the tragic experience of
Kuwait to the continuing anguish of the former Yugoslavs, we are seeing the
re-emergence of forces that we thought had been swept away by forces of
modernization. Ghosts which had been sleeping for decades have awakened to
haunt us. How many more will awaken in the years to come?
This session clearly needs to be one of sober reflection. In this regard
I am pleased that we have elected Ambassador Ganev of Bulgaria to guide our
deliberations. This reflects the confidence of Member States in his
leadership abilities. Bulgaria's geographical location gives it a unigue
insight into the problems that we are facing.
I should also like to place on record our appreciation of the wise
leadership and guidance provided by our President's predecessor,
Ambassador Samir Shihabi. In addition, we wish to place on record our
appreciation to Mr. Perez de Cuellar for his 10 years of dedicated and
exemplary service as Secretary-General. Let me also congratulate
Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali on his wise and dynamic stewardship of the United
Nations in his first year in office.
There can no longer be any doubt that the cold war, even though it
terrified many of us in this Hall, effectively froze or suppressed many
tribal, religious, ethnic and cultural divisions. The thawing of the cold war
has led to their re-emergence. I need only to cite some obvious recent
examples. Even as we speak, conflicts are raging between Armenia and
Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, and there are conflicts in Moldova, Georgia
and Afghanistan. Somalia is splintering; the former Yugoslavia has descended
into tribal warfare. The world has still not recovered from the shock of the
atrocities and the blatant disregard of basic humanitarian principles in
Bosnia and Herzegovina in the name of "ethnic cleansing", which we condemn as
an abhorrent practice.
In this setting it is appropriate and timely that the Secretary-General
has produced his report "An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy,
peacemaking and peace-keeping" (A/47/277). Not every United Nations Member
will agree with its analysis. Nor will all the recommendations be universally
endorsed. But it is a far-reaching document with concrete proposals for the
maintenance of international peace and security.
It also contains the Secretary-General's recommendations on ways to strengthen
and make more efficient the capacity of the United Nations for preventive
diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building. We should
congratulate the Secretary-General and his staff on putting together a
comprehensive and thoughtful paper that raises the issues that Member States
need to address.
There is much in there for us to ruminate on but there is also room for
us to add ideas to it. For example, the report, for obvious reasons, refrains
from trying to apportion blame or investigate the causes of the recent
conflicts. This should be the job of Member States. We need to be clear in
our minds whether the explosion of new States in recent years is a natural and
welcome development, something akin to what we saw in the era of
decolonization, or whether it is a reflection of a state of disorder in the
structures of human society that we have created in the twentieth century. Or
is it the case, as the "Agenda for Peace" suggests, that the "deepest causes
of conflict" are: "economic despair, social injustice and political
oppression" (A/47/277, para. 15)? We need to be clear in our minds about what
is happening because this will in turn define the mission that we will entrust
to the United Nations: when a conflict breaks out within a State should the
mission of the United Nations be to resolve the conflict and peacefully
reunite the factions as in Angola and El Salvador or should the mission of
the United Nations be to facilitate a peaceful division of the country as in
Yugoslavia? These are not theoretical questions. These are practical
questions that United Nations peace-keepers confront on a day-to-day basis in
the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia.
(Mr. Wong. Singapore)
Lest I be misunderstood, let me stress that I welcome the new Member
States that have joined the United Nations this year: Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic
of Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. I
believe that they would agree with me that if more new Member States are going
to join us we should ensure that they emerge peacefully and not through war
and conflict.
The "Agenda for Peace" also makes it clear that the functions of United
Nations peace-keepers have gone far beyond their usual mandate. In the past
United Nations peace-keepers were traditionally sent in after a peace
agreement had been worked out between the warring parties. Today United
Nations forces are involved in a variety of tasks ranging from
election-monitoring to inspection of nuclear installations. The range of
functions is expected to increase. As the "Agenda for Peace" points out,
these will include preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and
peace-building.
Let me also state the points of agreement that I have with the report.
First, I agree that the United Nations should play a more proactive role in
preventive diplomacy. As the report states:
"... preventive diplomacy requires measures to create confidence; it
needs early warning based on information gathering and informal or formal
fact-finding; it may also involve preventive deployment and, in some
situations, demilitarized zones." (A/47/277, para. 23)
Secondly, I also agree that the Security Council can now play a more active
role because, as the report states:
"With greater unity has come leverage and persuasive power to lead
hostile parties towards negotiations." (A/47/277, para. 35)
Thirdly, I agree that the United Nations should work in concert with regional
groupings. I believe that the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
would be happy to do so. The endorsement by the United Nations of the Treaty
of Amity and Cooperation, signed in Bali, Indonesia, in 1976 and recently
acceded to by Laos and Viet Nam, could make it a model for other regions to
emulate.
Having imposed these significant new burdens on the United Nations it is
absurd that Member States, especially the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council, are depriving the United Nations of the funds needed
to carry out these operations. Unpaid arrears for United Nations
peace-keeping operations now amount to $800 million. They are likely to rise
as the cost of peace-keeping operations for this year alone is likely to reach
$3 billion.
Some of the biggest debtors of the United Nations come from countries of
the North. It would be tragic for countries of the North to assume that they
are immune from the political and economic travails of the South. Yugoslavia
has demonstrated that these problems can explode at their doorsteps. The
modern technology spun by the developed countries has made our world into a
global village in the truest sense of the word. No villager can ignore a fire
in the home of his fellow villager, for if he does his own home could be burnt.
We saw this clearly at the Rio de Janeiro Summit earlier this year. The
countries of the North called upon the countries of the South to restrain
their deforestation, their production of chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and their
pollutive development, for they were concerned that the effects of these
activities in the South would wander into their homes. Yet while they expect
the relatively impoverished countries of the South to make valiant sacrifices,
they are not prepared to make equal sacrifices in their relatively affluent
lifestyles. Given these difficulties, it is remarkable that the Rio Summit
reached a consensus on Agenda 21. We in the General Assembly should endorse
the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 and adopt a good decision to establish a
high-level commission on sustainable development. The momentum achieved in
Rio de Janeiro has to be maintained and followed up.
To address these environmental questions squarely, the world also needs
to reinvigorate the global economy. We must convince the countries of the
North that if they want the South to pay greater heed to their concerns on the
global environment, they must in turn push the global economy forward by
successfully completing the Uruguay Round as soon as possible. Instead of
doing this, the countries of the North are concentrating on regional
integration. Whatever the fate of the Maastricht Treaty, an integrated single
European market will be in place by January 1993, bolstered by an expanded
agreement with the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries that would
bring about greater European Community-EFTA economic co-operation known as the
European Economic Area (EEA). The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) is
about to be formed. If these arrangements benefit only the countries of the
North, with no perceived benefits to the South, the South is unlikely to
cooperate with the North on environmental issues.
Fortunately, the South has not been standing still. A major economic
revolution is also taking place there, affecting the lives of billions of
people, especially in large nations such as China, India, Pakistan and
Indonesia. If present trends continue, by the year 2000 the ASEAN countries
and the Asian newly industrializing economies will have a gross domestic
(Mr. Wono. Singapore)
product (GDP) of $3.3 trillion, two thirds of the United States 1990 GDP or
half of the European Community 1990 GDP. China could double its gross
national product (GNP) within this decade. Clearly, some parts of the South
are going to experience explosive economic growth.
Except for a few which still cling to the virtues of the command economy,
practically every country in the world now realizes that it has to introduce
economic reforms. The old economic systems with their manifest inefficiencies
and inadequacies that hindered economic growth had to be discarded. Except
for a few, all States are working to introduce the market-economy system. But
such adjustment to open economic competition is not without sacrifices and
great political costs. The transitional economies have experienced great
economic difficulties and dislocations in their initial periods of
adjustment. The North should see that it is in its interest to help these
countries by fighting protectionism. With such support, the developing
countries should be able to pull off this economic transition successfully.
(Mr. Wong. Singapore)
If this massive economic revolution in the South succeeds, the world will
experience a rising tide that will lift all of humankind those in the South
and those in the North. It is also likely that this rising tide would help
extinguish the flames of tribal and ethnic discord that have erupted around
the globe.
South-East Asia has sometimes been called "the Balkans of Asia". Despite
this, the countries of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
have already experienced two decades of peace and economic development.
Through regional cooperation in ASEAN and the concentration of national
energies on economic development, the ASEAN region has become the most
peaceful and prosperous part of the third world. There is no reason why this
ASEAN experience cannot be duplicated in the rest of the world. I hope that
this session of the General Assembly will give some thought to this as it
searches for solutions to the ongoing tragedies we are now witnessing.
Nigeria and Pakistan
are mourning today. I should like to extend to the Governments and the
peoples of these two friendly countries the compassion of the people of Benin
who understand their sorrow and share their grief.
I should like to join those who preceded me at this rostrum in
congratulating Mr. Ganev warmly, on behalf of the Republic of Benin, on his
outstanding election to the presidency of the General Assembly at this
session. This is a well-deserved tribute to his country, Bulgaria, and to him
personally.
I should also like to congratulate his predecessor,
Ambassador Samir Shihabi of Saudi Arabia, who presided over the forty-sixth
session of the General Assembly so ably and efficiently.
(Mr. Wong. Singapore)
I wish also to pay a well-deserved tribute to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations for his courage, his dedication and his readiness in the
service of the ideals of the Organization. Less than a year after his
election, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali has already demonstrated his effectiveness
and his diplomatic experience, to the admiration of the international
community as a whole. His tireless efforts to restore peace to the various
hotbeds of tension throughout the world deserve the active support of all the
Members of the United Nations. His recent detailed and well-written report to
the membership is eloquent testimony of his endeavours.
My delegation would like once again to pay a tribute to his predecessor,
Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, for his invaluable work at the service of our
universal Organization, whose membership has continued to expand over the
years.
Benin welcomes the new Members of the United Nations: Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
the Republic of Moldova, San Marino, Slovenia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and
Uzbekistan.
At the last session of the General Assembly, we unanimously welcomed the
end of an era of confrontation and the advent of an era of international
cooperation based on a spirit of solidarity and fraternity among the nations
of the world.
In that context, Benin also welcomed the advent and the admission to
membership in the United Nations of the independent States that emerged from
the former Soviet Union following the signing of the Minsk Agreements.
The first ever meeting of the Security Council at the level of Heads of
State or Government, held on 31 January 1992, marked the end of the cold war;
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
at that meeting, they urged the advent of a new, more stable and more
prosperous world order, for which the United Nations would provide the
framework.
Unfortunately, we have to say that this session of the Assembly is
beginning at a time when there is an unprecedented reappearance of hotbeds of
tension throughout the world, resulting in a situation in which peace-keeping
activities have become the primary concern of the United Nations over the last
10 months. These hotbeds of tension demonstrate the fragility of peace and of
international security, at an important turning-point in our history.
May I point out here that the Security Council, in its statement of
31 January 1992, indicated that the development of the democratic movement and
the promotion of respect for human rights would help make the world more
stable and more prosperous.
My delegation would like to reaffirm that the international community,
while welcoming the emergence of new nations as a result of the affirmation of
the unbreakable will of peoples to regain freedom, dignity and justice through
respect for their own cultural and political values, must promote the search
for consensus and the spirit of tolerance and dialogue which can still today
provide the basis for a peaceful transition.
Negotiation prevailing over the use of force, trade over exploitation,
freedom over constraints: those are the approaches that should guide each of
our countries so that the capacity of the Organization in the areas of
preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping can be enhanced.
We often say that our planet is sick. It is sick because of delayed
development resulting from financial, technological, scientific and ecological
imbalances between the northern and southern hemispheres. It is sick because
of social injustice and because of extreme poverty that dehumanize so many
peoples that are referred to as "developing peoples".
To all these ills, aggravated today by the resurgence of nationalism, we
must add new kinds of illnesses that are decimating our peoples throughout the
world. It is therefore essential that States regain control and contribute
individually and collectively to the strengthening of international peace and
security.
Against this backdrop, the Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for
Peace", submitted pursuant to the statement agreed by the summit meeting of
the Security Council on 31 January 1992, offers us food for thought serious
thought and it opens up new prospects. We must all contribute to fleshing
out that report so that our dream of a better world can become a reality in
the years ahead.
(Mr. Holo, Benin)
As for Africa, our continent has suffered too much for us not to try
today, together, hand in hand, to join forces and use all that we have in the
way of intelligence, courage, strength and resources, to lessen suffering,
alleviate poverty and establish a coherent strategy for sustainable
development.
It is Benin's hope that all of Africa will be free of fratricidal and
internal wars and all other conflicts that hinder our development. It is
enough to look around us to see the tragedy of our brothers in Liberia,
Somalia and Sudan, just to mention a few.
From now on Africa can prove, if need be, that it can resolve its own
conflicts when foreign interference does not complicate matters. To eliminate
instability and insecurity in Africa, the international community must offer
its firm support for the efforts now under way to restore peace to Liberia and
Somalia.
My country, which currently holds the chairmanship of the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS), has been making intensive efforts
since August to bring those involved in the Liberian tragedy to silence their
weapons so that we can move towards national reconciliation. Benin's only
interest in Liberia is peace. President Soglo's efforts deserve the support
of Africans first and foremost and then of all the major Powers and all other
Members of the United Nations.
Benin hopes that recent appeals from the Conference of Heads of State and
Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), held from 28 June to
2 July 1992 in Dakar, to those involved in the tragedy in Somalia and Sudan
will be heard so that hostilities can cease and negotiations can begin, with a
view to national reconciliation. That, we believe, is a prerequisite for
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
preserving the unity and integrity of those two countries, which are also
ravaged by famine.
It is important to emphasize the hope inspired by the humanitarian
actions of the United Nations to save the people of Somalia from famine. Here
I should also like to hail the work done by all the countries and humanitarian
organizations that have taken action in that part of the world, despite the
threats they are exposed to in the field by the various parties to the
conflict. In particular, we hail the efforts of Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, to
whom we are indebted for heightening awareness of that tragedy and its
horrors. In addition, his Special Representative, Ambassador Sahnoun of
Algeria, deserves our fraternal commendation and admiration.
Just a few months ago, the international community welcomed the positive
changes taking place in the situation in South Africa, changes that were
expected to crown with success the tireless struggle of the black people of
South Africa against a system that for more than 50 years had reduced them to
slavery. Here I should like to reaffirm my country's unequivocal position on
the problem of apartheid. That odious and inhuman system must be dismantled,
in deeds and in law, to allow for the emergence of a democratic and
multiracial South Africa, where the principle of one man, one vote, will
become a political reality.
Recent developments, both political and social in that country, notably
the resumption of violence, which has already claimed hundreds of innocent
victions, shows, unfortunately, that many difficulties and obstacles still
have to be dealt with before apartheid can be totally dismantled. In the
interest of international peace and security, we must encourage dialogue among
those involved in the political situation in South Africa, who still have to
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
overcome very deep political differences, while continuing at the same time to
keep the pressure on the South African regime so that the reform processes
that have been initiated can be continued and speeded up.
That is how Benin understands the Security Council's adoption of
resolution 765 (1992) on the question of South Africa, the appointment by the
Secretary-General of a Special Representative and the sending of United
Nations observers to that country.
We are happy to see that the peace process in Angola, which began with
the signing of the cease-fire agreement at Estoril, Portugal, on 31 May 1991,
is on course. The Members of the United Nations must continue to support that
country, which has been riven by 15 years of fratricidal war, in its efforts
for democratization, one important stage of which will be the free elections
scheduled for 29 and 30 September 1992, that is, tomorrow and the day after.
The delegation of Benin welcomes the fact that the peace talks which have
begun between the Maputo Government and RENAMO leaders have led to the signing
at Rome on 7 August 1992 of a peace agreement between the two parties. May
peace truly and definitively come to Mozambique so that all the sons and
daughters of that country can tackle the job of national reconstruction.
The Madrid Conference on peace in the Middle East portended a reasonable
arrangement between Arabs and Israelis with a hope for lasting peace. Recent
political changes in Israel may enable the current negotiations to evolve in a
satisfactory manner that would be acceptable to all parties to the conflict.
!t is our duty to encourage that needed dialogue, with a view to achieving a
lasting peace that would guarantee the existence of the Hebrew State and a
Palestinian State within secure borders recognized by all.
That, of course, would presuppose our listening to both parties. It is
in that spirit that Benin this year resumed diplomatic relations with the
State of Israel. We are guided by our firm resolve to use our pivotal
position as a traditional friend of the Arab States and a new partner of the
State of Israel as a point of departure to help bring the two parties together
as best we can. My country wholeheartedly hopes for success at the peace
process that began in Madrid.
A solution to the Middle East Problem also involves the consistent and
effective implementation of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and
338 (1973), emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory
through war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace, enabling each
State in the region to live in safety within boundaries that are
internationally recognized and guaranteed by the international community,
including Palestine and Israel.
My country is distressed at the killing and the flagrant violations of
human rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina stemming from the disintegration of the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
The continuing tragedy of the peoples of that country threatens
international peace and security and constitutes a new challenge to our
Organization. In my Government's opinion, there are three factors that could
have a favourable influence on efforts undertaken by the European States and
the United Nations to restore peace in the former Yugoslavia. These are an
immediate cessation of hostilities; respect for the territorial integrity of
the various States that have emerged from the disintegration of the former
Federation; and the protection of minorities.
I would add to this our unequivocal condemnation of the intolerable
practice of "ethnic cleansing", a practice unworthy of humankind and one of
which each and every human being should be ashamed today. Given the
universality of our Organization, however, my country hopes that the reguest
for admission of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Serbia and Montenegro
will encounter no obstacles and that the admission of that country might even
be a catalyst for a just and lasting peace in the Balkans.
The new spirit of consensus particularly among the permanent members of
the Security Council and the end of the cold war have encouraged the present
atmosphere of detente in the international political arena. In that context,
general and complete disarmament must remain the international community's
ultimate goal at the end of the twentieth century.
The Republic of Benin would like to see the enormous resources devoted to
the manufacture and purchase of weaponry shifted towards satisfying the more
urgent need for development of the third world countries. We believe that a
major step in that direction would be the acceptance by the international
community particularly the arms-producing countries of the
Secretary-General's proposal on taxing arms sales in order to offset the
budgetary deficit of the United Nations and provide it with the resources it
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
needs to carry out the work entrusted to it. My country therefore supports
this proposal by Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Moreover, Benin supports all
United Nations resolutions related to the reduction, limitation, and
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
It is often being said that the international community is today at a
turning-point. The will expressed by Member States to move towards the
solution of regional conflicts and the new feeling of urgency in the face of
global threats to the well-being of the planet give us an historic opportunity
to tackle the real problems we all face.
Of course, the world economy has developed in a rather remarkable way in
the past few years, as demonstrated, inter alia, by the extension of the
market economy and the emergence of major economic groupings in Western Europe
and North America. However, the international cooperation necessary to the
creation of a new world order is not really getting under way. The imbalances
between North and South are being exacerbated. If the current trends persist
until the year 2000, the citizens of the richest nations of the world will
have an average annual income of more than $13,600 while those from the least
developed African countries will have an average per capita income of only
$217 that is, $12 less than in 1985. This sharp decrease has already been
seen in many countries.
We must therefore acknowledge that the problem of the economic liberation
of Africa is one that still faces us most acutely. All the efforts made to
wipe out and reverse this trend towards deterioration in the economies of our
countries have been in vain. Africa's economic horizon is darkening daily-
Here, I should like to broach the question of debt, and more specifically
in sub-Saharan African. In one report on the debt crisis, the
Secretary-General stressed that the heavy obligations imposed by debt
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
servicing have given rise to serious budgetary problems. Public investment
and social expenditures have suffered the results of this, and the most
vulnerable social sectors have therefore been the most seriously affected.
Today, our continent groans under the crushing burden of debt, which now
amounts to more than $270 billion. In 1990, our States had to pay out
$23 billion to service this debt. Confronted by these increasingly harsh
resource problems, most of our States have committed themselves to structural
adjustment programmes. These programmes do not yet have the resources that
are truly necessary to the development of our devastated economies. That is
why Benin appeals to the international community to take concrete, urgent
action to reduce the debt burden of the African countries and increase
financial flows for their development.
Measures to ease or cancel debt in some cases debt that our countries
find so difficult to bear should be accompanied by detailed and explicit
programmes on the conditions for financing structural adjustment programmes
and repaying the debt owed by our States.
On another level, the forty-sixth session of the General Assembly,
following consideration and final evaluation of the implementation of the
United Nations Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and
Development 1986-1990 adopted the New Agenda for the Development of Africa in
the 1990s. That was an opportunity to refocus the international community's
interest in the socio-economic difficulties facing the countries of Africa.
To reach the objectives of the New Agenda, it is now time for the
international community to translate into real action the commitments that
have been entered into and renewed so many times to support the efforts made
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
by the African countries themselves to achieve autonomous growth and
socio-economic development. Indeed, the Secretary-General has said that
Africa is one of the five United Nations priorities for the 1990s. As to the
other four priorities the environment, peace-keeping, the fight against drug
abuse, and humanitarian assistance we have to say that no actual decision
has been taken to translate this priority into action.
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
My delegation feels serious concern about the situation that still
prevails one year after the adoption of resolution 46/151 on the United
Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s. First, the
Secretary-General's programme has not yet really been launched. Secondly, the
follow-up mechanisms, for example, the high-level consultative group, the
inter-agency committee and the steering committee, have not yet been set up.
Thirdly, the study on the need for and the feasibility of establishing a
diversification fund for African commodities has not yet been carried out,
even though it is supposed to be the subject of a report by the
Secretary-General to the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session.
Lastly, the setting up of adeguate financial resources is still hypothetical.
I would like to express the ardent hope that no effort will be spared to
ensure that by December 1992, or at the latest by January 1993, the New Agenda
for the Development of Africa in the 1990s will emerge from its present
lethargy and enter a truly active and dynamic phase that will live up to our
hopes.
To a certain extent, the Programme of Action for the Least Developed
Countries for the 1990s is experiencing the same difficulties as the New
Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s. This will hardly help to
improve the living and working conditions of the most vulnerable groups in the
least developed countries.
It is essential to continue and support efforts aimed at ensuring that
the number of least developed countries, particularly in Africa, can be cut in
half by the end of the twentieth century. We must thus reverse the tendency
towards increasing the number of least developed countries, a trend that has
been noted since the adoption of the Programme of Action in September 1990 and
the adoption of the new criteria for classification in 1991.
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
My Government feels that the International Conference on Financing
Development could provide responses to the difficulties facing the various
programmes and plans of action for the development of the countries of the
South.
For that reason, we sincerely hope that the General Assembly will, during
this session, adopt a resolution to convene the Conference, which will be
prepared as part of the process of intergovernmental negotiations with the
participation of all States. The holding of such a Conference will be an
important element in the process of strengthening the role of the United
Nations in promoting international economic cooperation. We welcome the
Japanese initiative to organize in 1993 an international conference on the
development of Africa. The work of that conference should be a good
preparatory exercise for the Conference on Financing Development.
Benin believes that economic integration is also a response to the
marginalization of Africa. It is essential today for our States that the
regional economic groupings we have created in order to ensure South-South
cooperation should be strengthened.
Africa, determined to continue with vigour the policy it has been
following in this sphere for effective regional and subregional economic
cooperation and integration, is thus particularly committed to the creation of
the African Economic Community, whose Constitution was signed by the Heads of
State and Government on 3 June 1991 at Abuja.
Success for this project presupposes, I believe, a commitment by each of
our States to promote integration in the various activity sectors of our
economies and to ensure the development and maintenance of reliable networks
of agricultural, road and industrial infrastructures on the continent.
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
Despite the economic situation of our countries, many specific actions
have been taken to help children as part of the follow-up of the World Summit
for Children.
On 16 June 1992 Benin celebrated the Day of the African Child, as we had
in 1991. Although my country had already scored some successes, the
celebrations on that day enabled us to place even more emphasis on improving
the health of mothers and children through the expanded vaccination programme,
the struggle to combat malnutrition and other widespread diseases of children,
the provision of drinking water to rural areas, the gradual reduction of
illiteracy and the securing of access to education for all children.
Africa aspires to development of the whole person, and to that end, we
must be sure to involve women and children. They are, after all, the majority
of the people of our countries on the path of progress, which can be achieved
primarily through the education and training of young people and adults.
Benin welcomes the action already taken by the Organization of African
Unity (OAU), together with the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), with a
view to the holding of the International Conference on Assistance for the
African Child, to be held at Dakar from 25 to 27 November 1992.
Parallel with its actions in behalf of children, my Government is also
preparing actively to mark the International Year of the Family in 1994. In
addition, we stand ready to make a worthwhile contribution to the preparatory
work for the World Conference on Women, to be held at Beijing in 1995.
A few years ago each of our States, particularly the richer ones among
us, was content to act alone at the national level in order to stop
environmental degradation.
Today we have to recognize that the major ecological problems we face are
planetary in dimension and require an international approach.
In that context, Benin welcomes the conclusions of the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held from 3 to 14 June 1992
at Rio de Janeiro.
While that historic conference, in which my country took an active part,
did not fully live up to the hopes placed in it, it did enshrine the concept
of sustainable development and a recognition of the undeniable link that
exists between environmental protection and economic development.
Benin, convinced that dealing with environmental and development problems
requires the coordination of activities, initiatives and programmes, welcomes
the agreement reached at Rio on institutional mechanisms for following up
UNCED decisions, particularly the establishment of a high-level commission on
sustainable development.
In our opinion, that commission will play an essential role in the
implementation and follow-up of Agenda 21, adopted at Rio by the Conference.
With a strong and competent secretariat, which could be headquartered at
Geneva, the commission on sustainable development should make it possible, we
believe, to coordinate, facilitate and orient intergovernmental action within
the United Nations system in the area of environment.
The members of the commission, to be elected by the General Assembly,
should represent all the regional groups in the United Nations and all types
of development.
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
As well as supporting the establishment of a high-level commission on
sustainable development, which will be the subject of a draft resolution at
this session, Benin stresses the great importance we attach to following up
all the decisions and recommendations of the Rio Conference. We welcome in
advance the resolutions the Assembly will adopt in this connection, including
that by which the Assembly will establish an intergovernmental negotiating
committee to draft by June 1994 an international convention to combat
desertification, particularly in Africa. We also look forward to a resolution
on the financing of Agenda 21, whose implementation by developing countries
will require new, additional funds.
The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development does not reflect all
the concerns expressed during the preparatory process for the Conference; the
General Assembly must therefore adopt a resolution with a view to preparing an
Earth charter to be adopted during the fiftieth anniversary of the United
Nations in 1995, as proposed by the Secretary-General of the Conference,
Mr. Maurice Strong.
While cruel at times, our age can now be proud of having witnessed the
emergence of a universal human-rights movement. An awareness of democracy is
spreading throughout the world, a world where men and women used to be reduced
to silence and wretchedness. Democracy is slowly becoming a reality that it
will be difficult to ignore.
The credo of Benin, henceforth to be a State where the rule of law is
paramount, is respect for, and the promotion and defence of, human rights and
the rights of peoples. That is why we support the 1993 convening of a World
Conference on Human Rights and are already participating actively in the
Preparations for that high-level Conference.
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
It is necessary to promote social development if we are to promote,
protect and defend human rights. To the hungry, human rights can mean little
if nothing is done to improve health care and education, to eliminate hunger
and wretchedness, and to improve housing and the quality of life in short,
to achieve greater well-being. That is why my country welcomes the decision
to convene a world summit for social development in 1995; this will enshrine
the human dimension of development.
I wish on behalf of the Government and the people of Benin to pay tribute
to all nations, large and small, that have shown unswerving support and
friendship for my country, particularly in the past two years, and that have
supported and encouraged democratic renewal in Benin: the political, economic
and moral rebirth of my country.
I pay a special tribute to friendly agencies, bodies and Governments for
their continued cooperation as we ponder, evaluate, organize and take
decisions on all aspects of the lasting economic and social recovery of Benin,
and for all they did to prepare for, coordinate, organize and hold the
round-table meeting of partners in the economic and social development of the
Republic of Benin, which took place at Geneva on 2 and 3 April 1992.
It is my great hope that the forty-seventh session of the General
Assembly will achieve a consensus acceptable to all in the negotiations on the
restructuring of the United Nations system and the strengthening of the
Organization's role in promoting international economic cooperation and
consolidating our achievements in peace-keeping and international security. I
also hope that it will show our peoples that it is still working for
solidarity, partnership for development and hope.
(Mr. Holo. Benin)
Costa Rica took great pleasure in supporting the election of Mr. Stoyan Ganev
to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-seventh session. His
election bears witness to a new era in the history of Bulgaria, an era of
freedom and pluralistic democracy.
My delegation sincerely congratulates the Secretary-General on his
masterful guidance of the work of the United Nations. Under his leadership
the Organization is with ever greater vigour assuming the central role that it
should play in international affairs.
Costa Rica warmly welcomes all the new Members of the United Nations.
Their presence in this Hall symbolizes the birth of a new era in international
relations based on the ideals of peace and freedom and cooperation between all
peoples.
Mankind has seen the threat of nuclear holocaust lifted; it has seen the
East-West ideological and military confrontation fade. But super-Power
confrontation has been replaced, quickly and bloodily, by conflicts whose
seemingly lesser magnitude does not make them any the less dangerous to world
peace.
The outbreak for the most absurd reasons of a number of conventional
wars confirms our belief that it is more important than ever to make progress
in the field of disarmament. The end of the East-West conflict provides a
unique opportunity to make decisive advances in that sphere and to impose
strict controls on the arms trade. The fading of the nuclear threat must not
take us back to the era of continuous war.
Old sins cast long shadows. Today, as in 1914, we look with dismay
at events in the Balkans. A State Member of the United Nations, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, is fighting for survival in the midst of a bloody and
unjustifiable war. Peace initiatives fail one after the other. A final
solution to this senseless holocaust is not yet in sight.
Costa Rica is deeply concerned at the dimensions this regional European
conflict is taking on, and at the number of innocent victims, which grows
daily. The international community reacts tepidly, and, incomprehensibly, is
reluctant to take the firm and vigorous stand that returned sovereignty to
Kuwait.
(Mr. Niehaus Quesada. Costa Rica)
How many thousands of deaths must there be for a conflict to be worthy of
international interest? The case of Somalia reveals how far we still have to
go before we can truly speak of a family of united nations. The conflict in
Somalia did not command our interest until 2 million people were about to die
of hunger and our consciences were struck by the terrible images of Somali
children begging for food. Regrettably the tragedy of Somalia is only the
most terrible aspect of the tragedy of sub-Saharan Africa, which is suffering
a slow death of despair, hunger, poverty and underdevelopment and is met with
the indifference of the community of nations.
The end of the cold war has not decreased the depth of the abyss between
north and south; indeed, it increases daily with technological advances.
Third world countries not only do not receive an adeguate response to their
needs and expectations, but are witnessing a reduction in outlets for their
products and in financial aid for development. The stagnation of the Uruguay
Round, the increase in protective measures adopted by industrialized nations,
and the reductions in development programmes are, oddly, occurring at a time
when Latin America has become a continent of democracies and when many African
and Asian countries have again taken the road to civil and political liberty.
Some regrettable steps backwards have already been taken. Latin American
democracy has suffered severe setbacks in Peru and Haiti. In Peru there seems
to be movement towards a solution, despite the fact that the country is still
overrun by the irrationality of terrorism and the worst economic situation in
its history. In contrast, the problem in Haiti, the poorest and most
underdeveloped country in the Americas, grows worse every day. Because Costa
Rica belongs to the Caribbean, Haiti's tragedy is of special concern to us.
My country believes that both the United Nations and the regional
organizations should pay more attention to this matter and strive harder for a
prompt solution to the crisis. We are not talking about the legitimacy of a
president or a government, but about the right of a sister nation to live in
freedom and receive the cooperation it desperately needs for its development.
I have mentioned only two examples, but I believe they are dramatically
representative. An overwhelming majority of third world democracies are still
on the road to consolidation. This consolidation will be difficult, however,
without a substantial improvement in their economic and social conditions,
which in turn requires that developed countries change their attitude in
respect to opening their markets and increasing their cooperation. It need
hardly be said that the worse the conditions become in third world countries,
the greater will be the number of legal or illegal immigrants to developed
countries, despite the ethnocentric, racist movements which, shamefully in
this era, are again on the rise.
Needless to say, the third world countries must do their part too.
International cooperation, regardless of its magnitude, will not change the
situation of the receiving country if it does not exert a disciplined and
determined effort to make progress.
It is no secret that in many cases financial aid intended for development
has been misspent on unproductive and grandiose projects. It has been used to
pay salaries and has even been placed in personal bank accounts. Meanwhile,
the people continue to suffer hunger and poverty. Therefore if cooperation
with the underdeveloped countries is to increase, those countries must fight
harder against bureaucracy and administrative corruption and must redouble
their efforts to ensure that international aid truly fulfils its objectives.
At a time when the economic situation is difficult even for many
industrialized nations, and when the European Community is undergoing one of
the worst monetary crises of its history, priority should also be given to
increasing South-South cooperation. Each of us has something to give and
something to receive. The common condition of third world countries does not
prevent us from recognizing that there are many stages of development and many
possibilities for cooperation. Moreover, the growing importance of
integration institutions offers a great opportunity to intensify the levels of
interregional cooperation by means of effective and coordinated actions which
will contribute to fortifying the democratic system through economic and
social progress.
Costa Rica wishes to stress the efforts to ensure coordination and
cooperation being made by the countries of Latin America; they clearly show
the region's determination to resolve differences through the use of machinery
for peaceful settlement established in international law. In this connection,
my Government congratulates El Salvador and Honduras on completing their case
before the International Court of Justice, making it possible to settle their
border conflict. At the same time, we express our satisfaction with the
efforts being made by Ecuador and Peru to find a just and final solution to
the bilateral border dispute which for so many years has existed between these
two fraternal countries.
Democracy can flourish only if electoral pluralism is combined with
respect for human rights. Costa Rica assigns primary importance to these
rights, which for many years now we have made the foundation for both our
internal life and our external policies. Consequently, my country takes a
great interest in the World Conference on Human Rights, scheduled to be held
in Vienna next year, and we are very happy to serve as the site of the
preparatory meeting for the Latin American and Caribbean region. We are also
pleased to know that during the Vienna Conference some countries will discuss
the possibility of creating the post of United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights. Costa Rica has submitted this idea to the General Assembly
repeatedly since the 1970s, and we firmly hope that it will finally take shape
at the World Conference.
My delegation also wishes to express Costa Rica's firm support for the
mechanism established by the Economic and Social Council in 1991 to allow the
Commission on Human Rights to hold special sessions to take up serious
violations of fundamental rights. We deem it necessary to continue the search
for flexible machinery which will stop and prevent massive violations of human
rights in a timely manner. We should like to recall here the Costa Rican
proposal - approved by the Human Rights Committee at the beginning of this
year for a treaty on prevention of torture.
The negotiations on the complex problems of South Africa and the Middle
East are doubtless of great importance to the cause of human rights.
In this and other forums my country has rigorously condemned the
apartheid regime, an offensive and unjustifiable anachronism that deprives the
majority of the South African people of their fundamental rights. We have
welcomed, with optimism, the beginning of negotiations between the Pretoria
regime and the African National Congress, and we firmly hope that, leaving
aside the reprehensible acts that have occurred in Ciskei and other parts of
South Africa, the renewed peace talks will soon lead to the construction of a
new, democratic and peace-loving South Africa that will work towards the
development of the entire continent. Costa Rica urges that resolute steps be
taken in that direction.
The need for long-lasting peace in the Middle East has been a matter of
constant concern to the United Nations almost ever since it was established.
Now, for the first time in the eventful history of this region, effective
peace talks are taking place with the participation of all interested
parties. Nevertheless, it is my Government's opinion that this process should
move faster and should be accompanied by a substantial improvement in the
human rights situation in the Middle East without distinction as to race,
nationality or religious creed. It is important that in this case, as in many
other cases, the international community should contribute, in a vigilant
manner, to promoting peace and assuring respect for the fundamental rights of
individuals and communities.
Peace is possible regardless of the number of human lives lost in a
conflict or of how much damage has been caused. Human beings are capable of
forgetting extremism and of talking with their opponents when the future of
their children is at stake. The recent history of Central America is vivid
Proof that a cruel and lengthy conflict can be stopped by means of negotiation.
(Mr. Niehaus Quesada. Costa Rica)
During the 1980s, Central America suffered an unprecedented political and
security crisis marked by intimations of totalitarism and by guerrilla
activity, flows of refugees, an arms buildup, the destruction of
infrastructure and an alarming extension of the East-West confrontation.
Fortunately, today most of these features belong to the past. Democracy and
political freedom reign in all the Central American countries, several
national reconciliation processes are at present under way, arms limitation
talks are moving ahead and a vigorous effort for integration is in progress.
Nevertheless, the experience of Central America also shows the
international community that it is very difficult to consolidate advances
achieved in matters relating to peace and democracy if the underlying reality
of underdevelopment and poverty continues to exist. The democratic and
peaceful Central America of today has seen the world lose interest in its
problems. It has witnessed a decline in the cooperation that existed when it
was in turmoil. The Latin American peoples' effort to change their destiny
has collided with the increasing indifference of the developed nations.
Financial aid is being reduced. Coffee and bananas, our leading export
products, are encountering more and more obstacles. We are being urged to
diversify our production, but international markets are not opening up to us.
Central America is being urged to advance towards democracy without our being
given the tools that will lead us to development. Political democracy alone,
regrettably, is not a panacea for the social problems of our countries. It is
true that it is possible to live in democracy even with poverty, but in
countries that have just started to experience democracy, democracy will not
sink its roots very deep if it is not accompanied by improvements in
nutrition, housing and public health.
(Mr. Niehaus Quesada. Costa Rica)
It is not possible to approach most of the subjects being discussed here,
including international cooperation, from one point of view alone. The
present international situation is an especially promising opportunity for all
nations, regardless of their resources, to work in a coordinated manner to
combat common enemies and to build a better world for our children. This
plurality of vision is, for example, the only way to confront, with any
prospect of success, the problem of drug trafficking and production, which is
harmful to producing and consumer countries alike, and is aggravated by the
accompanying terrorism and guerrilla warfare.
Unquestionably, the most important problem we must face as a species is
that of saving the planet's ecological, economic and social integrity, for
ourselves and for future generations. Costa Rica, which has been a victim,
like many other countries, of the irrational destruction and exploitation of
its national resources, has reconsidered and now emphasizes the need for a new
international ecological order that will save mankind from its progressive
environmental suicide and reorient the course of its development.
I am very pleased to announce to this Assembly that, in accordance with
Costa Rica's offer of 3 September to set up, in the capital city of my
country, the organizing committee of the Earth Council, a non-governmental
organization that will supplement and support governmental follow-up of the
Rio agreements.
The Rio Conference, regardless of all its limitations, is a magnificent
landmark in the fight against environmental degradation and unsustainable
development patterns. But how much has really been done to put into effect
what was agreed there? Will we limit ourselves to regarding the Rio
Conference as a kind of community of ecological nations packed with
fine-sounding words and good intentions but lacking results?
The triumph of ecological degradation creates only losers. Safeguarding
the environment, sustainable development and the struggle against poverty are
joint responsibilities of both the industrialized and the underdeveloped
world. Hence the United Nations is an ideal forum for making efforts in that
direction, for demanding compliance with the Rio resolutions and for imposing
sanctions on those Members that disregard them. While there are mechanisms
for collective international action to combat threats to international peace
and security, there should also be, within the United Nations, procedures for
acting against those who endanger human survival, the planet's resources and
social justice, and for imposing sanctions against them.
As the Secretary-General has stated, the question of world peace,
stability and security should include subjects other than military matters.
It is logical, then, that the changes that have taken place in the world and
the new realities being encountered by mankind today make it imperative for
the United Nations, a pillar of the joint efforts of nations, to reorganize in
order to fulfil its important mission more effectively. From this
perspective, my country considers it indispensable that the United Nations
should comply fully with the principle of universality and open its doors to
those who, for various reasons, have been forced to remain outside it.
Of special concern to us is the case of the Republic of China in Taiwan,
a democratic community of 21 million people with a brilliant economic
development record whose reality cannot continue to be ignored by an
Organization that takes pride in having gone beyond the patterns of the cold
war.
(Mr. Niehaus Quesada, Costa Rica)
In addition, it is imperative that the structures and procedures of the
United Nations be revised to conform with the realities of our times. The
Secretary-General, in his outstanding report, "An Agenda for Peace", has
written with commendable accuracy about the most important aspects which need
to be modified in a relatively short period of time. Costa Rica wishes today
to declare that it shares most of the concerns stated in that document and
urges all Member States to begin a vigorous effort for institutional renewal.
One of the most important areas that should be revised is the Security
Council, in terms of its make-up and objectives. We believe that the number
of permanent members should be increased, in accordance with the new realities
of the international scene, and based on better and greater geographical
representation. We also deem it necessary to reconsider the institution of
the veto and reflect upon the corresponding role of the Council in maintaining
world peace and security, as well as its relationship to the General
Assembly. Some thought should also be given to strenthening, modernizing and
reducing bureaucracy in the Economic and Social Council.
This is a good time also to mention the importance of coordination
between the United Nations and other international forums. Regardless of the
inevitable difficulties, the integration movement continues apace in Europe,
Asia, South America and Central America. We the Central Americans, joined by
democracy in all our countries, have reconsidered our outmoded system of
integration to adapt it to the new regional realities, and only a few months
ago the Treaty that establishes, on a new basis, the Central American
Integration System came into force. Costa Rica is confident that this new
organization will become the arena for persistent efforts towards our shared
future and in keeping with the Secretary-General's proposal, it will shortly
be in a position to request observer status in the United Nations.
In a few days the anniversary of the meeting of two hemispheres the
meeting of the whole world with itself - will be celebrated. Since the dawn
of that day, a Friday in October, mankind was able to start thinking with a
sense of family and of inevitable common destiny. Now, on the threshold of
the third millennium, that unavoidable mission of mankind is stronger than
ever before, and the United Nations is its most important embodiment.
Here at the United Nations, and in everyone's country and in everyone's
home, the wise words of sura XXVIII of the Holy Koran hold true:
"... [Do not] forget thy portion in this
World: but do thou good.
As God has been good
To thee ...
"That Home of the Hereafter
We shall cjive to those
Who intend not high-handedness
Or mischief on earth:
And the End is (best)
For the righteous." (The Holy Koran. XXVIII:77.83)
We have heard the last
speaker in the general debate this afternoon. One representative wishes to
speak in exercise of the right of reply.
May I remind members that, in accordance with General Assembly decision
34/401, statements in exercise of the right of reply should be limited to
10 minutes for the first intervention and to five minutes for the second and
should be made by delegations from their seats.
I now call on the representative of the Sudan.
In his statement
this afternoon, the Chairman of the delegation of Ghana said that in dealing
with the Sudanese crisis, the Government of Sudan is trying to impose a
military solution, whereas the problem is fundamentally political. We agree
with him on the political and social nature of the problem, but we want
everyone to recall that all previous Sudanese Governments have proposed
negotiation as a means of solving this problem which is not of the Sudanese
people's making.
The problem of the south of the Sudan, with its attendant fratricidal
strife, was created by unmistakable foreign forces with the aim of undermining
the country's unity. The revolution of national salvation has consistently
advocated the peace option. The conference of national dialogue which was
convened in 1989 and which everyone attended with the exception of the
rebellion movement that rejected the invitation to participate was the
starting point in the search for a peaceful solution to the problem of the
south. Thereafter, several meetings were held. Worthy of note are the Abuja
talks, sponsored by Mr. Babangida, the President of Nigeria.
It is the rebellion movement that rejects peace. It is that movement
that violates human rights, particularly in the south of the country, where it
has burned out whole villages and kidnapped tens of thousands of children, to
use them as human shields for its horses, and as slave labour. This has led
the inhabitants of many villages to flee their villages. The rebellion has
burnt those people's crops, rustled their cattle, mobilized their children by
the force of arms, deprived them of relief and now threatens to shoot down
aircraft that bring in relief supplies.
We in the Sudan are calling for peace and on various occasions we have
announced a general amnesty for those who would put down their arms. This is
a call that is beginning to have an unprecedented response on the part of
those who had been misled by the rebellion movement.
The duty of the legitimate Government in the Sudan is to retrieve every
inch of the country's soil occupied by the rebellion movement, especially that
it has instituted a federal system that allows every State to administer its
own affairs in a federalist context.
We invite all who wish to ascertain that we observe human rights in Sudan
and that it is the rebellion movement that is violating human rights in an
unprecedented manner.
We would have expected the representative of Ghana, as the representative
of a sister African country, to ascertain the facts as they are on the ground
and not to follow the reports of foreign media. This will never contribute to
finding the peaceful solution we all desire.
The visit by Mr. Eliasson, Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian
Affairs, to the Sudan in the course of this month and the report he has
submitted are conclusive proof of the veracity of what we have stated. We
consider that this statement is also a reply to what was said by the
representative of Benin a few moments ago.
The meeting rose at 7.30 p.m.
(Mr. Adam. Sudan)