A/47/PV.32 General Assembly

Allow me to begin by congratulating you. Sir, on your election as President of the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly. You are assuming this important position at a pivotal moment in the history of the United Nations and its Member States. You may rely on my delegation's continued cooperation as the session progresses. The general debate of recent weeks demonstrates that there is now an international consensus that, while the opportunities for cooperation and peace have never been greater, there have never been so many challenges to the international community posed by regional conflicts, humanitarian crises and the difficult, though exhilarating, process of democratization. The Organization is fortunate to have at its helm at this time of both opportunity and challenge a man of vision and leadership. Since becoming Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros-Ghali has sought to encourage the Members of the United Nations to rethink their approaches not only to the great problems we need to resolve, but to the structures and mandates of the bodies in which we work. Canada commends his commitment and the achievements he has already realized.

We note with satisfaction that, with the discussions on the Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace" held during the general debate and with the present discussion, we have started work designed to prepare the United Nations for the challenges awaiting it in the decades to come. As we stated from this rostrum during the general debate, we appreciate the great value of the report submitted by the Secretary-General and believe that it makes a very important contribution to improving United Nations activities. The recommendations in the report and the spirit in which they have been formulated envisage a more effective role for the United Nations in crisis prevention and the restoration and maintenance of peace on the basis of the possibilities inherent in the Charter. I shall not try to draw up a complete list of the recommendations made by

With the end of the cold war the world is taking leave of the old order and old divisions. The entire fabric of international relations is undergoing profound transformations. It is therefore natural that we are witnessing a widespread search on all levels national, regional and international - for new ideas on how to cope with global challenges to the contemporary world. In those circumstances there is also a need to scrutinize the structures and functions of the United Nations in order to make it fully responsive to new demands and tasks.

The report of the Secretary-General entitled "An Agenda for Peace", prepared at the Security Council's request, made at its January 1992 meeting at the level of Heads of State and Government, comes at a most opportune moment in the history of the United Nations. It is by far one of the most important documents elaborated for the last 40 years. It fully grasps the complex undercurrents of the present time and holds out a vision of the future. My delegation welcomes the present opportunity to make some preliminary comments on "An Agenda for Peace". The end of the cold war has ushered in a new era characterized by dialogue and relaxation of tension between States. It has opened up new prospects and vistas for the promotion of international peace and the stability and prosperity of all peoples. For the first time since its inception, the Organization is presented with a unique opportunity truly to become an institution that reflects the collective will of all nations. Respect for the inherent dignity of the individual constitutes a sound foundation for the promotion of freedom, justice and peace in the world. In seeking to promote the cause of human rights, the international community must eschew selectivity while fully respecting the values, beliefs and customs of all peoples. Human-rights standards should be applied without discrimination or selectivity. The trend towards democracy within nations must also be reflected in the democratization of the United Nations. We share the Secretary-General's view that "Democracy within the family of nations ... requires the fullest consultation, participation and engagement of all States, large and small, in the work of the Organization". (A/47/277, para. 82) Pakistan also welcomes the general trend towards economic liberalization. The growing interdependence of the world economy requires the adoption of measures with a view to providing equitable opportunities for all peoples and the promotion of their progress and prosperity. Efforts by individual nations towards opening up their economies will not succeed without a favourable external economic environment. Developed countries have a special responsibility to help create an environment that would encourage economic growth and would nurture sustained development in the developing countries. The nexus between international peace and security and the economic well-being of all peoples cannot be denied. Stability will be possible only if the international community addresses the underlying socio-economic problems and other factors. In our view, the United Nations can, and must, play a central role in overcoming the economic problems confronting developing countries. An equitable resolution of these problems can make a substantial contribution to world peace and stability. The international community must ensure respect for the sovereign equality of all States, the peaceful settlement of disputes and strict adherence to the principle of non-interference. At the same time, it should ensure respect for the right to self-determination of all peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation. The free exercise of this basic right would effectively contribute to the strengthening of international peace and security by removing a major cause of conflict and source of instability in many regions. Pakistan agrees in principle with the five aims put forward by the Secretary-General in his report entitled "An Agenda for Peace": resort to preventive diplomacy through the early identification of potential conflicts; engagement in peacemaking where conflict occurs; the preservation of post-conflict peace through peace-keeping and assistance in the implementation of agreements achieved; post-conflict peace-building; and, finally, the adoption of measures aimed at redressing the deeper socio-economic and political causes of conflict. We fully endorse the Secretary-General's view that "The principles of the Charter must be applied consistently, not selectively, for if the perception should be of the latter, trust will wane and with it the moral authority which is the greatest and most unique quality of that instrument." (A/47/277, para. H2) This fundamental rule should govern the deliberations and decisions of the United Nations -'in particular, the Security Council. The ability of the United Nations to preserve international peace is dependent in large measure on the credibility of its decisions and on the degree of consistency in the application of the principles of the Charter. The consensus that currently characterizes the deliberations of the Security Council must be maintained and further reinforced. Measures aimed at making the Council's decision-making process more transparent would greatly contribute towards fostering a fruitful relationship between the Council and the general membership of the Organization. Article 24 of the Charter confers on the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. However, the issue of international peace and security needs to be approached in an integrated and balanced manner so that each organ of the United Nations may play the due role accorded to it under the Charter. Decisions of all organs of the United Nations must be respected. Pakistan favours the strengthening of the capacity of the United Nations in the area of preventive diplomacy to pre-empt the outbreak of armed conflicts. We share the belief of the Secretary-General in the need to promote measures to build confidence between parties to a conflict as a means of reducing the likelihood of further conflict. In particular, the proposal that the Secretary-General should undertake periodic consultations on confidence-building measures should be supplemented by efforts to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes. Timely and accurate information on potential conflict situations is essential to preventive diplomacy. In keeping with the provisions of resolution 46/59 on fact-finding, the Security Council, the General Assembly or the Secretary-General should undertake such missions. Member States should be encouraged to provide the requisite information. Where circumstances require, and if the Security Council deems it necessary, the Council may meet away from Headquarters, as provided for in the Charter, to focus international attention on a given situation. To respond effectively to developments threatening peace, the early- warning capability of the United Nations needs to be fully developed. The Organization's capacity to collect and analyze information with a view to making recommendations for preventive action should be strengthened. Member States should be actively involved in and informed of the process at all stages. Regional organizations or agencies should also be consulted, where feasible. It is essential that the mechanisms employed for this purpose be fully transparent and allow for an independent evaluation and impartial recommendations. The proposal for reporting by the Economic and Social Council to the Security Council at its request under Article 65 should be examined in the light of the ongoing process of revitalizing and restructuring the Economic and Social Council. Pakistan regards the Secretary-General's proposals on preventive deployment and the establishment of demilitarized zones at the request of the countries concerned, or at the request of one country on its side of the border, as useful mechanisms to prevent the outbreak of armed conflict. As regards peace-making, the United Nations - in particular, the Security Council, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security - should first exhaust all measures under Chapter VI of the Charter. The transition from measures under Chapter VI to those provided for in Chapter VII should be graduated. Measures under Chapter VII should be undertaken without any selectivity or discrimination. This process should involve greater transparency and should be strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. Pakistan calls for greater resort to mediation and negotiation undertaken under the authority of the Security Council, the General Assembly or the Secretary-General than has been the case so far. In particular, more use should be made of the good offices of the Secretary-General. For greater effectiveness, the relationship between the Secretary-General and the Security Council should be one of close cooperation and consultation. Pakistan has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice without any reservations, except those permitted by the Court's Statute itself. We view favourably the recommendations of the Secretary-General with regard to the greater use of the Court by States. We welcome the Secretary-General's decision to have the Administrative Committee on Coordination explore methods by which the inter-agency system may improve its contribution to the peaceful resolution of disputes by extending urgently needed assistance in an effective and coordinated manner. Pakistan firmly believes that the issue of the negative economic implications for Member States of the imposition of sanctions under Article 41 of the Charter by the Security Council should be adequately addressed. Invoking Article 50 should lead to the adoption by the Council of a series of practical measures to overcome the special economic problems confronted by States. (Mr. Khalil-Ur-Rehman. Pakistan) The use of military force by the Security Council under Article 42 should be undertaken as a last resort after all other collective security measures have been fully exhausted. The proposal concerning stand-by armed forces as envisaged under Article 43 needs to be developed further and its practical aspects examined, including such matters as financing and standardization of equipment and training, as well as other related issues. The concept of peace enforcement units as a provisional measure under Article 40 needs to be elaborated further and its practical aspects also carefully studied. Given the evolutionary nature of peace-keeping operations, it may be premature at this stage to determine hard and fast guidelines for such operations. They may have a restrictive effect on future peace-keeping operations and deprive them of one of their most crucial elements, and that is their flexibility to adapt to circumstances peculiar to each operation. It is also desirable in this respect to follow a comprehensive approach covering all aspects of peace-keeping, including its practical aspects.

Please allow me, on behalf of the United States, to congratulate you once again. Sir, on your election to the presidency of the United Nations General Assembly at its forty-seventh session. We look forward to a productive session under your stewardship. Let me also take this opportunity to say how welcome has been the leadership provided by Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali over the difficult and tumultuous months since he became our Secretary-General in January. The clear vision and sound instinct with which he has already faced numerous challenges is equally demonstrated in his report "An Agenda for Peace" which has stimulated so many thoughtful and positive comments today and during the general debate. (Mr. Khalil-Ur-Rehman. Pakistan) As President Bush emphasized in his address to the General Assembly last month, profound changes arising from the end of the cold war have enormously increased both the potential and the need for preventive diplomacy, peace-making and peace-keeping. The President stressed the importance of strengthening our ability to meet the post-cold-war challenges to peace and security, and he committed the United States to those efforts.

It gives me pleasure, on behalf of the delegation of the United Arab Emirates, to convey to Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, our appreciation for his sincere efforts to consolidate international peace and security. This is the ultimate objective of this Organization. The Secretary-General's wide experience dealing with various international problems, in all their political, economic, and social dimensions, has helped to enhance the role and work of the United Nations. The Secretary-General's extensive experience and expertise are reflected also in his report on the Organization's work and in the special report on preventative diplomacy, peacemaking, and peace-keeping, which bespeak the positive orientation he has shown since assuming his high post. The end of the cold war has afforded us an historic opportunity to strengthen the role of the United Nations in the short term as well as in the long term, in laying the foundations and formulating the rules of a new world order that aims at maintaining international peace and security, upholding justice and equality between all countries, dealing with such chronic questions as underdevelopment, poverty, achieving comprehensive disarmament that would rid the world of all weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, chemical, or biological and creating an international social and economic environment of peace and respect for international law.

The consideration of the work of the United Nations this year has a special dimension through the increased interest in the question of the reform of our Organization in order to adapt it to the complex and challenging demands of the new international situation. In undertaking this task we are fortunate to have before us two very thorough and thought-provoking reports by the Secretary-General: "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277) and the annual report on the work of the Organization (A/47/1). Taken together these two reports cover the whole range of issues that are of most relevance to the question of the future role and direction of the United Nations. They contain a wealth of ideas and proposals, some of a bold and far-reaching nature, all of which deserve detailed and careful examination. Discussions on the changing role of the United Nations, and consequent reforms in its structures and methods of work, have intensified in recent years. That is reflected in the increasing number of separate agenda items that deal with different aspects of the subject. One of the great merits of the reports presented to us by the Secretary-General this year is the way in which they focus attention on the interrelated aspects of all the main issues involved. In presenting these reports to us the Secretary-General is at the same time also making a most welcome and effective contribution to the objective of revitalizing the work of the General Assembly by ensuring timeliness, relevance and comprehensiveness in its deliberations. I should like to make some brief observations on four elements that underlie much of the thinking in the reports we have before us - namely, the need to strengthen the United Nations capacity for preventive diplomacy and the peaceful settlement of disputes, the relationship between security and development, the role of action at the regional level and the question of adequate resources and financing. Over the last few years the United Nations role in the maintenance of international peace and security has risen dramatically. In his annual report, the Secretary-General tells us that "never before in its history has the United Nations been so action-oriented, so actively engaged, and so widely expected to respond to needs both immediate and pervasive." (A/47/1, para. 5) (Mr. Camilleri. Malta) His report provides impressive details to substantiate this claim. A direct and welcome result of the United Nations increased responsibilities in matters of peace and security is an enlarged and more effective role for the Security Council. In turn, this may be having a less welcome effect on other organs of the United Nations system, particularly by marginalizing much of the work of the General Assembly and perhaps in some respects also that of the International Court of Justice. In his address to this Assembly a few days ago, my Prime Minister stressed that a dynamic relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council remains the essential prerequisite for the credible and effective functioning of the United Nations in the field of peace and international security.

In a world without peace, troubled with post-cold-war instability and regional crises, what can be more important than "An Agenda for Peace"? The Republic of Croatia, which is one of the unfortunate victims of the war-troubled period that followed the collapse of communism and the historical transformations in Middle and Eastern Europe, firmly supports the efforts made by the Secretary-General aimed at promoting, reshaping and implementing a new global strategy for efficient preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and the peace-keeping process around the world. Croatia is carrying the burden of painful experience and first-hand knowledge as to how the absence of substantive peacemaking and peace-keeping action on the part of the world community can intensify a crisis and aggravate the tragedy of war and human suffering. At the same time, Croatia is able to appreciate the importance and benefits of peace-keeping operations, because one of the biggest actions in United Nations history is taking place on Croatian soil with, we hope, promising results. The political ice age has ended, but the world has still not reached the goals of lasting peace and prosperity. On the contrary, vicious wars are being fought in the name of national, religious or even linguistic superiority; the land is being taken from those who had lived there for centuries; "ethnic cleansing" and annihilation of other peoples' cultural and social heritage are the names of a new bloody game that post-communist dictators love to play. From the fields of Croatia to the Black Sea shores, the people are dying, unable to stop the tragedy with their own hands and clear the way towards stability and security. The old towns that once were the symbols of cultural might and spirit, on the eve of the twenty-first century became the manifestations of pain, suffering and destruction. If there is anything the world can learn from the horrifying examples of Dubrovnik, Vukovar and Sarajevo, it is that the world community cannot stand passively aside, not responding to blatant aggression. The sooner the world responds to the calls for determined action, the fewer will be the victims and the smaller the scale of suffering. The fact that the United Nations has undertaken 13 new peace-keeping operations since 1988 is clear evidence of the mounting importance of the world Organization in its role as the guardian and promoter of peace all over the world. Today, when regional crises are jeopardizing global stability. United Nations peace-keeping and peacemaking actions, as well as preventive diplomacy and post-war confidence-building, are emerging as a foundation-stone for the prosperous future of the united world. At this moment, almost 50,000 Blue Helmets are stationed all over the world trying to preserve peace and prevent new bloodshed. Their bravery deserves our admiration. The results of their efforts must not be underestimated, but, unfortunately, they have not yet accomplished all their tasks. There is no doubt that the United Nations is on the way to asserting its authority in the place of the old cold-war balance, which once froze all potential regional crises. The sad reality of the 1990s is that the United Nations cannot limit its role to keeping and guarding the peace. Sometimes one has to fight for it. United Nations military enforcement actions have so far been authorized on only two occasions, in the Korean and Gulf wars. The results achieved in liberating Kuwait provide a good lesson to the aggressors; the tragedy in the Balkans shows how high the price is when the aggressor is not stopped instantaneously and with all the might of the joint world community. Preventive diplomacy and preventive peace-keeping, as well as consistent development policy and support, must be one of the major goals in the work of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the whole Organization. The best way to stop war and its harrowing consequences is not to have one. But there are crises and wars that have already exploded and where "prevent" is a useless word. Those crises the war in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the best example have to be solved through the process of peacemaking in all its aspects, including those provided under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The threatening war-drums of regional crises impose imperatives for deep reforms in the United Nations peace-keeping process. "An Agenda for Peace", wisely proposed by the Secretary-General, is the right answer at the right time. Croatia supports the proposed reforms and actions, particularly those in the field of post-conflict peace-building, cooperation with regional arrangements and organizations, and financing. Croatia would especially like to underline the importance of establishing peace-enforcement units, as proposed in paragraph 44 of "Agenda for Peace". Furthermore, Croatia is ready to participate actively in those forces, which will be the pillar of the new world stability. Experience gained from the peace-keeping operation in Croatia should be highly relevant and inspirational for future peace-keeping operations around the world. All conflicts in the post-cold-war era are regional and consequences of the political creation of new States or of regional imperialism. This experience can be particularly relevant for the growing peace-keeping operation in neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country exposed to the same Serbian territorial conquest as Croatia and even more brutally subjected to "ethnic cleansing". Though we strongly appreciate the efforts and results of the United Nations peace-keeping operation in Croatia, my Government is considering the option of not prolonging the mandate of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in March next year. This should in no way be seen as an act of hostility towards United Nations peace-keepers. On the contrary, we are looking for the successful fulfilment of the UNPROFOR mandate in Croatia by next spring. It is particularly important to disarm Serbian paramilitary units, if necessary even by force, since they were identified in the Secretary-General's report (S/24600) of 28 September as the main obstacle to the implementation of the Vance plan and to the return of the refugees. It is certainly not the mandate, nor is it the intention, of UNPROFOR to freeze existing situations in United Nations Protected Areas; rather, it is to create conditions for a political settlement. We have to implement principles agreed at the Conference on the former Yugoslavia and approved by the Security Council and General Assembly, especially in regard to the inviolability of existing boundaries and the protection of the rights of minorities. The Republic of Croatia will continue to work devotedly in creating internal and external political conditions for a political resolution of the conflict. I have the pleasure to inform the Assembly that the Croatian Parliament recently adopted the "Law of Abolition and Amnesty" for all except those who had committed war crimes. We will continue to build confidence among the population in the crisis area. But in order to create conditions for the full implementation of minority rights under the "Law on Special Status for the Serbian Minority in Croatia", adopted by the Croatian Parliament at the beginning of this year, the United Nations Protected Areas have to be fully integrated into the Croatian political, economic, and social system. Furthermore, we believe that destroyed areas cannot be rebuilt, nor can hundreds of thousands of displaced persons be returned to their homes and working places, without the full reintegration of these parts of the Republic of Croatia into its infrastructure. Confidence-building among various ethnic communities cannot start under the present provisional legal and political structures of the former communist system, nor with the implementation of the legislation of another State. This is why we urge the start of a massive return of the refugees as the beginning of the process of reconciliation. We have also made a big step forward in stimulating regional conditions for peace and stability envisaged in the joint statement of the President of the Republic of Croatia and the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 30 September 1992 in Geneva. It remains to be seen whether this agreement means new temporizing by internationally isolated and weakened Serbia. But only the full cessation of military, political and economic support by Serbia to radical Serbian nationalists in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina can divert the trend of confrontation. We would also like to make the existing UNPROFOR mandate in Croatia a success story in order to encourage similar peace processes in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Serbia itself. This would enable UNPROFOR to use financial and other resources to proceed with an even more comprehensive and effective peace-keeping operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We fully support the new concept of shared, increased responsibility of regional organizations in promoting and enforcing peace in their regions, because regional organizations and Member States are better equipped and motivated to perform peace-keeping and peacemaking roles in their respective regions. But for that task regional organizations must restructure themselves and be prepared to perform such important functions. Each Member State should devote part of its defence budget and military forces to immediate use in peace-keeping or peace-enforcing operations, upon the request of regional organizations. However, it is quite clear that the Security Council should play the main role in authorizing such action; the United Nations should play the main role in coordinating the military, diplomatic and humanitarian aspects of each peace operation. The Organization should also set standards and guidelines for the peace-keeping and peacemaking roles of regional organizations. In Europe such a responsible task in the cause of peace should be entrusted to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), as the widest European forum. But the CSCE must be transformed into a real regional organization and provided with adequate structures and political and military mechanisms to accomplish this task.

It is indeed an honour to address this very important meeting, which has been convened to discuss the Secretary-General's (Mr. Nobilo. Croatia) report "An Agenda for Peace". Since that report raises many issues of common concern, not only to the Security Council, but to the United Nations as a whole, it is appropriate for the members of this Assembly to have the opportunity to exchange views on it. (Mr. Hatano. Japan) Japan extends its warmest congratulations to the Secretary-General for the world-wide echo he triggered by making public his report regarding preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and peace-building, and I should like to pay a high tribute to him for his initiative. We fully share the view that now that the current world situation is bringing ever-greater challenges to the United Nations, Member States are required to enhance their efforts to support the Organization with a view to coping effectively with these challenges and thus creating a more peaceful world. Japan further believes that the Secretary-General's efforts are also a valuable contribution to strengthening the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security in this changing world. Indeed, many of the concepts and proposals raised in the report are extremely interesting. We have no doubt that these sets of ideas deserve to be discussed thoroughly and seriously. Japan considers that in so doing attention should be duly paid to the following points. First, since the report covers a wide range of subjects, discussions should be carried out in appropriate forums of the United Nations, including the Security Council and the General Assembly. Thus far, my own delegation has been actively engaged in the discussions of the Security Council and the Committee on Peace-keeping Operations. A number of items to be discussed, however, may be handled in more than one forum. In such cases, the relevant organs should coordinate with each other, exchanging views both intensively and on a continuing basis. Secondly, some ambitious and innovative ideas concerning preventive diplomacy and peace-keeping contained in the Secretary-General's report should be discussed fully, respecting the time-tested principles and practices of peace-keeping operations. (Mr. Hatano. Japan) In this respect, I reiterate Japan's position on the idea of "preventive deployment" and "peace-enforcement units" which Foreign Minister Watanabe explained in his statement in the general debate at this session of the General Assembly. Japan would welcome further discussion of these issues among Member States, upon whose support and cooperation the possible future realization of this proposal greatly depends. Thirdly, measures to secure a sound financial base are urgently required. To this end, Japan is planning to put before this session of the General Assembly a draft resolution designed to ensure that financial requirements for major peace-keeping operations at the start-up stage will be met without imposing new financial burdens on Member States. We believe Japan's proposal is compatible with those put forward by the Secretary-General and hope that as many Member States as possible will be able to support this initiative. Fourthly, the Secretariat should be organized so as to ensure that the United Nations maximizes the effectiveness of its efforts to resolve international problems. In this regard, I heartily welcome the Secretary-General's decision to streamline relevant components of peace-keeping operations by heeding a proposal put forward by the Committee on Peace-keeping Operations. In the interests of efficiency, it is important to have a single, integrated structure, with clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Fifthly, better communication among the various United Nations agencies is necessary to ensure that limited resources are used effectively and that the Organization's full potential is realized. The Committee on Peace-keeping Operations has emphasized the importance of informal and frequent consultations between the Secretariat and (Mr. Hatano. Japan) contributing States. It would be helpful if a mechanism were established for consultations among the permanent members of the Security Council, the major sources of financial support, the countries providing large contingents of personnel, and the countries of the regions concerned. My delegation is delighted to note that the Secretary-General's report "An Agenda for Peace", which in my view aims at strengthening the effectiveness of and trust in the Organization, has evoked successfully wide-ranging discussions among Member States. With the aim, however, of enhancing effectiveness of and trust in the United Nations, it is equally important to consider seriously how the United Nations as a whole should be structured, including the function and composition of the Security Council, and other aspects of the Council's work. As our Foreign Minister stressed in his statement in the general debate at this session we consider it necessary for the United Nations itself to begin to deal with this important issue. Japan, for its part, is prepared to take an active part in this process, fully mindful of its position and responsibility in the international community.

My delegation is particularly pleased to have this opportunity of participating in this debate on the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, an item which is sufficiently broad to cover both the comprehensive annual report (A/47/1) and the excellent document "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). It is right and fitting that this should be the first item to be considered in the plenary Assembly, after the conclusion of the general debate, in which many heads of delegations had the occasion to comment favourably on the imaginative and solid proposals put forward by our esteemed Secretary-General. (Mr. Hatano. Japan) Allow me to recall on this occasion that Cyprus from the beginning of its existence as an independent State and its admission to the United Nations in September 1960 has consciously made the principles of the Charter central to its foreign policy and has not hesitated to take positions on the issues before the Organization dictated primarily by its dedication to the furtherance of the aims of the United Nations. It so happened that this attitude, determined by its commitment to principle, coincided with the country's enlightened self-interest as a small and militarily weak State depending for its security on the collective security system of the United Nations and, as a developing country, standing to gain from multilateral technical assistance and know-how. In both the political and the economic fields the attitude of Cyprus towards the United Nations was conditioned by its understanding of what was in the best interests of the United Nations, consistent with what was in the best interests of Cyprus itself. Similarly, in the international legal field Cyprus has in its modest way always endeavoured to abide by the rules of international law, to participate constructively in major United Nations law-making conferences and to make its contribution in such areas as developing compulsory third-party dispute-settlement procedures and the adoption of such progressive notions of international law as ius cogens. (Mr. Jacovides. Cvnri^) It is from this perspective that we view "An Agenda for Peace" as a timely and valuable contribution by the Secretary-General to the ongoing debate on the revitalized role of the United Nations in present day international affairs. We particularly welcome the fact that this debate is taking place in the General Assembly, where all Member States, large and small, are equally represented as part of the democratic process, and look forward to following up particular topics for detailed discussion in other appropriate bodies of the United Nations, such as the Special Political Committee, in connection with the item on peace-keeping, the Sixth Committee, in connection with the Charter Committee's report, the Fifth Committee, on the issue of financing, and indeed in the Security Council, the Secretariat, non-governmental organizations, the press and concerned institutions and individuals. It is very much our hope and expectation that discussion will be followed by decisions and actions to implement these decisions. My delegation fully agrees with the Secretary-General's observation that, while the foundation stone of the United Nations is and must remain the State, the time for absolute and exclusive sovereignty in an evermore interdependent world has passed. It is equally true that if every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace, security and economic well-being for all would be evermore difficult to achieve. Indeed, commitment to human rights with a special sensitivity to those of minorities, whether ethnic, religious or linguistic, is essential and the increasingly effective machinery of the United Nations dealing with the protection of human rights provides the appropriate remedy for real or contrived grievances in this respect. We fully endorse the (Mr. Jacovides. Cyprus) Secretary-General's view that in addressing various problems with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security: "The principles of the Charter must be applied consistently, not selectively, for if the perception should be of the latter, trust will wane and with it the moral authority which is the greatest and most unique quality of that instrument." (A/47/277, para. 82) The conceptual framework of "An Agenda for Peace" is indeed remarkable in the ramifications and linkages it establishes between peace and security, international law, democracy, human rights and sustainable development. Evidently, preventive diplomacy - as is the case with preventive medicine is more useful than attempting to cure the crisis through peace- keeping or peacemaking after it has erupted. The Secretary-General could indeed exercise more often his responsibilities under Article 99 of the Charter for matters which, in his opinion, threaten the maintenance of international peace and security, and fully utilize the information-gathering possibilities open to the Secretariat through fact-finding missions or otherwise. The Secretary-General's ideas on preventive deployment of troops when so requested to deter conflict between States are worthy of consideration on a case-by-case basis. The establishment of demilitarized zones where appropriate is also a sound idea. Indeed, demilitarization on a broader scale, not only in the context of preventing conflicts but also as part of peacemaking, offers wide possibilities in appropriate situations. And here I would draw attention to our long-standing proposal for the complete demilitarization of the Republic of Cyprus, as reiterated by President Vassiliou in the general debate on 22 September this year, as an important element of the overall solution to the Cyprus problem. (Mr. Jacovides. Cyprus) Under the chapter "Peacemaking" in "An Agenda for Peace" the Secretary-General wisely proposes an increased effort by utilizing the Charter provisions for dispute settlement. There has recently been intensification of activity towards third-party settlement of disputes, both at the United Nations and in such regional organizations as the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Indeed, the Security Council is now in a stronger position to recommend appropriate procedures or methods for dispute settlement. One can only hope that such methods of dispute settlement as mediation and recourse to judicial settlement will prove to be more effective under the present international climate than in the past, as happened for example with the report of the United Nations mediator, Galo Plaza, whose judicious and balanced mediation effort for the solution of the Cyprus problem, under Security Council resolution 186 (1964) lapsed when one of the parties to the dispute refused to accept it with the unfortunate result that the peacemaking leg of Security Council resolution 186 (1964) fell out of step with peace-keeping under the same resolution when the Security Council proved unwilling to ensure compliance. We particularly note and welcome the Secretary-General's recommendations in the international law field. Cyprus, having accepted without any reservations the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and having been the first State to have made a contribution to the Trust Fund established to assist countries unable to afford the cost of litigation before the Court, particularly welcomes and supports the recommendation that the Secretary-General be authorized, pursuant to Article 96 (2) of the Charter, to take advantage of the advisory competence of the Court and that other United Nations organs that already enjoy such authorization turn to the Court more frequently for such advisory opinions. Indeed, we noted with approval the wise suggestion of the President of the International Court of Justice, Sir Robert Jennings, in his statement to the General Assembly last year, that wider use be made of the advisory jurisdiction by States on the legal aspects of political disputes between them. Other suggestions of the Secretary-General towards more effective peacemaking by the United Nations, including the use of military force under Chapter VII of the Charter, also merit serious consideration and support. Peace-keeping has been one of the areas where the revitalization of the United Nations has been most evident in recent years. In our own experience, the United Nations force in Cyprus provides an excellent illustration of an effective and successful United Nations operation in its proper role of insulating a crisis and filling a power vacuum, while the processes of peacemaking are under way for the purpose of making its continued presence no longer necessary. Those associated with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP), and all other United Nations peace-keeping operations, can justly take pride in the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the United Nations peace-keeping forces. While UNFICYP was originally established by the Security Council for a brief period, it is still in operation many years later, and its presence is still necessary in order to perform essential functions. The lesson to be drawn from the Cyprus peace-keeping efforts of the United Nations is that as long as one or more of the parties concerned is unwilling to comply with the dictates of the international community, as spelled out in unanimously adopted and binding resolutions of the Security Council, and as long as the international community, and more particularly the major Powers are not willing or able to act effectively in order to implement the resolutions for which they voted, peacemaking, which should go hand in hand with peace-keeping, is lagging behind, resulting in the indefinite continuation, if not the actual perpetuation, of the problem. This is an evidently unsatisfactory situation - unsatisfactory to the Government concerned, no less than to the contributing countries and to the United Nations - but the answer lies not in abandoning the peace-keeping effort, thereby abdicating responsibility and leaving the weak at the mercy of the strong, but in pressing on with effective peacemaking through the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions in all available ways. My delegation welcomes the constructive suggestions of the Secretary- General for improving the potential of United Nations peace-keeping, including the training of personnel and the strengthening of the Department of Peace-keeping Operations, as well as of the Military Adviser's office, and we find meritorious the idea of earmarking appropriate equipment on stand-by for use by the United Nations. We similarly find worthy of serious consideration and support the Secretary-General's ideas on peace-building, on cooperation with regional organizations, on safety of personnel and on financing. In particular as regards the last point, it is obvious that Member States must meet their financial responsibilities and that the Secretary-General's specific suggestions, including the proposed peace-keeping reserve fund, merit support if the Organization is to be able to respond effectively to the ever-increasing demands for peace-keeping. The expenditures involved, while substantial, are only a small fraction of what is being spent on armaments and, in the new international political and military climate, it ought not to be impossible for the international community to meet its obligations in this regard. In conclusion, let me stress that Cyprus, itself a case-study of most of the issues raised and discussed in the "Agenda for Peace", warmly welcomes the opportunity afforded by the debate for serious consideration of all the aspects raised in the report. It is obvious that peace-keeping, peacemaking and peace-building are important for the world. As our recent history has sadly demonstrated, it is particularly relevant and important for Cyprus. It is our sincere hope that before long we will achieve a just and lasting solution to the problem that has confronted us for too long. It will benefit all concerned and will constitute a major success for the United Nations. Let us heed the warnings and advice of the Secretary-General and let us all work together to transform this, our Organization, not only into a vehicle that will enable us to move through this painfully turbulent period of transition, but one that will help us and our children to traverse successfully the times ahead. Let it not be said by future generations that when their lives and future were in our hands we were found wanting because of narrow nationalistic objectives. We should seize the moment and move vigorously towards a more effective, new United Nations.

It has been some time since the General Assembly held an in-depth discussion of the item before us. We think that this is o timely initiative and the Ukrainian delegation would like to express its appreciation to the Secretary-General for his comprehensive reports, which made this discussion possible and desirable. We share the basic ideas contained in his report on the work of the Organization (A/47/1). In our opinion, this report gives a thorough analysis of the current international situation and an objective account of the changing role of the United Nations at a time when the world community is entering largely uncharted territory. Without exaggeration the report may be considered as the best annual report thus far, one that provides States with a clear vision of the achievements of the Organization as well as of the challenges which confront it. At the same time, although both of the reports presented by the Secretary-General rightly concentrate on peace, sustainable development, the environment and human rights as ultimate goals of the United Nations, it seems to us that an important subject has been omitted. Both "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277) and the "agenda for development" in the annual report (A/47/1, chap. Ill C), should take into consideration the validity of ideas contained in the United Nations expressions "peace and security through disarmament" and "development through disarmament". Hence, we feel compelled to draw the Assembly's attention to the omission of the important subject of disarmament in the reports. Like other delegations that have participated in this discussion, my delegation would like to focus its comments on one of the most thought-provoking of recent United Nations documents - "An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping". Its multifaceted approach to the pressing problems of international peace and security requires careful analysis and evaluation by various United Nations bodies. However, in the view of the Ukrainian delegation, opinions expressed by the General Assembly on this subject are of particular importance both to the Secretary-General and to the Organization as a whole. For several years now various bodies of the General Assembly have been engaged in serious discussions on a wide range of issues that are dealt with in the Secretary-General's report. We have managed to accumulate a substantial number of ideas which reflect the degree of consensus regarding concrete aspects of United Nations peace-keeping and peacemaking activities. In this connection, it might be advisable for the General Assembly at an appropriate time to crown its present deliberations with a consensus resolution that would reflect the preparedness of States to cooperate with the Secretary-General in implementing his ideas. In our view, it would be useful to try to formulate a common approach to the far-reaching proposals of the Secretary-General, and to draft a possible list of priorities. We are convinced that the General Assembly will reiterate the fundamental theme of the report, namely that: "In these past months a conviction has grown, among nations large and small, that an opportunity has been regained to achieve the great objectives of the Charter a United Nations capable of maintaining international peace and security, of securing justice and human rights and of promoting, in the words of the Charter, 'social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom'. This opportunity must not be squandered. The Organization must never again be crippled as it was in the era that has now passed." (A/47/277, para. 3) Allow me now to touch upon some specific aspects of the report, in particular those dealing with the peace-keeping activities of the United Nations. We attach special importance to those issues since the Ukraine became a troop-contributing country to the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), sector Sarajevo probably one of the "hottest" peace-keeping operations ever carried out by the United Nations. Our brief experience offers further proof of the importance of focusing world-wide attention on the problem of ensuring the safety of United Nations personnel carrying out peace-keeping duties in areas of conflict. The tragic toll speaks for itself. No one can fail to be impressed by the figure provided by the Secretary-General that over 800 military, police and civilian personnel from 43 countries, Ukraine among them, were killed in the service of the Organization - not at war. Something must definitely be done about it. We share the views expressed in this regard by the representative of the United Kingdom on behalf of the Twelve at the outset of our debate. We understand that "Duty in areas of danger can never be risk-free; United Nations personnel must expect to go in harm's way at times." (A/47/277, para. 67) Nevertheless, it is a direct responsibility of the international community to react adequately to all hostile action towards United Nations personnel, especially such action as the deliberate shelling of United Nations forces. In the view of the Ukrainian delegation, the time has come to explore the possibility of drafting an international legal instrument to ensure the safety of United Nations peace-keeping personnel an instrument under which a State in which a peace-keeping force is deployed, as well as the parties to the conflict, would be held duly responsible for the use of force against peace-keepers. We also expect that the Security Council, in discharging its responsibilities in accordance with the Charter, will, without further delay, adopt effective measures to create the necessary conditions for the safe operation of peace-keeping forces and for an adequate response in the case of continued provocative action against those forces. My delegation would like now to turn briefly to chapter IX of the Secretary-General's report, which deals with questions of financing. Members of the General Assembly may recall the discussion of these issues during debates in the Fifth Committee and the Special Political Committee as well as the Committee on Peace-keeping Operations. I refer to the polemics regarding so-called alternative sources of financing. The report of the Secretary-General leaves no doubt about the necessity to look for supplementary means of covering the Organization's expenses in this area. It advances a whole range of proposals designed to strengthen the financial bases of peace-keeping. These do not exclude the possibility of borrowing resources from private institutions or a certain degree of commercial initiative for the Organization in this field. But, in this respect, the ideas I have mentioned are not the only ones that deserve consideration. We share this approach, which accords with the existing realities and is designed to mitigate the financial difficulties of the Organization. In our view, the General Assembly should empower its relevant organs to start working on specific means of utilizing additional sources of finance, paying due regard to the maintenance of the impartial and objective character of peace-keeping operations. It goes without saying that the principle of the collective responsibility of States for the financing of these activities in accordance with Article 17 of the Charter of the United Nations remains the cornerstone of this endeavour. Of particular importance to the delegation of Ukraine are those parts of the report that deal with the measures provided for in Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. We agree with the Secretary-General that in the current political circumstances - circumstances that exist for the first time since the Charter was adopted the long-standing obstacles to the implementation of Article 43, whereby Member States undertake to make armed forces, assistance and facilities available to the Security Council, should be removed. The availability of armed forces on call could, in itself, serve as a means of deterring breaches of the peace, since a potential aggressor would know that the Council had at its disposal a means of response. (Mr. Batiouk. Ukraine) We are convinced that full use by the international community of such a powerful mechanism as Chapter VII would certainly strengthen the authority of the United Nations and would allay the concern of some countries and certain segments of world public opinion about the legality of Security Council decisions authorizing the use of military force. At the same time, we agree with the Secretary-General that such forces are not likely to be available for some time to come. That is why Ukraine supports the Secretary-General's recommendation concerning special peace-enforcement units to be utilized by the Security Council in clearly defined circumstances and with terms of reference specified in advance. Ukraine, for its part, is considering the possibility of creating a special stand-by contingent of the Ukrainian armed forces for possible use by the Security Council for the purpose of maintaining or restoring international peace and security. I should like, in conclusion, to express confidence that our deliberations will contribute to the search for more reliable United Nations mechanisms in the field of preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and post-conflict peace-building.

As this is my delegation's first opportunity to address the General Assembly, I should like to congratulate you most sincerely, Mr. President, on your election. Our congratulations go also to the other officers of the Assembly. I am convinced that under your leadership. Sir/ the General Assembly will be successful in its work. It is with great pleasure that my delegation refers to the report (A/47/277) that the Secretary-General prepared at the request of the Security Council. That report contains recommendations aimed at making more efficient the capacity of the United Nations in the spheres of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and peace-building. As soon as it became aware of the report, Colombia began to analyse it with keen attention. It contains concepts that we share fully, as well as concepts which, because of their implications and scope, give us cause for some concern and demand more thorough consideration. As a member of the Rio Group, Colombia fully agrees with the views expressed by our coordinator, the representative of Argentina, who presented the position of the Permanent Mechanism for Consultation and Concerted Political Action. In addition, Colombia deems it necessary to emphasize certain issues that we hope will constitute a contribution to these discussions. The profound and rapid changes that the international community has experienced in recent times mark the beginning of a new era in relations between States. The expectations created by the configuration of a new order based on fairness and justice, the establishment of democracy and fundamental freedoms, and cooperation for the purpose of achieving sustainable development and general well-being presuppose that there will be a political order and an international economic environment which will help to ensure that the internal measures adopted by States produce the expected results and will give firm support to national institutions and global stability. In other words, the new scenario submitted to the community of nations entails a clear recognition of the fact that peace is a multifaceted concept. We are very pleased about this, but the achievement of peace is still overshadowed by uncertainty and by certain trends that can be seen in the manner in which some decisions are made, as well as in the tendency of some to (Mrs. Zafra Turbay. Colombia) arrogate certain powers to themselves something that merely increases distrust and confusion. Accordingly, we agree with the Secretary-General when he refers to the existence of a new dimension of security that encompasses economic factors including anti-free-trade protectionist barriers, poverty, hunger and the crushing debt burdens and new global problems, such as illicit drug trafficking, deterioration of the environment and the risks involved in the flow of displaced persons and in the massive migrations of people within and beyond national borders. The bodies to deal with these questions must be those recognized as competent by the international community and in which States participate democratically on the basis of the principle of sovereign equality. The new range of elements that could become a threat to international peace and security represents a challenge to all States and to the United Nations. The latter's effectiveness in carrying out this common task of preventing and settling conflicts and of keeping the peace will depend, to a large extent, on how consistently the principles of the Charter are implemented and on the credibility of the Organization's decisions. Colombia agrees with the Secretary-General on the need to implement the principles of the Charter uniformly, not selectively, if we are to banish mistrust and avoid further weakening the United Nations moral authority. One of my country's major concerns with regard to the Agenda for Peace relates to the apparent contradiction between the principles of sovereignty, interference in the internal affairs of States and economic cooperation. Indeed, the Secretary-General's report states: "The time of absolute and exclusive sovereignty, however, has passed; its theory was never matched by reality." (A/47/277, para. 17) The same document, when referring to internal crisis situations, states that: "the sovereignty, territorial integrity and national unity of States must be fully respected in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations" (Ibid., para. 30). Colombia has always advocated and upheld the need to ensure that Member States abide strictly by the principles of international law and that such principles should not be diluted or sacrificed for the sake of universality or the trend to establish blocs. The very recognition of interdependence and the (Mrs. Zafra Turbay. Colombia) existence of multilateralism can be understood only if construed as recognition of the outside influence of a State's sovereign acts and the equally sovereign response of the community of nations to the conduct in question. In that connection Colombia was especially pleased that the Secretary-General, in addressing the Tenth Conference of Heads of State or Government of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries held at Jakarta in the first week of September, reaffirmed the need to abide by such basic principles as national sovereignty and that in that connection he stated that: "The concept of sovereignty is at the very heart of the United Nations dialectic, for nations cannot be truly united if they are not genuinely sovereign. Let us also remember that the Charter refers to sovereign equality, since sovereignty embodies the principle of equality." Equally reassuring was his reference to non-intervention and his words to the effect that the United Nations will never intervene in the internal affairs of a Member State, whether under the guise of preventive diplomacy or for the sake of performing humanitarian actions, without obtaining the consent of all the interested parties. Now that that has been made clear, we can refer to the links that the Secretary-General established between the economic and social situation of countries and peace and security. We view that relationship as an invitation to strive for a just and balanced economic and social development, putting into that undertaking the same degree of effort and intensity as has been devoted to the maintenance of peace in regions of conflict. On earlier occasions we have stated that a sound economic situation is no guarantee of peace, just as the absence of peace does not mean that a region will automatically become one of conflict. Peace, we must not forget, is one of the most important issues on our agenda, but it is not the only one. The Organization must also deal with economic and social issues, as was stated in the proposal of the Rio Group, which we firmly support, and which drew up a true Agenda for Development. In that connection we must reverse the recent trend to expand the powers of the Security Council, to the detriment of the balance established by the Charter between the various principal organs of the United Nations. If a difficult situation rooted in economic and social factors should arise, the solution ought not be provided by the Security Council. It would be more appropriate to have recourse to the various agencies in the system and seek international support in stabilizing a given region through a development programme and appropriate strategies. Development is a goal in itself, one designed to achieve higher standards of well-being for peoples, and, just as it can be a destabilizing factor, when properly directed it can create a solid foundation for progress. In our opinion there is one issue that should be added to the Agenda for Peace: reform of the Security Council, which is indispensable for the new design for peace. The new tasks and responsibilities in the field of peace imply a reform of the Security Council, a body that is still governed by measures adopted nearly 50 years ago, in 1945. Such reform should include, inter alia- the question of that body's composition and an analysis of the question of the right to the veto. The redefinition of a peace programme must proceed parallel to the updating of that organ, which bears the major responsibility for implementing the peace programme. (Mrs. Zafra Turbay, Colombia) Also of particular interest to my country is the question of peace-keeping operations. We understand that this mechanism has been applied to a new series of situations. However, as a peace-loving country, we are concerned at the frequency with which Chapter VII of the Charter is being invoked and, consequently, at the new and expanded responsibilities being allocated to the Security Council over and above those set forth in the Charter. We are apprehensive at the possibility, albeit remote, that United Nations peace-keeping operations might become an executory arm of the decisions adopted by the Security Council in such areas as humanitarian assistance, the protection of human rights, illicit drug trafficking, environmental deterioration and others, which, as I said earlier, are issues that should be dealt with in the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and other appropriate forums. My country attaches the utmost importance to peace-keeping operations. In the past 40 years Colombia has participated in peace missions by providing law-enforcement officers and military observers. Our contribution and cooperation with the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security began with our active participation in the Korean conflict. Our contribution to United Nations peace-keeping activities continues today in El Salvador, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, the Sinai and Angola. My delegation believes that in the exercise of those activities, such fundamental principles as universality and non-discrimination on the basis of race, language or culture must be borne in mind. The process of selecting contingents from different countries should be carried out equitably and impartially. In connection with the budgetary proposals contained in the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, although we agree with him on the need to seek financial mechanisms that will ensure the effective implementation of peace-keeping operations, my delegation would supplement those proposals, as follows. First, budgetary measures should be discussed en bloc in order to provide Member States with an overview of implicit financial commitments. Secondly, the discussion should benefit from the initiatives currently taking shape in various bodies, including the expert group set up by the Secretary-General. It would be advisable to set a deadline for the submission of proposals to allow time for their thorough examination. Thirdly, eventual decisions should discourage late payment of contributions and not destabilize the United Nations regular budget. Fourthly, thought should be given to establishing a peace-keeping reserve fund, on the understanding that the search for sources of financing in the private sector and from individuals should not compromise the necessary impartiality and neutrality of the Organization. Finally, we wish to underscore what was said by the Rio Group. We do not think it a good idea at this juncture to alter the scale of assessments adopted for peace-keeping operations. On the contrary: institutionalization of the scale would enhance the reliability of commitments resulting from the Secretary-General's new initiatives. The Colombian delegation hopes these ideas will contribute to improving our Organization's capacity for action in the face of the changing factors of peace and security. Thus, we firmly support the establishment of a General Assembly working group that is able to contribute positive proposals to the analysis of the document that we have been considering today. The meeting rose at 6.30 p.m.