A/48/PV.30 General Assembly

I wish to begin by thanking the delegations that were present in the Hall at 10.05 a.m. today - that is, the delegations of Algeria, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Cambodia, Finland, Liechtenstein, Moldova, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the United Arab Emirates, the United States and Zambia.

I should like to draw the General Assembly’s attention to document A/48/414/Add.7. In a letter contained in that document, the Secretary-General informs me that since the issuance of his communications dated 21, 24, 27 and 29 September 1993 and 4, 6 and 11 October 1993 the Dominican Republic has made the payment necessary to reduce its arrears below the amount specified in Article 19 of the Charter. May I take it that the General Assembly duly takes note of that information? It was so decided. This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned within one week of the date of publication to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Section, Room C-178, and incorporated in a copy of the record. NEW YORK

We must now wait for the representatives whose names are on the list of speakers for this morning to arrive. I would ask delegations to ensure that, when their names are on the list of speakers, they be here on time to address the Assembly.

We consider the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization to be particularly important and relevant because it provides an overview of how we can give effect to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter in the present circumstances. The report identifies critical factors and the relationship between those factors, which, if fully understood, can help us make significant progress towards the achievement of the objectives shared by the entire international community. We thank the Secretary-General for the well-thought-out way he has described his conduct of his office and for highlighting subjects on which we must take decisions and those on which he seeks our guidance. Venezuela fully shares the Secretary-General’s conviction that the Organization has been able to respond decisively and creatively to the demands of today’s international society and to the pre-eminent values of peace, democracy and development that have arisen as the unquestioned unifying factors in political action by Member States. As a founding country of the Organization, Venezuela shares this focus; these are the very values that underlie our domestic political order and our international activities. Distr. GENERAL A/48/PV.30 9 November 1993 ENGLISH I wish to concentrate today on the Secretary-General’s overview of the Organization. When the Assembly or its Main Committees consider other agenda items, we will have the opportunity to make more detailed comments on some of the many other matters the report deals with. Along with the Secretary-General, we consider that, faced with a new range of responsibilities and, above all, potentialities for action, the Organization must give priority to re-evaluating itself so it can effectively adapt to new circumstances. In our view, the Secretary-General was right to shoulder the responsibility of challenging the status quo and proposing areas of political, organizational and management action to do so. All Member States maintain an unflagging interest in the "Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). The "Agenda" is being put to the test in the numerous crises that have arisen over the past year. The Secretary-General’s commitment to submit for our consideration an agenda for development, conceptually and operationally linked to the "Agenda for Peace" ensures that this fresh momentum will be all- encompassing and that the Organization will fulfil its duty to deal with each and every aspect of its Charter mandate. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela has noted, we are convinced that we must work for a more democratic and more transparent Organization, in whose decision-making all Member States unreservedly feel they are fully participating. As a non-permanent member of the Security Council over the past two years, Venezuela had the opportunity to see how useful the Security Council summit was; but we have also seen the need to find ways of enhancing transparency and openness in the Council’s work, deliberations and decision-making. That process is under way; continuing it will broaden the Council’s political ambit. The current procedures of the Council, given their present modalities and the scope of Council decisions, unquestionably require greater participation and responsibility by all Member States. Along with the process of reviewing the composition of the Council, this should achieve better balance and a greater sense of shared responsibility with the General Assembly, for the benefit of The very concept of threats to international peace and security is evolving. New situations are now ripe for collective action based on that concept. The newness of that concept has given rise to numerous questions as to the best way to meet the new demands. The Organization has responded with institutional instruments and, largely, with existing procedures. We wonder whether, if this trend continues, it is advisable for ever-greater responsibilities to be concentrated in the Security Council. In our view, the link between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council suggested in the Secretary- General’s report should not simply be ignored. We think the suggested relationship should be reversed. The Economic and Social Council should not draw the Security Council’s attention to economic and social crises in order for the latter to take preventive action. Such preventive action is the very essence of the responsibilities of the Organization and of the entire United Nations system in the economic and social field. Nevertheless, we could explore a way for the Economic and Social Council, when a crisis arises, to contribute to the solution of the economic and social aspects of the crisis. Instead of adopting resolutions calling for economic and humanitarian assistance, recommending the establishment of voluntary funds, or promising action by the specialized agencies, the Security Council could recommend or request that the Economic and Social Council study and define the modalities for providing such necessary assistance as is possible, in all areas of its competence. That would achieve a better and more effective functional relationship between those two main organs, along with the participation of a larger number of Member States in the critical matters before the Organization. Combined with the ongoing process of restructuring and revitalization, this could lead to a more focused and active Economic and Social Council, fully involved in all items before the Organization. We should also consider whether, given its current operational mechanisms, the Economic and Social Council is really in a position to take on additional tasks. The Secretary-General’s proposal for a high-level intersessional mechanism is especially relevant in this context. We think that what is required, rather than a process of centralizing decision-making, is a process of segmentation, in order to give proper and full participation to every forum at our disposal. The comments concerning the Economic and Social Council are also relevant to the International Court of While this is of concern when the interests of political and legal solutions overlap, it is less so when the international community attempts to develop a broader legal system to respond to the new situations confronting it. We have seen, for example, that is has been necessary to establish a special Tribunal to pass judgement on serious violations of international human rights committed in the former Yugoslavia and that, for a few years now, there has been a proposal to create an international penal court. While the Secretary-General’s concern to preserve the concept of a single and universal legal system may be reasonable, it is certain that reality extends beyond that desideratum. It would be worth while in the immediate future for Member States, with the Secretary-General’s support, to consider at greater length and in greater detail the implications of the trends to which he calls our attention in his report. Finally, in this attempt to respond to the ideas on United Nations bodies contained in the report, I should like to refer briefly to the Secretariat. Venezuela supports and generally welcomes the Secretary-General’s initiatives aimed at improving the quality and commitment of the Organization’s staff, rationalizing its structures to meet new demands, correcting the misuse of funds and reducing waste. We simply wish to point out that, as in any organization that attempts to answer to the most varied interests, this process would gain support if it was carried out consensually, first addressing the need to fulfil the existing mandates and in consultation with Member States. The challenge before us is not only one of rationalization and increased efficiency: we also need to feel that we are playing an active part in a process that also involves the Secretary-General, the individual Member States, and the United Nations bodies through which the purposes and principles of the Charter are expressed.

The United States is pleased to have this opportunity to express again its gratitude to the Secretary-General for his While many important themes are addressed, we will limit our comments to a few practical issues of particular importance and consequence: peace-related activities, the matter of interim United Nations offices, and the strengthening of United Nations activities in human rights, humanitarian affairs and development. First, in the section entitled "Peace-keeping in a changing context", we welcome the Secretary-General’s several timely and important proposals for strengthening management and support of the widening range of peace- related activities. Let me draw the attention of members of the Assembly to some of these. First, we agree that robust and professional press and public-information activities are an integral part of peace- keeping. We welcome the attention this dimension of peace- keeping receives in the report and encourage the Secretary- General to take measures to strengthen it. Secondly, we like the emphasis on improved training and civilian recruitment for peace-keeping missions and believe that aggressive steps in these areas should be made a very high priority. Thirdly, we strongly endorse the proposal that the General Assembly create a system for appropriating, on an accelerated basis, some portion of the estimated cost of a peace-keeping operation, and we hope that the Fifth Committee will soon be able to turn its attention to this important issue. Fourthly, we note that the United Nations has begun to make use of the services of commercial contractors to provide support services for United Nations field operations. So long as these contracts cover non-sensitive activities and are awarded on a competitive basis - open to bids from companies in all geographical regions - we believe they are a sound and appropriate response to rapidly growing demands. Finally, we strongly welcome the incorporation of the Field Operations Division into the Department of Peace- keeping Operations and expect this change to strengthen significantly the Department’s executive authority for peace- keeping operations under the direction of the Secretary- General. On development issues, the United States looks forward with interest to the proposals that the Secretary-General indicates will be forthcoming in his report "An agenda for development"; a preliminary report on the subject will be made available to the General Assembly at its forty-eighth session. We are pleased that, in his report on the work of the Organization, the Secretary-General indicated that his report will include guidelines for future United Nations action. The United States hopes that the report will help stimulate a more pragmatic discussion and work programme for furthering development. Regarding the treatment of human rights in the report, we were gratified to read that "the effective safeguarding of human rights is possible only in a democratic framework" (A/48/1, para. 275) and that "the process of democratization cannot be separated from the protection of human rights" (ibid.). As President Clinton stated before this body during the general debate: We are therefore in harmony with the Secretary-General. In addition, we believe that strengthening the role that the United Nations plays in human rights is an important goal for this Organization. This can best be accomplished through the creation of a post of high commissioner for human rights, and we hope to work with the Secretary- General to that end.

It is a distinct honour and privilege for me to speak on behalf of the non-aligned countries on the Secretary-General’s report on the work of the Organization (A/48/1). It is comprehensive and provides The past few years have witnessed a dramatic improvement in the climate in which the United Nations has functioned. The Secretary-General has rightly identified the comprehensive nature of the global challenges over the past year and thus the indispensability of the United Nations in addressing them. Such global challenges require an integrated approach to peace, security and development. "An Agenda for Peace" and an agenda for development, now at the preparatory stage, underscore the comprehensiveness and integrated nature of the new approach being enunciated by the Secretary-General. We fully agree that, given these challenges and the realities of our time, it is clear that this world Organization - the United Nations - has indeed become indispensable. In the areas of peace and security, the United Nations role has been revitalized and rejuvenated, and within a short period of time the Organization has amassed a record of significant achievements. Peace-keeping and peacemaking activities launched in many areas of the world have gained new dimensions of unprecedented variety and scope. We agree that there is a second generation of peace-keeping involving political, military and humanitarian aspects, and that these should be dealt with in a unified and integrated manner. However, the Movement believes that these activities should be pursued in a balanced manner and accord fully with the sacrosanct principles that the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of States should not be infringed. Likewise, we concur with the Secretary-General’s assessment that development is now understood to involve many dimensions. No longer merely confined to economic policies and resources, it also includes political, social, educational and environmental factors. The end of the cold war and the disappearance of ideological rigidities have also impacted on the role of the Organization in the economic and social fields. In a number of other areas, ranging from the environment to population, the United Nations is also in the forefront of international efforts to manage transition and change. It is therefore with deepening concern that we view the financial crisis now facing the Organization. For while the Organization is staggering under the unprecedented expectation that it should deal effectively with a multiplicity of complex problems, it is being shackled by this perennial crisis. This paradox between demands and capacity cannot continue indefinitely without disastrous consequences for the aspirations of the international community for peace and development. The non-aligned countries believe that the United Nations should become effective as the central and irreplaceable instrument for a new and revitalized international order. In these endeavours, the primary objective is to render the Organization more responsive to the changing realities and emerging challenges of peace and development. Hence, steps must be taken to ensure not only the financial viability of the Organization, but also its democratic functioning - that is, the fullest participation, consultation and engagement of all its Members in the work of the Organization. In this context, we are gratified to note in the report that the General Assembly is playing an increasingly practical role in world activities. As the General Assembly has grown in membership, its expanded activities include addressing issues relating to the maintenance of international peace and security. Clearly, there is also a need for streamlining and revitalizing the work of the Assembly. Through such an approach, the Assembly could more clearly define its work programme and impart greater importance and authority to its decisions. At the same time, the non-aligned countries are committed to establishing a balanced relationship between the General Assembly and other principal organs of the United Nations. In this context, it is essential to ensure the democratization of the Security Council, in line with the reform of the United Nations aimed at bringing about greater democratization and transparency in the work of all United Nations bodies. A review of the membership of the Security Council has become imperative in the light of the profound changes that have taken place on the international scene. As to the Economic and Social Council, we agree with the Secretary-General that the Council must now receive greater attention than it did during the cold war. We want even more to see the Council function fully, in accordance with its mandate enshrined in the Charter. Yet we note with regret the failure at the forty-seventh session of the Assembly to reach consensus on restructuring the United Nations in the economic, social and related fields. On the question of the Economic and Social Council’s providing the Security Council with reports on certain situations that threaten peace, we believe that such a practice would run counter to the Non-Aligned Movement’s position on the need to achieve a balanced relationship between the principal organs of the United Nations. Peace-keeping activities are now being utilized in historically unprecedented ways. Consequently, the uncertainty and discord concerning the composition, command and control, financing, mandate and time-frame of peace-keeping operations, as well as the safety of their personnel, have often impeded their effectiveness. It is important to search for ways and means in which consensus could be built to ensure global support for these activities. To this end, the roles of the General Assembly, the Security Council and the Secretary-General will require a careful reassessment. The non-aligned countries are gratified to note that, in the context of restricting and resolving conflict situations, the Secretary-General has undertaken numerous initiatives and actions which have established a framework to facilitate a peaceful settlement in accordance with relevant resolutions. The Movement will resolutely support his endeavours to enhance the efficacy of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping and peacemaking operations, in which many non-aligned countries have served and will continue to serve. In the economic sphere, the report contains a number of interesting and important ideas, notably on the concept of In the view of the Secretary-General, the Organization’s work in the economic and social fields appears to be less focused than its work in the political sector, due to the proliferation of intergovernmental bodies in those sectors and their lack of coordination. While this may be true, we should not discount the lack of political will in the equation. In any efforts to increase coordination, the new orientation and focus on development should not be ignored. In this context, it is pertinent to state that any structural changes to be undertaken by the Secretary-General should be subject to approval by the relevant intergovernmental bodies. We in the Non-Aligned Movement are also pleased that the Secretary-General has dealt deftly and cogently with the conceptual aspects of the changing world realities as they relate to development and its interlinkages with peace, stability and democracy. We see the contours of such a concept emerging. At its Summit last year, our Movement committed itself to wage war on poverty, illiteracy and underdevelopment and to advance broad-based people-centred development, including the promotion of human resources for development. It also sought to accelerate development based on equitable distribution, growth and stability. The Movement can therefore agree with the Secretary-General’s assertion that there can be no flowering of development without the parallel advancement of democratization, especially over the long term. It is important to point out, however, that democracy, like development, is an evolutionary process and can best grow and flourish by being nurtured gradually in keeping with a country’s norms and traditions. There is no single formula for democracy applicable to all countries, as we fully recognize the existence of economic, social and cultural differences. As emphasized in the report, there is also a need for democratization between countries. Yet, in the section on developing the global community, the Secretary-General pointed to the shocking fact, as he put it, that the widening In like manner, in addressing the widening gap and the unacceptable trends in the world economy and global economic relations, as well as in recognizing the growing interdependence of nations and the globalization of issues and problems, the Non-Aligned Movement is very much aware that piecemeal and ad hoc remedies are not the answer. Unilateral, bilateral or regional approaches are not adequate either. Rather, such issues must be comprehensively and globally addressed. Thus the Movement saw no alternative to generating international cooperation for development, and has in consequence called for a reactivation of the dialogue and partnership between North and South. This time, however, the Movement sees the dialogue as being based on the economic imperatives of mutual interests and benefits, genuine interdependence and shared responsibility. We thus see the dialogue and the agenda for development as complementary and compatible; together they can enable the international community to come to terms with the fundamental questions of overcoming underdevelopment and poverty in developing countries, particularly in Africa. Regarding the social issues covered in the report, the non-aligned countries welcome the Secretary-General’s integrated approach in addressing economic and social development issues, as well as the progress already made in the preparations for the World Summit for Social Development. We look forward to the completion of the preparatory studies for the conference, which are under way, and to the definition of attainable social development objectives. On the advancement of women, we appreciate the Secretary-General’s work in outlining a number of steps being taken to give greater coherence to the activities of the United Nations, and we hope that this will contribute to the success of the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women. Finally, with regard to the outcome of the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna, the report has rightly highlighted the importance of the need for cooperation between Member States as a central element in furthering these goals. In this regard, the Movement notes In the present global setting, mutual interaction and linkages between political and economic problems are self-evident. In an increasingly interdependent world, the political stability and economic well-being of both developed and developing countries has become more intertwined. As the problems we face assume global proportions, in their scope and in their consequences, they call for a globalized effort to find solutions. The emergence of a new, more equitable and rational world order can come about only through sustained international cooperation and dialogue, conducted within a coherent, integrated and comprehensive approach as called for by the Secretary-General.

My delegation is pleased that we are having this debate on the report of the Secretary-General, thus resuming the healthy practice of considering annually in the General Assembly a document whose contents generally go beyond reviewing the activities of the Organization in the past year to outlining the future work of the United Nations. Unfortunately, in a debate such as this it is not possible to consider in depth every aspect of the report. Therefore, we shall focus on its general approach and on some of the elements which my delegation feels are the most important. The Secretary-General, in the introduction to his report, recognizes that "States and their sovereignty are ... indispensable building-blocks of international order and problem- solving" (A/48/1, para. 13) and he confirms that "the State and its national sovereignty" (ibid., para. 14) are the essential link between the isolated individual and the increasingly complex world in which he finds himself. He also points out: "Without State sovereignty, the very instrument of international cooperation might be destroyed and international organization might itself become impossible". (ibid., para. 16) Earlier in his report, the Secretary-General makes it clear that, in his estimation, "democratization must not only take hold inside a State, but among States in the international community". (ibid., para. 10) "provide the foundations for global security and stability". (ibid., para. 22) We make specific mention of these concepts because their being in the introduction might well lead an unwary reader to believe that they are the cornerstone of the document as a whole and its philosophical basis. Unfortunately, there is little to inspire such hope. It can be seen throughout the report - it is a constant - that the problems of development of the third world, which are one of the main tragedies facing the contemporary world, have in practice been subordinated to the implementation of new concepts supposedly aimed at preserving international peace and security. The priorities have been changed, and in the report the necessary balance between peace-keeping and the duties of the United Nations with regard to international cooperation for development has been lost. It is troubling to note that, in the efforts to implement the so-called integrated approach of the United Nations - an approach based, according to the report, on peace and security, democracy, human rights and development, in that order - not only does the integrated nature which supposedly gave its name to that approach disappear, but there is also an inversion in the pyramid which for decades we in the developing countries have been demanding. Development and international cooperation to achieve development must be the main concern of this Organization, and not other mechanisms, which - besides responding to very specific and partial interests - constitute a major potential for interference. Similarly, with the anticipated order of priorities, circumstances are being created for new conditions to emerge, a prelude to which we have already noted with concern in various mechanisms in the Organization. The unbridled proliferation of peace-keeping operations and the increased efforts to institute so-called preventive diplomacy, with a costly early-warning system; the creation of a General Staff of the Organization, without even a specific mandate to do so; and the new practices for peacemaking, imposing peace and post-conflict peace- building - to mention but a few of the new concepts - has led to the limited resources of the Organization being increasingly dissipated. Has there perhaps been a proportional increase in resources devoted to cooperation for development? Has On the contrary, the resources devoted to peace-keeping operations - which, moreover, we the States Members of the Organization provide, imposing a heavy burden on the marginalized South - are so abundant, and the prospects for more such operations so ambitious, that they have induced the Secretary-General to imply in his report that they exceed the capacity of the Organization. But, just as dangerous as the inversion of priorities to which we have referred, are their side effects in practically all spheres of the work of the Organization. We have noted with concern that not only has the primacy of the Security Council - with all the structural defects in membership and operating procedures from which it suffers - been confirmed in the report, but there is also a reiteration of the appeal for still further increases in the Council’s power, subordinating other principal bodies to its decisions. Paragraph 42, for example, which in a mere proposal summarizes the philosophy underlying this entire document, would subordinate the role of the Economic and Social Council to the Security Council, broaden the mandate of the Security Council to all spheres of United Nations activity, and be a further step towards the objective of transforming the Security Council into a sort of world government. The fact that in paragraph 6 of the report it is affirmed that "The second generation of peace-keeping is certain to involve not only military but also political, economic, social, humanitarian and environmental dimensions" (A/48/1, para. 6) appears to be heading in a similar direction, considering that it is the Security Council which is the organ entrusted with such operations. The re-establishment of balance would necessarily imply that the General Assembly resume in practice the functions related to peace-keeping and the peaceful settlement of controversies entrusted to it in the Charter. The Secretary-General complains, in paragraph 22 of the report, and quite rightly, that the attention of the media is focused on peace-keeping operations, giving the impression that other aspects are being ignored. We have to wonder, first of all, whether the media are wrong. Could it The Secretariat, to mention another example, also suffers the side effects of the inversion of priorities. We need only note the trend towards transferring personnel hired under the regular budget of the Organization to peace- keeping operations without replacing them. It is difficult for us to believe that the work of 1,200 employees of the Secretariat can be absorbed by others without adversely affecting the programmes of the Organization which are not related to peace-keeping operations and which have been duly mandated by the appropriate legislative bodies. The delegations themselves - why not say it aloud? - are also made to suffer these effects. While it is true that there are unpaid contributions, which diminish the resources available to the Organization, it is also quite true that the costs of carrying out certain activities, such as the establishment of a General Staff, situations rooms and other measures whose legislative mandates are also very questionable, absorb a great deal of resources which, in practice, could be devoted to satisfying needs in the areas of documents, interpretation and other services to delegations of the Member States, which are in reality the raison d’être of this Organization. Savings should be made elsewhere and not at the expense of the delegations representing the Members of the United Nations, as recognized in paragraph 83 of the report. Perhaps the approach adopted in 1985 and 1986, when certain circumstances reduced the financial capacity of the Organization, would be a good precedent. At that time, all of the measures to effect savings were taken in full consultation with the General Assembly. The fact that the States, and therefore the Governments they represent, are at the very centre of the activities of the United Nations can be neither forgotten nor set aside when considering the future programmes and activities of the Organization, in keeping, also, with the principle of the sovereign equality of all States. This calls not only for determining philosophical, political and economic concepts, to which primacy should be given, but also means that decisions as to the future course of the Organization must be taken strictly by the relevant intergovernmental bodies and not by other mechanisms not made up of Member States. In this context, it is particularly important to recall that the General Assembly is the principal body of the Organization and that its decisions are not opinions of the Member States but, rather, mandates the Secretariat is obliged to carry out. The report contains numerous Paragraph 80 of the report deserves special attention. In our opinion, the establishment of the new post of Assistant Secretary-General for Inspections and Investigations must be considered very closely. We feel that it would be more appropriate to strengthen internal controls, such as investigation, inspection, evaluation and accounting, but the key to success in this task would be, in our view, to strengthen the existing intergovernmental external control mechanisms. We shall expand on our comments in the appropriate forums, but we feel that in this area as well, the Member States should play a central role. The points made in the section of the report dealing with the restructuring of the Secretariat are of particular interest. I refer especially to paragraphs 86 and 90. The General Assembly awaits submission of the third stage in the restructuring, which relates to regional decentralization and to decentralization in the field. We feel that measures in this connection should not be pursued until approval has been given. An obvious illustration of this is the explanation, contained in paragraphs 102 to 106, of the so-called interim offices, about which there are many doubts among many Member States. These offices - which we feel are at the very apex of the inverted pyramid that there is an attempt to apply, on the basis of the concept of a more integrated approach in the work of the Organization - are unacceptable. The broad gamut of functions dealt with goes far beyond preventive diplomacy and the compiling of information and includes the coordination of activities in the field. In effect, these functions are regarded as being those of an embassy of the United Nations, for which there is no General Assembly mandate. We could discuss a coordinated presence in the field, but exclusively for the functions to which General Assembly resolution 47/199 relates. Similarly, we wonder what is the origin of the mandate of the Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, which, according to the report: "will link its activities with the early-warning capabilities being developed in the political and The same applies to some of the functions which, according to paragraph 139, are assigned to the Department for Development Support and Management Services. One of the matters with which we feel the report should deal in greater detail relates to the nature of peace-keeping operations, particularly in the light of paragraphs 276 to 278 and paragraph 291, as they tend to alter the very concept of these important activities. The attempt to question the principle of the consent of the parties for the initiation of operations seems to reflect the concept of limited sovereignty, which is very much in vogue in certain sectors, and which we feel contradicts the emphasis that the Secretary-General, in the introduction to his report, puts on sovereignty. We are firmly convinced that any United Nations action within the framework of "An Agenda for Peace" should adhere strictly to the decisions adopted by the General Assembly on the subject and should conform to the basic principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. It is also essential that those United Nations activities be undertaken following a case-by-case analysis, without creating precedents, as the circumstances in which these elements evolve are necessarily different. Therefore we note, and we are concerned at, the assertion made in paragraph 282 of the report. In view of all we have said, we should like to sound a warning concerning the continued references, direct or indirect, to the assumption that at this stage it is the job of the United Nations to get involved in situations that come exclusively within the jurisdiction of Member States. Continuing along that road could lead to unacceptable interference and to violation of the sovereignty of Member States - especially States in the third world. Paragraphs 251 and 252, as well as paragraph 255, in chapter III D, which is entitled "Protection of human rights", call for specific mention. In the case of the first two of these paragraphs, we do not know what mandates have led to a change in the functions of the Centre for Human Rights and what procedures have been followed for that purpose. In that regard, my delegation sent the Secretary-General a letter, which we hope has been made available to all delegations. With regard to paragraph 255, the Vienna Conference highlighted the universal nature of human rights but, equally, made the point that these rights are indivisible, interdependent and interlinked. We believe that partial or selective reference to international instruments of this kind may well be counter-productive and may lead to confusion. The Secretary-General’s report contains so many important and interesting elements that it would take a much longer and more comprehensive statement to mention all of them. We should like to be able to comment, for example, on the regional tribunals, or the specific items mentioned in paragraph 66, or the possibility - mentioned in paragraph 64 - of the Secretary-General’s turning to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion. In the meantime, we shall simply express our agreement with the Secretary- General as to the importance of securing, within the framework of the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament, a negotiating mandate for the Ad Hoc Committee on a Nuclear Test Ban. The international community has been making this appeal for many years. Such a step would make possible the drafting of a treaty on the subject. We trust that the Secretary-General will take advantage of the opportunity offered by the drafting of an agenda for development, as requested by the General Assembly, to rectify an impression that may have been given that the basic economic and social problems affecting the third world have been relegated to a lower level in the work of the Organization. Cuba is prepared to engage in dialogue, in any United Nations forum, on any of the items with which the Organization deals. We disagree with the Secretary-General as regards many aspects, but there are many in respect of which we agree with him. As a State Member of this Organization, we are prepared to work seriously, flexibly and in depth, without insisting on any arrangements, and in any manner by which the Organization could be made more just, more equitable, more transparent and more efficient and able to abide by the principles enshrined in the Charter. To that end, we are at your disposal, Mr. President, and at the disposal of the Secretary-General and of the other Members of this Organization.

The Secretary-General states in his report on the work of the Organization: We are pleased to see that the Secretary-General has taken up again the integrated approach to development that I have put forward on many occasions on behalf of the Group of 77. Development must be integrated. These three elements - development, democracy and peace - are closely linked and are the central axis of progress for peoples. The international community faces the challenge of democratic development to achieve peace, which indicates that the fundamental need of peoples is that of being able to satisfy their basic economic needs in order to begin building harmonious and democratic societies. Solid and lasting peace is therefore a result of economic, political and social development. The work of the Organization consists precisely in finding the right mechanisms to fulfil these three objectives. It cannot give primacy to one at the expense of the others, for the fulfilment of any decision intended to do so brings serious consequences. The actions taken by the United Nations must be the correct ones in this new era of international relations, when the Organization’s credibility is at stake. Putting the complete blame for the crisis on the question of security relegates to the sidelines the economic and political aspects of international reality. Hence, the tendency to use the mechanism of peace-keeping operations while overlooking other tools set out in the United Nations Charter reduces the possibility of finding integrated, long- term solutions. The proliferation of complex, multidimensional peace- keeping operations indicates that this mechanism is being given priority, and the decision to resort to it has not necessarily contributed to a more peaceful and harmonious world. The disorderly development of some peace-keeping operations casts doubt on the Organization’s ability to manage conflicts. The basic reason for this is that the United Nations has exceeded the spirit of its original aims. Intervention in a country’s internal power struggles without studying its true and objective connection with international peace and security changes the face of the mediating capacity of the United Nations. During the cold war, the super-Powers assumed the costs of conflicts that occurred in their zones of influence. Today those costs have been transferred to the Organization and have become universal, thus diverting the funds of all States that could be earmarked for economic- and social- development projects. In view of those considerations, it is essential to reconsider and review critically the nature of the objectives and the duration and scope of the mandates of the peace- keeping operations, in all their aspects. A critical evaluation of the results of peace-keeping operations is therefore necessary, and in that evaluation each facet of the operations must be thoroughly examined: their dynamics, their duration, the process of establishing them, their composition and their objectives in the light of the nature of the crisis each is intended to deal with. While the United Nations, according to the preamble to the Charter, seeks "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war", a great many of the present peace-keeping operations have not been successful in fulfilling that objective. Current peace-keeping operations have not established a more stable international order, contrary to the Secretary-General’s claims. Recent peace-keeping operations have more often than not resulted in new conflicts of greater dimensions. Faced with the alternative of establishing peace-keeping operations indiscriminately, as has been done in recent months, we should ensure that the criterion of selectivity again becomes pre-eminent. The United Nations cannot become a body of partial intervention in countries’ internal conflicts. Each crisis and each conflict must be considered carefully, together with its own evolution and particular features. In order to avoid consequences that undermine the credibility and the achievement of the objectives sought in settling disputes, each one should be understood in all its dimensions before a peace-keeping operation is launched. The structure, mandate, relevance and dimensions of peace-keeping operations should spring from open, transparent and concerted reflection by the Member States of the Organization. It is up to them collectively, as the main actors, to define the new paths in international peace and security. The tendency to dilute this fundamental principle Concerned by the apparent increase in new and dangerous ideas about defining the concept of the State and of the United Nations in the international system, as presented to us by the Secretary-General in his report, we consider it pertinent to recall in this forum that the United Nations is not and has never been "more than the sum of its parts" (A/48/1, para. 512). The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization composed of sovereign States that participate on an equal footing and take decisions by majority or consensus. The concept of the State is at the very core of the international system. The internationalization of world processes is not evidence of the disappearance of the State. In that phenomenon the State still prevails, as the sole sovereign entity in the international system. The State is the actor and the constant in the international system. The fragmentation of the nation-State, as can be seen in various regions of the world, creates instability and trauma. It is paradoxical that while respect for and observance of human rights is being promoted, individual and collective tolerance cannot be relied on to maintain and hold together inter-cultural, inter-ethnic and pluri-religious societies. Rather than taking their identity from abstract universal and global values, peoples take their identity from shared national values engendered by their collective evolution within States. In this context, the United Nations is a grouping of sovereign States which individually formed the political will to come together in a multilateral Organization. Therefore, on the international stage the State plays the principal role. Regional organizations and the United Nations system play only the role that Member States assign them. Thus it is that Member States are the axis of the United Nations system, and the various organs that constitute it are subordinate to the sovereign political will of those States. Any other interpretation of this relationship with the Organization is erroneous, irrelevant and dangerous to harmonious and democratic development. The Organization must therefore maintain its universal nature, which means that all Member States participate in the decision-making process on an equal footing. The principle of transparency applies to all aspects of United Nations activities, including those relating to peace-keeping and the maintenance of international peace and security. Any recasting of the Organization cannot ignore these basic principles of its creation and constitution. The General Assembly is the principal body of a universal character. All States Members of the Organization are represented, with equal sovereignty. Therefore, revitalizing the Assembly is basic to the ongoing process of changing and reviewing the system. The Security Council, of course, needs to be reformed. The international community needs a more open, more deliberative and more transparent Security Council, one that better reflects the new composition of the Organization and the new international reality. Reform must include a review of the veto, the number of permanent and non-permanent members and the Council’s rules of procedure. With regard to the Secretary-General, it should be noted that he is not autonomous and that his mandate emanates from the duties entrusted to him by the principal organs of the Organization. As is stated in Chapter XV of the Charter, the Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer of the Organization; he is exclusively an international official, responsible only to the Organization. Since 1945 the General Assembly has provided the framework for the departments of the United Nations in the operational area. Those departments have never been given any political dimension. Any attempt to do so has consistently been rejected in the discussions on the issue in the Assembly. We must recall the reservations a great number of States have on this question. The search for efficiency cannot be carried out through the creation of a series of temporary departments. The United Nations is not a State, and therefore the concept of broadening the political sphere of the roles of the United Nations Resident Coordinators is unacceptable. Such initiatives distort the legitimate nature of those departments in Member States which deal exclusively with operational activities, in accordance with relevant resolutions of the General Assembly. In the United Nations, political functions are governed by rules that are completely different from those governing operational activities. The Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights are clear examples of this. Each has its own mechanism for dealing with delicate political questions and for dealing with the matter of representation. This is a further reason why we are totally opposed to the idea of broadening the political scope of the In conclusion, we should like to make clear our support for the Secretary-General in all his efforts to reduce costs, increase efficiency and eradicate corruption within the Organization, and to congratulate and thank him for a detailed, comprehensive and exhaustive report, which has brought us together here to discuss the activities of the Organization. We hope that that same format and detailed information will be found in the reports of other principal organs, especially that of the Security Council. ORGANIZATION OF WORK

I have two announcements relating to our work. First, I propose that the list of speakers in the debate on the Secretary-General’s report be closed today at 12.30 p.m. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly accepts that proposal.

I therefore request those representatives wishing to participate in the debate to inscribe their names on the list of speakers as soon as possible. Secondly, members will recall that at its third plenary meeting on 24 September the General Assembly decided to hold four plenary meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday, 26 and 27 October, to examine, under agenda item 112, "International drug control", the status of international cooperation against the illicit production, sale, demand, traffic and distribution of narcotics and psychotropic substances. I wish to propose, in view of the large number of Member States already inscribed on the list of speakers, that the length of statements be limited to 10 minutes. Members’ cooperation will be sincerely appreciated. If I hear no objection, I shall take it that the Assembly agrees with the proposal.

The report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization (A/48/1) is certainly excellent and very instructive. It is a reminder that United Nations activities do not represent an end in There is wide agreement that we are living in a world that is changing rapidly, at least in some respects. It has become almost a cliché that the world is experiencing great changes, so it may be of some use to say something about these changes. Change, to our mind, is like a conveyor belt - endless and ever-moving. It seems to have a habit of moving in fits, leaps, bounds and rebounds. An exhilaration at change is certainly understandable, but that is not enough; it is also necessary to understand where changes come from and where they are leading. Of no less importance is perceiving the implication of the "why’s" and "where to’s", since we are faced with the need to accept them. Change, with its many faces, is causing some to rejoice while provoking stress and apprehension in others, but it certainly is a vehicle for the brave, for the bold and for the forward-looking. Change is making more visible the fact that there is no single remedy for all situations and that attempts to manage these changes therefore carry great responsibility. The United Nations has been, throughout its existence, a vehicle of change. It has managed to be the harbinger and the midwife, acting sometimes against and in the face of powerful interests that would rather see the status quo maintained at all costs. The United Nations, we recall, was at its most efficient, producing stable and enduring answers, when changes were the property of all, not the product of the few. Self-determination is a case in point. Throughout modern times, self-determination has in some instances been met with approval, while in others it has faced tough opposition. The situation seems no better and no worse today. Self-determination is certainly unpredictable in its consequences. Over the past decades, it has produced a whole new world, and it keeps changing this world to this day and into tomorrow, with often unexpected results. Suggestions are now being made to limit the right to self-determination. In the end, these attempts may prove costly, useless and even harmful. True, self-determination may be misused to provoke hatred, hegemony and homogenization. We have seen examples of this in the past few years, for instance in the dissolution of obsolete but heretofore sovereign States Members of the United Nations. However, the developments in former Member States prove Much has been said in this Hall, and rightly so, about human rights. Respect for and implementation of human rights represent an important vehicle for change, because human rights legitimize the political movement for democracy. They are no less important for successful preventive diplomacy. We view human rights as a bridge over the abyss of violence. In order to fortify this bridge and make it available to all, human rights should be vehemently and continuously upheld, particularly when a warlord or demagogue chooses to achieve his aims by fire and by sword. But let us face it: sometimes it takes too long for the international community to see, or to admit that it sees, that human rights are being trampled underfoot. Sometimes it takes too long to react, and untold numbers of people are left to fend for themselves, suffering injustices while yearning for peace and for democratic relations. This certainly is nothing new - there were death camps and gulags in our lifetime - but it is simply wrong, and dangerous, for the international community to let this happen at the end of this century, in this time. Lack of respect for human rights is usually the first wisp of smoke that can tell all those who want to see it that a crisis is in the making. That is the moment to act and not just to compile data and monitor the situation. The world cannot afford the luxury of waiting, beating around the bush and misreading the signals when there is a case of massive violation of human rights. Let me repeat that violations of human rights are the most reliable and the most visible early-warning signal flagging the rising danger. Hence, one would wish that the human rights standards of the Council of Europe were valid around the globe and, if necessary, could be improved around the globe. We in Slovenia have experienced the vital importance of these principles in our recent past, and we are wholly dedicated to them. With regard to minorities we maintain an internationally very high level as regards the enhancement of their human rights. Looking at the horizon of peace-keeping operations and at the horizon of preventive diplomacy, it is to be noted that more often than not precious little is being said about the causes of conflicts. Without focusing on the causes of conflict, preventive action is groping in the dark. It is conventional wisdom that wherever there is conflict there is injustice. The element of justice is sometimes absent, and without it preventive action tends to restore the status quo ante. Conflict prevention and preventive diplomacy are thus rendered helpless in their main task; to our mind, that main task is to establish new and stable relationships. In our view, preventive diplomacy and preventive action are not to prevent change but to prevent the escalation of war and suffering, to bring about peaceful change in an orderly and democratic way and to establish the basis for future stable relations. Hence, attention should be paid equally to putting out the fires of war, violence and destruction in the present and to laying down the framework for the future. This framework for the future will, however, be uncertain if it is cast in the mould of the old. There has been a lot of talk about regional arrangements lately, and rightly so. It is of particular importance that the United Nations continue to cultivate a relationship of partnership with regional organizations and shun relationships of subordination. It is of great importance that these regional arrangements be developed on democratic premises. These arrangements will serve hardly any useful, much less positive, purpose if they are just refurbished systems of old arrangements or a barely veiled attempt to resurrect or reconstruct the inviable State entities that have fallen apart, causing so much suffering in the process. Reconstituting or reconstructing those entities would seem to be nothing but an invitation to another crisis or one more conflict waiting to happen. Sweden, the Chairman-in-Office of the Council of Ministers of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), has brought the CSCE into a logical and forward-looking relationship with the United Nations. It may be time now to give a thought to the possibility of the Social tensions, overpopulation and unemployment will likely be among the underlying causes of outbursts of violence, strife and war. To deal with them will take more than armour; it will take politically, socially and economically minded people to deal creatively with the situation. I wish next to discuss the issue of transition from the totalitarianism to democracy, from command economy to market economy. Beholding the scene of Central and Eastern Europe, one inevitably arrives at the conclusion that in the wake of the bipolar world there are new problems and new uncertainties. The nations of Europe have yet to formulate a new comprehensive policy for the continent. Such a policy cannot be based on the old precepts of the policy of containment. Containment was no doubt an effective policy that kept the totalitarian East at bay for decades. However, the remains of the policy of containment are still weighing heavily on Central and Eastern Europe’s relations with the rest of the world. Now a policy of enlargement - enlargement of the core of market economies and democratic States - is being launched. To our mind, however, this presupposes the abandonment of all vestiges of the policy of containment and an ever stronger involvement of these countries in a true partnership. Involvement will remain necessary in order for these countries to be able to assume their share of responsibility for the future and the stability of Europe. The budding democracies must be strengthened; limping economies must be set on the right foot; and security must be enhanced to the extent that will allow undisturbed political and social development. I do not want this to be understood as a Euro-centric shopping list of hopes. I think it can be viewed as a part of the programme for any region, and for the United Nations as well.

The Sri Lanka delegation wishes to congratulate the Secretary-General for presenting what he himself has referred to as It is indeed a comprehensive overview of the manifold activities of the different organs and other bodies of the United Nations system. In his introduction, the Secretary-General speaks of the new opportunity that presented itself one year ago with the end of the cold war. We agree that there are accomplishments to be applauded. But, as he himself has stated, they do not provide a sense of true satisfaction. During the past year, "An Agenda for Peace" has been the centre of attention at the United Nations. Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-keeping and post-conflict peace-building have been exhaustively debated and discussed. On the eve of the present, forty-eighth, session of the General Assembly, a resolution on these topics was adopted by consensus. My delegation had hoped that an agenda for development would not be long delayed. Even though it has not yet materialized, we look forward to the preliminary report which the Secretary-General intends to submit to the General Assembly at this session. We agree with the Secretary-General’s comment that work in the economic and social sectors needs greater focus, clear direction and indeed equal, if not greater, priority. We believe however that the remedy should go beyond institutional revamping. It should encompass policy aspects commensurate with the Charter responsibilities deriving from Article I, that the United Nations "be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of ... common ends". For a variety of reasons the United Nations has not yet been able to use this mandate fully in the economic sphere. We are encouraged by the Secretary-General’s determination to fill this gap. Indeed all the good work of the United Nations in the political and security spheres may not be sustainable in the long term if the socio-economic dimensions of peace and security are relegated to secondary status. The ways and means of reactivating the North-South dialogue, the United Nations role in that process, and pragmatic and affordable concepts and mechanisms for meeting the need for additional resources are some of the issues to be addressed with purpose and commitment. We await policy options on these issues for consideration by In the general debate of this Assembly, my Minister for Foreign Affairs put forward some ideas for harmonizing the need for additional resources for development with available private capital through an interest subsidy mechanism. Peace, development and democracy are interlinked. The Secretary-General states: "There can be no flowering of development without the parallel advance of another key concept: democratization. Peace is a prerequisite to development; democracy is essential if development is to succeed over the long term." (A/48/1, para. 9) When the Preparatory Committee for the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations was deliberating on a theme for the anniversary, some of us tried to add peace, development and democracy to the generally accepted "We the peoples ...". But "democracy" proved difficult for some Member States to accept. It was then suggested that peace, equality, justice and development would find consensus, in keeping with the preamble to the Charter. In the event, the Preparatory Committee settled for "We the peoples of the United Nations ... united for a better world". We hope that in the solemn declaration which the Working Group of the Preparatory Committee will be preparing, it will be possible to articulate more clearly what kind of better world we are united for. In this connection, we cannot possibly avoid emphasizing peace, development and democracy. In his report, the Secretary-General states: "... democracy within States can be fully sustained over time only if it is linked to expanding democratization among States at all levels of the international system." (ibid., para. 10) This is surely true also of the United Nations and its principal organs. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. In the discussions of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly, which Sri Lanka had the honour to co-chair, it was recognized that the General Assembly is the only principal organ of the United Nations consisting of all the Members of the United Nations in which each Member State has an equal opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. That is why the General Assembly has now decided that the revitalization of It is equally important that democratization should extend to other parts of the United Nations system, even to the Security Council. Proposals have been made for a possible review of the membership of the Security Council. Democratization demands that its membership reflect the realities of today rather than the global power structure of 48 years ago. Decisions of the Security Council are binding on all Member States. Therefore, there must be some mechanism for broader participation in the decision-making process of the Security Council or at least for a general acceptance of decisions made. This would promote greater understanding between the Security Council and the General Assembly. It would thus enable the Security Council to discharge more successfully its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. According to Article 24 of the Charter, it is in order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations that its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. Would some recent decisions of the Security Council be endorsed by all or even the majority of Member States? There is an opportunity now to review the membership of the Security Council, and that opportunity should be seized in order to ensure that democratization and the transparency of the decision-making process are kept in mind. This is a matter to which my delegation expects to revert under the appropriate agenda item. In his report the Secretary-General refers at length to peace-keeping. The cost of peace-keeping is expected to rise from $1.4 billion in 1992 to an estimated $3.6 billion by the end of 1993. And yet there is increasing concern about some of the peace-keeping operations currently under way. While there have been a few notable successes - such as, for example, in Cambodia - the goal of establishing peace and stability in several areas is still far from being achieved. This is a matter which merits a thorough review. Peace-keeping in all its aspects will be dealt with in the new Special Political and Decolonization Committee (Fourth Committee). It is our hope that these discussions, to which As my Minister stated in the general debate: These are the principles of the Charter.

My delegation welcomes the Secretary-General’s report on the work of the Organization (A/48/1). It is not only substantive, thorough and comprehensive, but also thought-provoking. I should like to comment on a few of the issues raised in the report. First of all, we share the Secretary-General’s view that the United Nations should play a pivotal role in promoting not only peace and security, but also - and, in our view, more important - development. Development issues, in my delegation’s view, should remain at the core of the United Nations agenda because of the beneficial connection and linkage between development and parallel advances in democratization. As the Secretary-General points out - and we agree with him - democratization must take hold, not only within a State, but also among States in the international community. This, in turn, should translate into multilateral cooperation to support both democratization and development. It is in this regard that the United Nations has a vital role to play in promoting international cooperation for development. We hope that the sense of urgency given to international peace and security and the promotion of human rights can also be given to development issues, for one cannot deny the increasing economic and technological gap between the developed and the developing countries and the necessity of finding multilateral solutions to close it. The United Nations cannot afford to marginalize the priorities of the majority of its Members, which remain anchored on sustaining the development process and increasing the prosperity of their peoples. Thus, while we had hoped to have before us at this session the Secretary-General’s agenda for development, we nevertheless look forward to receiving his preliminary report The expanding role of the United Nations today in addressing issues of international peace and security; political, economic and social issues; and those of the environment and development inevitably taxes the resources available to it. This means that the reorganization must not only have the necessary financial and logistical resources for its activities, but, more important, the management capability to allocate these efficiently and productively. At this point, allow me to reiterate the statement which the Philippines Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Roberto Romulo, made before this body at its 20th meeting last week and in which he suggested exploring the possibility of the United Nations utilizing a group with expertise in corporate and scientific management to consider the question of United Nations reform in all its aspects. I must caution, however, that efforts to create greater efficiency should not have a negative impact on United Nations programmes and projects essential to the welfare of developing countries. At last year’s session, we had before us the historic report of the Secretary-General "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277). The two resolutions adopted at the forty-seventh session of the General Assembly in response to it (resolutions 47/120 A and B) established a number of principles to guide United Nations implementation of peace- keeping activities considered in the report, particularly those of the sovereign equality of States and transparency in establishing United Nations peace-keeping operations. They also acknowledge that some of the concepts in "An Agenda for Peace" are evolving. We believe this to be a prudent decision as it implies that the effectiveness of these concepts must still be ascertained. We welcome the fact that improving the implementation of Article 50 of the Charter is also addressed in one of these resolutions. In view of the growing involvement of the United Nations in preventive diplomacy and humanitarian and related conflict resolution activities, my delegation, in principle, sees the usefulness of a comprehensive review and assessment by the General Assembly of all aspects of United Nations peace-keeping operations, preferably by a single universal body. This would include issues such as mandates, safety, and financial management. The Philippines recognizes that the maintenance of international peace and security is a collective responsibility. Our participation in a major United Nations peace-keeping operation was a reflection of this. However, our participation in that operation entailed a considerable financial burden on our part, as no doubt it did for other The revitalization of the General Assembly is aimed at enhancing the capacity of the General Assembly to fulfil its role as envisaged under the Charter. It should therefore be undertaken in a comprehensive manner. We look forward to the early convening of the informal open-ended working group established by resolution 47/233, which should make proposals on issues such as the reports of United Nations principal organs to the General Assembly. Finally, we believe that discussions on the expansion of the membership of the Security Council should be undertaken in the context of the democratization of the United Nations, particularly with a view to increasing the transparency of the Council’s work and the participation of non-Council Members in its decision-making process. We look forward to our debate on this subject and, in this connection, would be favourably disposed towards a procedural decision to continue detailed deliberation on this and related issues through an open-ended, structured and transparent mechanism.

The delegation of Egypt takes pleasure in participating in discussing the Secretary-General’s report on the work of the Organization at a time of dynamic change in an international scene that more than ever before calls for us to intensify the role of the United Nations, to reinforce the positive aspects and remedy the negative in order for us to build a world order that would guarantee progress and prosperity for all Member States and meet the challenges that face us, with the participation of all and in the interests of all. We welcome the Secretary-General’s report on the work of the Organization contained in document A/48/1. The report invites us to reflect on and define the opportunities before the United Nations and the challenges that face it at present. These are indeed new opportunities that would make it possible to promote international cooperation in dealing with many of the problems that beset the world, especially the problem of endemic poverty and particularly in Africa. At the same time, we face challenges that arise from ethnic conflicts and the disintegration of nation States. On In his report, the Secretary-General reviews the achievements and the shortcomings of the past year, as reflected in the Organization’s successes, as I said, but also in its set-backs. The report quite adequately describes the activities of the United Nations in all areas; it proposes the measures of cooperation needed for strengthening the United Nations as an organization and for enhancing the role of that Organization, which is central to today’s world because it convenes meetings on a variety of subjects with the participation of all Member States on the basis of sovereign equality. The report details the work carried out by the various departments of the Secretariat and the various organs of the Organization, in the area of peace and security. However, on the work carried out by the economic and the social sectors, the report is much less clear. This is perhaps the result of the proliferation of institutions and bodies working in those two areas. However, in view of the importance of the issues involved in those two spheres, it would be useful and indeed important to remedy this shortcoming in future reports. In analysing the contents of the report concerning the gains made and the losses inflicted by reality, and the pattern of developments over the past 12 months, we are bound to arrive at a constant fact, namely the comprehensive nature of the global challenges the world must face and the indissoluble link between maintaining peace and development in all its aspects. There is no development without peace, and without development there can be no basis for peace. In the absence of development, societies will veer towards conflict. When we look at the development of peace-keeping operations over the past year, we note another fact, highlighted by operations in the field, which is the need to look at those operations from an integral standpoint and the need for the operations to deal not only with the military aspects: attention must also be paid to the political, economic, social and humanitarian aspects. In this respect, the delegation of Egypt wishes to stress the importance of facing up to non-military threats with the same vigour and determination we show in confronting military threats. Destitution, famine and natural disasters are The basic objective of the United Nations should be to create conditions that, to the best possible extent, would be conducive to reducing instability and diminishing the threats to peace. We need to get at the root causes of such problems and reduce the risks before situations arise and call for peace-keeping operations or, in the worst scenario, deteriorate and make it necessary to resort to coercive measures for the imposition of peace. The discussion on the "Agenda for Peace" - which, we feel, is only a beginning and not an end - has highlighted new concepts that relate to a number of preventive measures which require States to develop a different outlook and a different approach. The adoption of a resolution on this subject here, during the forty-seventh session, affords an opportunity for the Member States of the Organization to give further consideration to its contents so that, in the future, they can take a positive and realistic stance vis-à-vis those concepts and translate "preventive diplomacy" from high-sounding words into reality. Given the changes that have taken place and the challenges that face the world and which cannot be controlled by any one State or group of States, the United Nations has an even greater responsibility to ensure the achievement of peace and development, as provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 1 of the Charter, which stipulates that the Organization should: "... be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends". Unquestionably, this has a direct effect on the organs of the Organization which, at present, are undergoing restructuring and reform. In this regard, I should like to highlight the role of the General Assembly as the main organ of the United Nations and to stress the importance of enhancing that role. The tables and figures in the Secretary-General’s report indicate a rapid increase in the workload of the Security Council and in the attendant peace-keeping operations as well as in the activities of the Secretariat. My delegation wishes to suggest that we should avoid the supposition that each and every issue that has to do with or has an effect on international peace and security must be dealt with at the level of the Security Council. In fact, there are situations in which the General Assembly may be able to play a significant role. This is a matter that the Charter stipulates. In this context, I must say that the report the Security Council should submit to the General Assembly, as required by the Charter, is an important document that should be less general and more substantive. There is undoubtedly an urgent need for keeping the necessary balance between the Council and the General Assembly as stipulated by the Charter. While some situations concerning peace and security can be dealt with by the General Assembly, which has a key role to play, others might well be entrusted to regional organizations, which could, thereby, take on a pre- eminent role. Our desire to formulate an effective plan for peace requires that we revitalize the role of the General Assembly in safeguarding peace by ensuring that optimum use is made of the potential that the Charter provides for that purpose. We must also have a clear perception of the role of regional organizations, of the manner in which they can support the work of the United Nations and of their mutually supportive functions. It is practice alone that will enable us to ensure harmonious integration of the roles played by the Security Council, by the General Assembly, by regional organizations and by the Secretariat. The delegation of Egypt supports the effort to restructure the United Nations and revitalize its role in the economic and social spheres and stresses that any restructuring in those two areas must be aimed at promoting international cooperation for development and that any reform of the United Nations bodies should be geared to the promotion of that cooperation so that the Organization may become more responsive to the current realities and the changes that are taking place in the world so that it may respond to the requirements of development in the developing countries. My delegation also affirms that an agenda for development should be given the same high profile as the "Agenda for Peace". In fact, the former should be complementary to the latter, as development is a precondition for peace and is, thus, one of the essential elements of preventive diplomacy. Egypt feels that any comprehensive and objective assessment of the Organization’s ability to function efficiently will depend in large part on the extent to which Member States will honour their financial commitments to it, on time. Finally, we feel that the problems that beset our world are universal both in their scope and in their effects. Consequently, dealing with such problems requires international efforts if we are to come up with solutions that would ensure the emergence of the new international order we aspire after. The balance and justice we hope for in such an order will be ensured only through the political will of all Member States and their commitment to international cooperation and all-embracing dialogue.

We welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on the Secretary-General’s report on the work of the Organization. We congratulate the Secretary-General on this document, which, in many respects, could be described as a report on the state of the United Nations in 1992. The Secretary-General has pre-empted delegations with his admission that it is the longest such report to be presented in many years. Its length notwithstanding, the report gives an overview and makes specific references to the theme, thrust and status of the various activities undertaken by the United Nations. The document is comprehensive, yet succinct. Indeed, together with the speech of the President of the General Assembly, it has set the tone and tenor of debate for the current session. This process was enriched by the statements of all our leaders in the general debate. Malaysia has consistently drawn attention to the need for a strong and effective United Nations. We have always maintained that it is necessary to abide by the spirit and substance of the United Nations Charter. Together with other countries, we have watched the United Nations as it has played a truly effective role in the promotion of "Only the United Nations has the universal character, the global convening power and the extensive networks which cover virtually every international function". (A/48/1, para. 18) After all, the United Nations is the apex of the intergovernmental, multilateral process. We realize that, despite dramatic and qualitative developments affecting the Organization and the international scene, change within the United Nations and in inter-State relations conducted within the United Nations system cannot happen overnight; neither can it be revolutionary. Change will have to be a process conditioned by time and many other factors. However, one thing is certain: there must be change. We must not make any irreversible mistake that will make posterity condemn us for not living up to the historic opportunity, or as the report refers to it, the "turning- point". The report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization clearly indicates the readiness of the Secretary-General to undertake the necessary changes in the Organization. While we would be supportive of the initiatives of the Secretary-General and his team, we renew our appeal at the same time for the widest amount of consultation to be attempted in the process. The Secretary-General will no doubt be exposed to many views, some views more persuasive than others. The end of the cold war and the changing times do not mean the end of the pursuit of primacy of positions and ideas. We are aware that those who have profited from the United Nations as it was structured in 1945 will resist change and continue to perpetuate their advantage. In the circumstances, it is incumbent on the countries of the South and other like-minded countries, collectively and individually, to hold strong to their collective views. In this regard we are happy that the Chairman of the Non-Aligned Movement has also addressed this meeting. The United Nations of the future, must clearly be on the side of the world’s majority. It must be attentive to and caring about the problems of that majority. Any change in the United Nations through restructuring or revitalization must result in maximizing the opportunity for the South and the third world to place their problems before the United Nations for attention and redress. It is in that context that we in the South must make our views known as much as possible. The few should not be allowed to continue to influence the United Nations. As we stated in the debate on Malaysia is convinced that the future credibility and effectiveness of the concept of collective security and the United Nations role in the maintenance of international peace and security require greater use of the mechanism for preventive diplomacy. This will be possible if there is strong support for the Secretary-General and the Security Council to undertake proactive actions, early actions to evaluate conflict situations and undertake decisive moves to prevent the outbreak of open conflicts. But Member States will give their support only if there is sufficient confidence and trust especially in the actions of the Security Council, something which has to be acquired over time. In this regard too, it is important that the Security Council be seen to implement some of its own resolutions. This is particularly relevant in the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is being increasingly seen that the Security Council has been less than effective in implementing its own decisions on Bosnia and Herzegovina, while reacting promptly to other issues. The Security Council has failed in its duty towards Bosnia and Herzegovina and yet has prevented the Government and people of that country from defending themselves by refusing to lift the arms embargo. My delegation therefore fully endorses the position that the principles of the Charter must be applied consistently, not selectively, for if the perception should be of the latter, trust would wane and with it the moral authority which is the greatest and unique quality of that instrument. The United Nations effectiveness in preventing and settling conflicts and preserving international peace is dependent on the credibility of its decisions and the degree of consistency in the application of the principles of the Charter. In the spirit of the Charter and the interests of Member States, there has to be harmonization in the relationship between the General Assembly and the Security Council on the question of peace and security. We must not have a situation where the views of the general membership of the United Nations are ignored and the Council chooses to apply principles only when it suits the interests and convenience of certain prominent members. As we stated during the debate at the forty-seventh session of the United Nations General Assembly, we are not happy over the absence of a balanced, mutually reinforcing relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly. There should be a greater role for the General Assembly and more regular and closer consultations between the general membership and the Security Council in matters The report of the Secretary-General to the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly includes five main chapters, namely: I. Introduction; II. Coordinating a Comprehensive Strategy; III. Developing the Global Community; IV. Expanding Preventive Diplomacy, Humanitarian Assistance and Conflict Resolution; and V. Conclusion: Strengthening the Human Foundation. A considerable part of the report is devoted to peace-keeping and other related aspects. This implicitly reflects the preoccupation of the United Nations in 1992. Malaysia, a developing country, has endeavoured to play its role as a United Nations Member, among other things, through its contribution to the United Nations peace-keeping activities. We are involved in a number of United Nations peace-keeping and field missions. Our peace-keepers are in many parts of the world, including Somalia, where we have suffered loss of life as well. While we look forward to the full debate on the specific item of peace-keeping, we wish to state at this juncture that troop- contributing countries need to be kept fully informed of specific operations. Unity of command and clarity of mandate are key elements in any successful peace-keeping mission. For any peace-keeping operation to be truly representative of the international community, the active participation of developing countries is critical. It is equally important that contributions from all countries be accepted, rather than using a selective approach which may give rise to concerns of discrimination. The stress on peace-keeping and related activities has had a direct impact on the state of the finances of the United Nations. It has adversely affected the United Nations operational activities and overall raised fundamental questions relating to the United Nations role in the area of development. It is envisaged that, if the present trend continues, the ratio of expenditure on peace-keeping to the United Nations operational and development activities may well be of the order of 4:1. We recall yet again our appeal last year for an agenda for development. "An Agenda for Peace" without being complemented by an agenda for development will not effectively contribute to international peace and security. The proposed agenda for development would no doubt have to take into account all activities and initiatives, including Agenda 21, so as to ensure that there is no duplication. The Secretary-General’s report is optimistic about the various initiatives undertaken since the Rio Earth Summit in June 1992. Malaysia fully supports the observations contained in the report. We wish, however, to stress that all those initiatives must be based on successful collective efforts to ensure the means of implementation through technology transfers and financial flows. Without such means of implementation the various programmes and activities in Agenda 21 and the various negotiating processes would be seriously impaired. Malaysia looks forward to working with all countries in addressing the financial crisis of the United Nations. We agree that regular and predictable financial resources, as well as well-trained manpower, are important ingredients if the United Nations is to discharge its responsibilities. Cost- cutting measures designed to promote greater efficiency and increased productivity are to be welcomed. Such measures, however, should enjoy the support of United Nations Members. There are various proposals put forward to strengthen the financial base of the United Nations and we look forward to their elaboration in the Fifth Committee. Given the set of issues raised in the report, and in view of time constraints, my delegation would wish to comment on other issues in the appropriate Committees or as and when a specific issue is raised in the Assembly. ORGANIZATION OF WORK

Before adjourning the meeting I should like to inform members that, due to the lateness of the hour and the large number of Member States inscribed