Mr. Essy Cote d'Ivoire president
The meeting was called to order at 3.30 p.m.
Address by Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, President of the Republic of Latvia
The Assembly will first hear an address by the President of the Republic of Latvia.
Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, President of the Republic of Latvia, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.
On behalf of the General Assembly I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Republic of Latvia, His Excellency Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, and to invite him to address the Assembly.
Allow me to congratulate you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session and to wish you every success in leading this august body. May this session be constructive and productive for you and all delegations.
New geopolitical, economic and technological realities have appeared at the close of the twentieth century. The destructive cold war has come to an end and its symbol - the Berlin Wall - has collapsed. The insuppressible long-held yearnings of many peoples for freedom and independence led in the end to the disintegration of even the seemingly indestructible Soviet empire, clearly reaffirming the lasting strength and integrity of the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations - peace, equality and justice. That is why this Organization has always played and will continue to play a role in furthering the progress of nations, as evidenced by its vast undertakings in the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as its efforts to increase the well-being of society and every individual.
Two years ago, the Secretary-General in his report "An Agenda for Peace", comprehensively analysed aspects related to the maintenance of peace and security. This report led to a broad debate on concepts such as preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping, peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building. Preventive diplomacy by the United Nations and other organizations undoubtedly furthered the resolution of a very difficult issue for Latvia and all of Europe - the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territories of the Baltic States.
With satisfaction I should like to report to the General Assembly that, on the whole, General Assembly consensus resolutions 47/21 of 25 November 1992 and 48/18 of 15 November 1993, entitled "Complete withdrawal of foreign military forces from the territories of the Baltic States", have been implemented. The last Russian military units departed Latvia and Estonia at the end of August. Thus, the Second World War has ended for the Baltic States. Our bilateral negotiations with the Russian Federation, which lasted for more than two years, culminated with the signing on 30 April 1994 of agreements the ratification of which has been included in the agenda of the Parliament of Latvia.
I can state with full conviction that the international calls for the withdrawal of Russian troops, made by the United Nations and the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), amongst others, were pivotal to the successful resolution of this long drawn-out matter.
We believe that this approach may be useful as an example for the resolution of other global issues and we are prepared to share our experience with others.
The United Nations and the CSCE will continue to have an important role in the implementation of the agreements. According to the bilateral agreement between Latvia and Russia on the Skrunda radar facility, any attempt to settle disputes or differences of opinion connected with the agreement by means of military threats or by the use of armed force shall be considered a threat to international peace and security and shall be brought before the United Nations Security Council. For its part, representatives of the CSCE will observe the implementation of the agreements and the fulfilment of the respective parties' obligations.
However, we have yet to exhaust the opportunities for preventive diplomacy in the Baltic region. Baltic regional security continues to be a pressing issue. On his visit to Latvia last summer, Mr. William Clinton, President of the United States of America, stressed that the sovereign and independent Baltic States must not be part of any sphere of influence. It must be noted that President Clinton played a vital role in disentangling problems which had developed during negotiations with the Russian Federation on the withdrawal of its troops from Estonia and Latvia.
I should like to remind the international community that the Russian radar facility will remain in Skrunda for five and a half years, and nuclear reactors will remain in Paldiski, Estonia. Heavy Russian military transit takes place through Lithuania to Kaliningrad, where a high military concentration is maintained. On the whole, these are risk factors which potentially threaten the Baltic States and, in fact, the entire Baltic Sea region. In many respects, Baltic security is a guarantee for peace and stability in Europe. The Baltic States are already considering the possible solutions to this important question, and I hope that the Member States will devote their full attention and interest to these ends.
A significant dialogue between our two countries has concluded with the completion of Russian troop withdrawal from Latvia. Thanks to the support of many countries and international organizations, Latvia today is free from foreign military presence. Nevertheless, without the foresight and the civility displayed by both parties, we could not stand here today and speak of social harmony and tolerance in Latvia, nor could we say that both Latvia and the Russian Federation have one less problem to address. Last spring, when I met with President Yeltsin in Moscow, I gained the conviction that in solving our problem he was guided by good will.
In 1995, Europe and the world will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the Allied victory over nazism. Latvians, too, fought against Hitler's occupying forces in the belief that an Allied victory would be followed by the restoration of Latvian independence. However, whilst many nations breathed freely again after the end of the Nazi occupation, the Baltic States were engulfed for the second time by the totalitarian Soviet empire. As other nations celebrated the defeat of nazism, Latvia was subjected to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of innocent persons and the systematic destruction of the Latvian State and national identity. Latvia and its people are the victims of both regimes - nazism and communism.
Justice would prevail if the new democratic Russia, which played a decisive role in the destruction of the "Evil Empire", were to engage with Latvia in the appraisal of the actions taken by the Soviet Union against Latvia in 1940. The signing of truthful bilateral documents would preclude any petty psychological feelings of revenge and would provide amends to the victims of the totalitarian regime in both countries. These "truth" documents would foster even greater harmony between the various nationalities in Latvia and, we believe, lift some of Russia's unenviable inherited burden.
Such cases already exist. The documents signed by the Presidents of Russia and several Central and Eastern European States have marked an end to the legacy of the past, which had also been a burden to Russian society.
We believe that it is impossible to fully comprehend the consequences of the Soviet occupation without an objective analysis of the events of 1939 and 1940. These consequences have been and continue to be felt in Latvia in the areas of political, economic and social development. No other country lost nearly 40 per cent of its native population during the Second World War; in no other post-war European country has the native population become a minority in seven of its largest cities, including the capital; and no other country has experienced population transfers and mass deportations on such a scale. The Latvian language, too, was under threat of extinction, despite the fact that it had survived for 4,000 years, partly in the form of a unique collection of more than one million folk songs. We wish to protect Latvia's historical and cultural heritage, because Latvians can preserve their national identity only in this small land on the shores of the Baltic Sea. Latvians never have and never will ask for any other land.
I should like to draw the Assembly's attention to the necessity for regional cooperation. History has repeatedly shown that geographically and historically close States have forged the deepest relations, thereby enriching and furthering mutual development.
Following the restoration of independence, the Baltic Parliamentary Assembly was formed, and this month work was begun by the Baltic Council of Ministers, which coordinates our policies in foreign affairs, trade, legislation and other matters. In other words, a balanced and active Baltic union has been created. At the same time, an evolutionary process towards an expanded European Union with a dynamic Nordic-Baltic dimension is taking place. The model for regional cooperation in Northern Europe aspired to by Latvia is "three plus five" - three Baltic States and five Nordic States.
Recognizing the important role played by the United Nations in international peace-keeping, Latvia, together with its neighbours, Estonia and Lithuania, has established the Baltic Battalion, which in the future may participate in the peace-keeping operations of the Security Council. The Nordic States, the United Kingdom and the United States have greatly contributed to the establishment of the Baltic Battalion. We believe that the three Baltic States will thereby further the aims shared by the Member States of the largest and most influential of international bodies - the United Nations.
During the cold war the Baltic Sea was a boundary. Nowadays the Baltic Sea unites rather than divides States. Five years ago the "Baltic Way" - a human chain reaching from Tallinn through Riga to Vilnius - symbolized the shared road towards independence and democracy. Today this road has also regained its historical and economic significance in our region. At the turn of the century the Baltic Way will already be an established part of the global information highway.
I wish to reaffirm that Latvia will do its utmost to foster peaceful cooperation and the spirit of understanding, mutual trust and tolerance on the shores of the Baltic Sea.
International peace and security and good-neighbourly relations between States are inextricably linked to economic and social development. The end of the cold war has created new opportunities to devote greater attention to these issues. Last spring the Secretary-General issued a report (A/48/935) entitled "An Agenda for Development". Latvia welcomes this initiative, which marks a historic turning point in the work of the United Nations. From being an international forum primarily serving the interests of individual States, the United Nations is becoming a representative and defender of the needs of humanity. Economic and social development increases the security of every inhabitant of our planet.
We believe that the United Nations and each Member State should recognize the need not only for a coalition for democracy, but also for a fight against organized crime and the trafficking of nuclear materials and narcotics. Without effective solutions to these problems, the security of each inhabitant of our planet and the development of every country and society are endangered. I invite the United Nations to consider organizing a high-level meeting for the solving of those problems.
Many components of the United Nations system, primarily the Development Programme, are concerned with the promotion of economic progress. Therefore, within the framework of the aims of the proposed Agenda for Development, one of the challenges is to simplify, renew and integrate the United Nations system. Latvia is among those countries whose economic, governmental and social structures are undergoing a period of transition. Effective United Nations assistance to these countries would speed this process, allowing them to become donor countries sooner.
The concept of development is very broad. It includes social and economic progress; justice and democracy, as the foundation of society; and the protection of human rights and the environment. Even if the threat of global nuclear war has subsided, the prospect of environmental catastrophe remains. I therefore restate Latvia's proposal, first made at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit, to host in Latvia before the end of this century a world summit at which participating States would commit themselves to diverting all resources gained from disarmament towards long-term development, especially for the protection of the environment and reversal of ecological damage caused by military activity. This conference could take place in Jurmala, on the shores of the Baltic Sea.
Latvia attaches great importance to international conferences organized by the United Nations. As a member of the Bureau of the Preparatory Committee, Latvia has become actively involved in the preparation for the World Social Summit. Furthermore, Latvia is one of the few States whose head of delegation is also a Vice-President of the Conference.
Each global conference is an opportunity for every participating State to review and compare the sum of its experience. The issue of implementing the adopted resolutions at both the national and international levels is yet to be fully addressed. I would like to inform the Assembly of the extent of Latvia's adherence to the recommendations adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights. In its Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action the Conference invited States to establish and strengthen national institutions for the protection of human rights. The Conference recommended that each State consider the desirability of drawing up a national action plan identifying steps whereby that State would improve the promotion and protection of human rights.
Latvia demonstrated its commitment to United Nations principles and its readiness to implement the recommendations of the Conference by establishing in March 1994 the post of State Minister for Human Rights, as well as forming a Government Working Group on the Protection of the Rights of Individuals, allocating the necessary resources towards these ends. We believe that the United Nations should devote a greater percentage of its regular budget to the promotion and protection of human rights.
In response to a request by the Working Group, a high-level international mission organized by the United Nations Development Programme visited Latvia in July this year. The mission, which included representatives of several international organizations, including CSCE and the Council of Europe, consulted Latvia on the development of a national programme for the protection and promotion of human rights. At Latvia's invitation, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights will visit Latvia in October this year.
I am proud that Latvia is one of the first countries to have demonstrated an awareness of its responsibility by establishing a national programme for the protection and promotion of human rights. Latvia is prepared to discuss and share its knowledge and experience with all interested parties.
We support the proposal made to the General Assembly by Mr. Boris Yeltsin, President of the Russian Federation, that the principles of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities be embodied in the legislation of all Member States. At the World Conference on Human Rights Latvia called for the establishment of standards and implementation mechanisms for the rights of minorities and foreigners.
Those activities in the sphere of human rights are grounded in history. Prior to the Second World War, as a member of the League of Nations, Latvia fostered harmonious inter-ethnic relations. We are now trying to renew and cultivate this great tradition. Immediately after the restoration of its independence Latvia declared its accession to all the principal international human rights instruments. As I have already mentioned, a major effort is being made in the establishment of a national programme for the promotion and protection of the human rights of the individual in order that every individual be guaranteed equal rights and an equal opportunity to defend these rights. I believe that the concept of equal opportunity not only characterizes the fundamental rights of the individual, but is also a prerequisite for development.
Latvia has always been open to cooperation with the United Nations, the CSCE and other international organizations. Latvia reaffirmed this when it passed its Citizenship Law. In promulgating this legislation, it followed the recommendations of the CSCE and the Council of Europe, and the passing of the law has been evaluated positively by these organizations.
The need for rationalizing and revitalizing the work of the United Nations is becoming ever more apparent. Latvia is actively participating in the search for optimal solutions. Latvia supports the enlargement of the Security Council, perceiving this as a fair opportunity for small nations to increase their role in important international decision-making. Latvia also supports the improvement of cooperation and coordination between the United Nations and other international organizations, including the CSCE, the European Union and the Council of Europe.
We also welcome and support the action taken by the Secretary-General to introduce a new, effective system of accountability and responsibility, and, pursuant to the United States initiative, to establish the Office of Internal Oversight Services.
Latvia supports especially the initiative to reform the calculation of United Nations assessments, based strictly on the principle of "capacity to pay". This would be a step towards improving the dire financial situation of the Organization and would pave the way for a fair solution to the issue of the assessments of Latvia and many other States.
Although the inescapable difficulties associated with a transition period can still be felt in our economy and social sector, Latvia is endeavouring to fulfil its international obligations and commitments. However, contrary to standard United Nations practice, the current assessment of Latvia has been calculated without taking into account its actual capacity to pay. Instead, the data of a non-existent country - the former Soviet Union - has been used to determine Latvia's assessment. Latvia has consistently and unwaveringly stated that it was forcibly incorporated into the former Soviet Union and therefore is not, and cannot ever be, its successor, with all the rights and obligations that this would entail. This was also stated in a letter to the Secretary-General in 1992.
Latvia expects that the General Assembly will address this issue in the course of this session on the basis of the principle of sovereign equality.
We consider that the same importance should be accorded to the United Nations principle of universality.
Next year, the world will celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the United Nations. Latvia, too, has begun preparations for this great anniversary. We hope that the Riga Dom Boys Choir will sing at the celebration concert to be held here in New York. This would be deeply symbolic, since future generations will shape the fate of nations. In many ways their fate will be decided by the heritage we leave to our children. We must do our utmost to draw closer to the age when nations will not fight against nations, but all will join forces in the battle against darkness. This sentiment, which has been drawn deep from the well of our national wisdom, seems to embody the essence of the United Nations now and in the future.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Republic of Latvia for the statement he has just made.
Mr. Guntis Ulmanis, President of the Republic of Latvia, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall.
Address by Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Assembly will now hear an address by the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was escorted into the General Assembly Hall.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I have the honour to welcome to the United Nations the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, His Excellency Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', and to invite him to address the Assembly.
Allow me, at the outset, to commend Mr. Samuel Insanally for the able manner in which he conducted the work of the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly.
I would also like to congratulate you, Sir, on your election as President of this, the forty-ninth session. I wish you success in pursuing this very important task.
I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina at this distinguished gathering.
I come from Bosnia and Herzegovina, a far-away country that has currently been the subject of many discussions.
Unfortunately, I have to begin my statement by repeating facts that, for most of you, may be or should be well known.
At the time - some three years ago - when Yugoslavia experienced its dissolution, we were doing our best to carry out the separation in a peaceful fashion and without any violence. For reasons already known, our initiatives did not bear fruit.
When Slovenia and Croatia seceded, and the dissolution of Yugoslavia had become inevitable, we organized a referendum in order to decide, in a democratic manner, the fate of Bosnia. By a two-thirds majority - exactly 64.4 per cent of the body of registered voters, citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, opted for the country's independence in the referendum of 1 March 1992. International recognition of our country followed soon thereafter, and so did the aggression against it. The decision on its recognition was made on 5 April 1992 and was announced the following day, 6 April 1992. The Serbian and Montenegrin aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina began on 5 April 1992, the very day when the decision on recognition of the country was adopted.
The aggression has continued to this day with more or, at times, less intensity, and without any prospect of its coming to an end in the near future.
The war that was forced upon Bosnia and Herzegovina and its peoples - and that has now entered its thirty-first month - is one of the bloodiest wars in the history of mankind. At the very beginning, it was not a war but rather an attack by a well-armed and equipped army, the former Yugoslav army, against defenceless citizens.
The results of this uneven struggle are as follows: 70 per cent of our country came under occupation in the first months of the war; more than 200,000 civilians have been killed; over 1 million - or one fourth - of our inhabitants have been expelled from their homes; hundreds of cities and villages have been destroyed and burned. This cannot be described as a classic example of warfare between two armies. This has been a war of an army against civilians, followed by genocide and, to date, unprecedented destruction of cultural and religious objects.
The world has not responded in an appropriate manner to such barbarity.
Whether it was because of the brutality of the attack, or because it was morally and psychologically unprepared, or perhaps because of its entanglement in its conflicting interests, the world seemed confused and hesitant.
When the news and pictures of new concentration camps in the heart of Europe came out, the public was astonished or shocked, but for the most part those responsible kept silent. Tens of thousands have perished in those camps and many thousands have disappeared without a trace. The more brutal an attack, the more hesitant the world became. The free world neither defended nor supported freedom. Our people, facing the threat of extermination and a clearly pronounced death sentence, decided to defend itself.
But then it encountered a new absurdity. It found its hands tied. In short, before the war broke out against Bosnia and Herzegovina the United Nations imposed a notorious resolution that banned any import of weapons into the territory of former Yugoslavia. Everything changed: the war began, the aggressor and the victim were clearly discernable, but the arms embargo has remained in place as if nothing had happened in the interim. Justice was turned into injustice because the aggressor had weapons - weapons that had been stockpiled over the course of 40 years - while the victim was unarmed and its hands were kept tied.
The resolution on the arms embargo became its own contradiction. By maintaining the imbalance in weaponry, it has prolonged the war and turned the peace negotiations into diktat by the better-armed aggressor.
We said to the world, "You do not have to come to defend us, but do at least untie our hands and allow us to defend ourselves. While they kill our children, rape our women and destroy all our relics, do recognize our right to self-defence."
So far, however, the arms embargo has remained in place. With only guns and rifles in their hands, our defenders have faced artillery and tanks. We have lost many people, and reports indicate that more than 90 per cent of them have been killed by grenades and artillery shells. Our cities and villages have been left at the mercy of the powerful military technology in the hands of the murderers. In the capital city of Sarajevo alone, more than 10,000 people have been killed and more than 50,000 wounded. Not a single family is without casualties, either killed or wounded.
To all this, the world has sent us one message: negotiate. In the belief that the only right path was to continue to defend our land and that in this just struggle the peace-loving and freedom-loving peoples of the world would support us, we refused for a very long time to negotiate with war criminals.
Finally, faced with the unbearable plight of our people and the world's indifference, without any choice we accepted negotiations. It turned out that the aggressor had only been using negotiations as a way to bargain for time and to cover up its continuation of the aggression. In March 1993, after long and painful negotiations and with many concessions from our side, we signed the so-called Vance-Owen plan. The aggressor rejected it.
The next bloody round in the war ensued, to be followed by another round of negotiations that resulted, on 5 July 1994, in a peace plan drawn up by the Contact Group consisting of five great Powers: the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Russian Federation. Again, we chose peace and the attackers, once again, opted for a continuation of the war.
We accepted the unjust peace offer in order to halt the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We did so in the hope that the injustice of the peace plan could still be corrected in the years of peace. Knowing the Bosnian soul, we believed - and we still believe - that peace can save - but that war will destroy - all that we call Bosnia.
What we call "Bosnia" is not merely a small piece of land in the Balkans. For many of us, Bosnia and Herzegovina is not only a homeland: it is an idea; it is a belief that peoples of different religions, different nationalities and different cultural traditions can live together. Were this dream to be forever buried, were this idea of tolerance among the peoples of the area to be irretrievably lost, the guilt would lie not only with those who have been relentlessly killing Bosnia with their mortars for over 30 months now but also with many of the powerful elsewhere in the world who could have helped yet have chosen to do otherwise.
Two days ago, I left Sarajevo. I did not leave by plane because the airport was closed. I had to take land routes through woods that are constantly exposed to fire and where many people are killed daily. For days there is no electricity, water and gas in the city. The capital is completely blocked and is virtually dying.
Yesterday, after I had arrived at United Nations Headquarters, I received a letter from Srebrenica, a small town on the river Drina. The letter was supposed to be a report, but it was also a cry from a real human hell. I could not find the strength to read it a second time.
Over three months ago "ethnic cleansing" was reignited, and there is now a new wave. Thousands of civilians whose only fault is that they are not Serbs have been expelled from their homes in Banja Luka, Bijeljina, Janja and other towns under the control of Karadzic's army. Once again, nothing has been done. The world seems to have grown gradually accustomed to unpunished violations of the basic norms of international law. This is a sorry situation, and one that concerns every man and every woman in the world, no matter how near or far from Bosnia they may be.
For a very long time I rejected - indeed, I still reject - any so-called conspiracy theory, the theory that all that has happened to Bosnia has happened because its majority nation is Muslim and there are dark powers that consciously impel the Serbs towards the extermination of Bosnian Muslims.
Those who support this theory have their arguments, and I believe they have been heard here before. They maintain that overt aggression, followed by genocide, concentration camps and other forms of the darkest fascism, is at work in Bosnia and Herzegovina and that the world must be blind not to see it. Is the world blind? Does it consciously condone all these evils? It cannot be blind, and there is thus only the other alternative. This is the argument that has gained an increasing number of supporters. It will not be a good thing if the world's billion Muslims come to accept it.
The latest events surrounding the plan of the Contact Group have given the supporters of the so-called conspiracy theory an additional argument, namely, that Bosnia and Herzegovina has been offered a proposal backed by five major Powers and, therefore, by the majority of the international community, and it has been clearly stated that the side that rejected the plan would be punished while the side that accepted it would be protected. Yet the opposite has happened. The Serbs rejected the plan, and they have been rewarded by the suspension of sanctions. We have accepted the plan, and we have been punished by a complete blockade of Sarajevo. Both processes have occurred simultaneously, in parallel.
Today, the highest civilian and military United Nations authorities are warning us: If you demand and succeed in achieving the lifting of the arms embargo, the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) will pull out of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and so on.
I have certainly not undertaken this long and arduous journey from Bosnia to America solely to convey facts that may be known to the majority of those here. We in Bosnia believe that, despite the hardships, good and justice cannot be defeated. We do not abandon our faith that the world can be better and that we should all work and strive continually to make it better.
In this conviction, and despite all our disappointments and frustrations, I have come to speak here before the Assembly and to present some of our proposals. From the General Assembly and the Security Council, we are asking the following: first, that all resolutions on Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly be implemented; secondly, that measures be taken effectively to monitor the border between Serbia and Montenegro, on the one side, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, on the other, so that any transport of troops, weapons and military equipment across that border may be prevented or detected in timely fashion; thirdly, that should this transport occur, the decision on the suspension of some of the sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro - Security Council resolution 943 (1994) - be immediately revoked and that tightened sanction measures be imposed in accordance with the plan of the Contact Group of July 1994; fourthly, that there be no further easing of the sanctions towards Serbia and Montenegro until they recognize Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia within internationally recognized borders; fifthly, that a resolution be adopted, without delay, to strengthen the protection and mandate the extension of the safe areas provided for in Security Council resolutions 824 (1993) and 836 (1993), and in accordance with provisions of Article 6 of the Contact Group plan; and, sixthly, that decisions be taken to ensure an immediate end to the strangulation of Sarajevo and to prevent a recurrence of such a situation.
The last-mentioned of these measures should envisage, as an integral element, the opening of the city along the north communication route - road and highway - through the creation of a demilitarized belt 2.5 kilometres wide on both sides of the thoroughfares. In this demilitarized belt, only United Nations troops and police might remain. The potential use of force against the strangulation of Sarajevo is envisaged under Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's decision of 9 February 1994.
Provided that the above conditions were fulfilled, and on condition that UNPROFOR continued to carry out its mission, the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina would be willing to accept a new, modified formula to deal with the problem of the arms embargo. Under this formula we would limit our demand for the lifting of the arms embargo to the adoption of a formal decision, and the application or consequences of that decision would be deferred for six months. In this case UNPROFOR troops could remain in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Contact Group would fulfil its promise, and a clear message would be conveyed to Karadzic's Serbs.
I should like, in conclusion, to state our two commitments.
First, our irrevocable objective is a democratic Bosnia and Herzegovina within internationally recognized borders, and with full ethnic, religious and political rights for all its citizens. In such a Bosnia and Herzegovina the Serbs will have all rights, up to the highest level of autonomy, but they cannot have a state within a state.
Secondly, we consider that, like all other nations, we have an inalienable right to self-defence. Therefore, if our compromise proposal on the arms embargo is rejected for any reason, we shall ask our friends to secure the immediate, and even unilateral, lifting of the embargo. Unfortunately, I have to inform representatives that, just today, I learned that this compromise proposal is meeting resistance, and even rejection, from some Contact Group countries.
Finally, I take this opportunity to express our sincere gratitude to all friends of Bosnia and Herzegovina who have supported its struggle for survival and freedom.
On behalf of the General Assembly, I wish to thank the President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the important statement he has just made.
Mr. Alija Izetbegovic', President of the Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, was escorted from the General Assembly Hall.
Agenda item 9 (continued)
General debate
I call on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belgium, His Excellency Mr. Willy Claes.
It is with great pleasure that I join the previous speakers in congratulating you, Sir, on your election to the presidency of this Assembly. The great African country that you represent, Côte d'Ivoire, has always played an active and constructive role in our Organization. We are delighted to have you presiding over our proceedings.
My German ministerial colleague, Mr. Klaus Kinkel, spoke this morning on behalf of the European Union. The views of my delegation are faithfully reflected in his statement and, consequently, there is no need for me to address the positions he has outlined.
Five years ago the talk was of a new international order. The events that shook Eastern Europe at that time led us to believe that the old bipolar world had expired and that another order was bound to take its place. For some, the reaction to the aggression against Kuwait marked the beginning of this new phase. Reality did not live up to our hopes. Today we have come to understand that the equilibrium based on a bipolar world did not have a "natural successor" and that it is up to us to build a new one, little by little, through trial and error.
Of course, a new equilibrium is emerging in several parts of the world.
First, there is the highly symbolic case of the Middle East. Even if implementation of the Washington and Cairo agreements is proving as arduous as was expected, every new stage constitutes an important step towards lasting peace. The historic rapprochement between Israel and Jordan strengthens this prospect.
Mr. Seniloli (Fiji), Vice-President, took the Chair.
The new South Africa, too, is facing immense challenges, but at the same time it has become a beacon of hope for the entire African continent.
The strengthening of democracy and the progress made in regional integration in Latin America seem to us yet another meaningful evolution. A number of countries in this region have now found the way towards sustainable economic development.
The same holds true for Asia, where, moreover, a readiness for dialogue now exists. The regional Forum launched by the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), contacts on the Korean peninsula and, at another level, the dialogue between the two sides of the Formosa Strait all contribute towards a new climate of confidence.
While preparing to welcome four new members, the European Union has signed cooperation agreements with the majority of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe that might ultimately lead to full membership. Simultaneously, new geostrategic ties are being forged with Russia.
The same will for dialogue is reflected in the discussion of major issues that concern the future of our Organization, such as reform of the Security Council. Even if divergences of opinion remain on various points, the sense of common interest prevails.
Belgium's major concern remains the achievement of a more representative Council without diminishing its decision-making capacity. We prefer therefore to avoid ambitious projects that would give privileged status to several "regional Powers" according to imprecise criteria but would not reinforce the Council's ability to shoulder its responsibilities.
Why not, as a first step, adapt the Council's membership on the basis of unanimously agreed criteria? The international community could, as a measure with immediate advantageous effect, grant an additional non-permanent seat to the regions that consider themselves to be underrepresented and confer permanent member status on those two economic Powers whose positive contribution to world affairs has long been recognized.
These steps, however encouraging, do not by themselves constitute a new international agreement. Progress and the readiness for rapprochement are by no means universal: Central Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina are cases in point.
The situation in Rwanda is uppermost in our minds. The threat it represents of destabilization in Burundi and the neighbouring countries has become a constant cause for worry in recent months. However deep the hatred born of the recent or the distant past, reconciliation is the only alternative. We appeal to the leaders and prominent citizens of these countries to unite their efforts to broaden the base of political power and to stand firm against extremists. Only when these conditions are met can emergency aid make way for durable reconstruction. Naturally, my country will contribute to each stage of this renewal.
The civil war in the former Yugoslavia has cast first Europe and then the entire world into profound disarray. Yet for more than three years now, we have been working relentlessly to put an end to this tragedy. The United Nations Protection Force has become one of the largest peace-keeping missions ever set up by our Organization. The United Nations and the European Union have worked together tirelessly to find a negotiated solution. The main Powers have now added their weight to these efforts. Let us hope that the latest attempt by the European Union, the United States and the Russian Federation will finally succeed in halting the bloodshed. From this rostrum I call upon the parties to seize this opportunity: put an end to madness and let peace return.
I have just touched upon two cases of civil war where racial hatred has led to particularly inhumane behaviour. More than ever, we must remain unyielding when human rights are systematically violated. We must aim to banish every regime that is based on practices of "ethnic cleansing".
So that this lesson may never be forgotten, Belgium favours the establishment of an international penal jurisdiction and expresses the wish that the international community do whatever is necessary to render it operational as soon as possible. In the meantime, we believe that the Tribunal created to judge the war crimes perpetrated in the former Yugoslavia will stand as a valuable precedent, which we would like to see extended to the crimes committed in Rwanda as soon as possible.
Along the same lines, my Government welcomes the appointment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights. The operational initiatives launched by Mr. Ayala Lasso - sending human rights monitors to Rwanda, for instance - have received early and concrete support from Belgium, among others. I am convinced that Mr. Ayala Lasso's actions will strengthen the respect for human rights and promote a successful dialogue among political leaders and human rights activists in every part of the world. This dialogue will take into account the differing approaches inspired by various cultures and religions, but in my opinion, it would lose its meaning if it were to compromise on the one essential point: the respect owed to the physical and moral integrity of every human being.
For Belgium, the crisis in Rwanda has marked the international agenda. In the wake of the genocide, death lashed out blindly at a population in exile, pushing back the limits of horror already reached in Bosnia and Somalia. My fellow citizens were deeply troubled by the ruin of so many efforts of development, the failure of so many attempts at reconciliation. The savage killing of 10 Belgian "blue helmets", who were among the 100 United Nations peace-keepers slain since the beginning of this year, highlights the unmistakable fragility of peace-keeping operations. I believe the best way to honour all those who lost their lives is by reflecting in particular upon the limits and possibilities of international action.
In this regard, the common experience in which Belgium took part - in the former Yugoslavia, in Somalia and in Rwanda - has enabled us, sometimes in tragic circumstances, to make a number of observations for future use. I intend to group them around four principles that seem to me essential. First: peace-keeping operations cannot be improvised. Second: once decided, they should be given the means to achieve their aims. Third: for these means to function fully, we should ensure their operational and political coherence. And, finally, as long as the security of the personnel involved cannot be guaranteed, it will become increasingly difficult to find troop contributors for peace-keeping missions, which will thereby reduce them to a purely theoretical instrument.
First, the principle of "non-improvisation" implies two things.
The first is that the Organization must at all times be able to mobilize the necessary means for a peace-keeping operation and to this end rely on the solidarity of all its members. This means that it is essential to reinforce the military peace-keeping capacity of the Organization. In the absence of a United Nations multilateral force that can be deployed quickly, generalized offers of stand-by troops and equipment and standardization of equipment and procedures are objectives we must pursue diligently. To this end I have sent the Secretary-General a list of possible Belgian contributions which could be made available for peace-keeping operations.
The second implication is that, even though solidarity remains the basis for conceiving and implementing peace-keeping, this solidarity cannot be blind and automatic. Each specific operation must be the result of careful consideration.
The launching of a new peace-keeping operation should only be envisaged and seriously considered when all other means of solving the crisis have been exhausted, including at the regional level. Chapter VI, as well as "An Agenda for Peace", offer a wide choice of instruments for solving a crisis through negotiation, arbitration, and so on. Those who forget that peace-keeping operations are not a panacea do the Organization a disservice and often unwittingly contribute to making situations worse rather than solving them.
Once it has been decided by the Security Council, a peace-keeping operation becomes everybody's business. All Member States must contribute according to their possibilities and as circumstances dictate. Of course, Member States must retain the sovereign right to decide whether or not to participate in a given peace-keeping operation, but in so doing, they should look beyond the criterion of national interest.
All States should cooperate actively with a view to the success of the operation by facilitating its movements, supplies, reinforcements and the prepositioning of reserve troops. All States should use their diplomatic influence to help the Secretary-General achieve the political objectives of an operation. And, finally, all States must adhere to their financial obligations with respect to an operation.
Secondly, a peace-keeping operation must be based on the consent of the parties, appropriate flexibility and adequate information.
Every operation must be based on consensus among the States legitimately involved. The conflicting parties themselves must agree to the deployment and aims of the operation, except in the case of an obvious humanitarian catastrophe. In this all-too-frequent case, the Security Council's decision to act outside the framework of the traditional mandate and disregard the three usual conditions - in other words, agreement by the parties, the political process and a cease-fire - must be taken with great care. The Council must express this decision clearly in the mandate and accept all its consequences.
An operation must at all times have the strength necessary to execute its mission safely. This rule is of utmost importance. It implies, to begin with, sufficient manpower and flexible rules of engagement to respond to the unexpected. It also implies adequate equipment to fulfil the mandate and to react to emergencies. The deployment of a military reserve in the vicinity has already proven its usefulness, for example, in Somalia. It is a precautionary measure we should envisage more often in the future. As a rule, a force subject to local provocation must always have the choice between evacuating or remaining in place, between retreat or riposte.
But the use of force is not the first option to be considered in order to discourage resistance to a peace-keeping operation. Education and persuasion will do miracles among populations that are often ill-informed or even misguided about the objectives of a peace-keeping operation. Experience has shown that it is absolutely necessary to develop a coherent information strategy. Each peace-keeping operation should be provided with an information unit and a radio transmitter to broadcast its message. Moreover, the ability to neutralize hostile propaganda sources should be put to use each time this propaganda threatens the safety of part of a population or United Nations personnel.
The third consideration is that the cohesion of the command and control structures and consultations on a regular basis with troop-contributing countries are conditions essential to the success of an operation.
The military and political control of an operation must rest with the United Nations or with a duly mandated body. This principle has two consequences.
Any attempt by the Commander of the Force or of a small contingent to report directly only to national authorities will reduce the cohesion of the multilateral operation. The flexibility required by a commander in the field to deal with the unexpected, however, is a different matter.
When an action is undertaken by a regional or multilateral force it must be authorized by the Security Council. However, this authorization should not reduce the operational autonomy of the commanders of such an operation. Those who take the risk must be in control.
Moreover, for each operation a consultation committee should be created in which troop contributors, the members of the Security Council and the Secretariat can meet at regular intervals. This committee will enable the contributors better to assist the Secretariat in managing the operation.
It will also generate a real dialogue between contributors and the members of the Council, each time the latter prepare to take a decision which modifies the basic conditions of the operation. Contributors often have a better knowledge of the situation in the field and are best placed to judge whether a new task is feasible or acceptable. Without troop contributors the resolutions of the Council would remain ineffectual.
As a fourth and last consideration, the security of the blue helmets is as much a concern of the contributing countries as of the Secretariat. The prosecution of those who attack the peace-keeping forces must be efficiently organized.
The responsibility of a Government for its contingent does not stop with its dispatch to the field of operations. The contributing country has the right to watch over the safety of its compatriots at all times. Ultimately, security must be the decisive factor for a contributing country to continue or suspend its participation in a peace-keeping operation.
It seems normal, therefore, that a troop contributor should be entitled to equip its contingent from the start with sufficient defensive armament. Later, when unexpected circumstances place the contingent in a situation of real danger, the Security Council and the Secretary-General must immediately adapt the mandate and, if necessary, the rules of engagement to that situation.
It is a fundamental duty of the United Nations to organize the international prosecution of those who attack United Nations personnel. The impunity granted so far to the perpetrators of such crimes gives rise to an uneasy feeling and undermines the credibility of the United Nations in the eyes of world opinion. The authority of our Organization over those whom it is trying to reconcile is negatively affected by this, and the Governments that contribute troops are increasingly worried. In our opinion, it is essential to speed up the adoption of a convention on the security of United Nations personnel, as well as of the investigations and the effective prosecution of those who attack our personnel.
I hope that these thoughts that I have shared with the Assembly will contribute to improving the procedures and reinforcing the means put into effect by our Organization to face up to the new situations that it needs to tackle. In fact, these changes deserve to be formalized when any revision of the Charter takes place. The functioning of the peace-keeping operations would be greatly improved by this.
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote:
"Amongst the laws that govern human societies, there is one that seems clearer and more precise than all others. If men are to remain civilized, or become so, the art of association must grow and improve at the same rate as the equality of their conditions".
Though this "art of association" affects civil societies in the first place, it is also, and more than ever, a concern of our society of Governments. Launching peace-keeping operations is without doubt a most generous expression of this art of acting together.
In the meantime, the fact that we have been able to multiply peace-keeping operations in difficult political, financial and material circumstances is nothing short of miraculous and prompts us to pay tribute to all the people who have been working tirelessly within the Secretariat as well as in the field.
I now call on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Japan, Mr. Yohei Kono.
Allow me to begin my address by offering my congratulations to Mr. Amara Essy on the assumption of his new office. I should also like to express my respect for the excellent diplomatic skills demonstrated by his predecessor, Ambassador Insanally, during a period of momentous change. I am also pleased to convey my sincere congratulations to the Republic of South Africa, which, having renounced apartheid, was reinstated as a full Member of the United Nations at the previous session of the General Assembly.
The United Nations is now expected to play a greater role than ever before. Recalling the blessings bestowed upon Japan by the international community at the time of its admission into this Organization, I intend to conduct a proactive foreign policy that will enable Japan to contribute, on a level commensurate with its political and economic status, to the future well-being of humankind.
At the outset, I should like to discuss Japan's basic philosophy regarding its international contributions. Japan is engaged in economic assistance and various other efforts in order to eradicate poverty and achieve economic development, as well as to prevent conflicts and remove destabilizing factors.
Reflecting with remorse upon the Second World War, Japan has never wavered from its commitment to contribute to world peace and prosperity. Japan does not, nor will it, resort to the use of force, prohibited by its Constitution. Japan will remain resolutely a nation of peace. Neither possessing nuclear arms nor exporting weapons, Japan continues to be actively engaged in disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. In accordance with what I have just stated, Japan has dispatched members of its Self-Defence Forces, as well as civilian personnel, to several countries, including Cambodia and Mozambique, in response to requests by the United Nations. Japan intends to continue to cooperate actively in such United Nations peace-keeping operations.
At the same time, Japan is determined to enhance its contributions to efforts on global issues in economic and social areas. These issues, whose importance is now widely recognized, include development, the environment, human rights, refugees, population, AIDS and narcotics.
Today, the first area on which the United Nations should focus its efforts is the maintenance of international peace and security; the second is the resolution of economic and social problems. And if it is to carry out these two very important tasks effectively, it must undertake a third: the promotion of United Nations reform. I should like on this occasion to outline my views as to the kind of contributions Japan wishes to make in these areas.
In the maintenance of international peace and security, which is the first area of concern to the United Nations, Japan places great emphasis on disarmament and non-proliferation, diplomatic efforts for the resolution of conflicts, and peace-keeping operations.
As the only country to have suffered a nuclear attack, and adhering firmly to its three non-nuclear principles, Japan strives to achieve the ultimate goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. Toward this end, it urges all nuclear-weapon States to redouble their efforts to reduce their nuclear arsenals. Further, Japan supports the indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty, and calls on all States that have not yet acceded to the Treaty to do so at the earliest opportunity.
At the same time, I would urge, in particular, all nuclear-weapon States to engage more actively in the negotiations on a comprehensive test-ban treaty and to strive to bring them to an early and successful conclusion. I wish to propose that, once the negotiations on the treaty are concluded, a ceremony for its signing by Heads of State or Government be held in Japan, for example in the city of Hiroshima, and that it be made a new starting-point for the elimination of nuclear weapons once and for all.
In this connection, Japan strongly calls upon North Korea to engage seriously in efforts to resolve the issue of its development of nuclear weapons through international dialogue, including its talks with the United States.
The unfettered transfer and excessive accumulation of conventional weapons is another destabilizing factor in many regions of the world today. In the civil wars we have witnessed in certain regions of Africa and elsewhere, for example, it has resulted in the escalation of combat and in enormous loss of life. It is my belief that the international community must seriously consider concrete measures to solve this problem.
In this regard, the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, designed to improve the transparency of arms transfers, has grown increasingly important as an effective measure for building confidence at the global level. More than 80 countries participate in the Register at present, and we strongly hope that many more will join. Japan will work together with other Member States to amplify and strengthen the Register by, for example, also including arms stockpiles in it.
The prevention and settlement of regional conflicts requires a comprehensive approach which combines diplomatic efforts, United Nations peace-keeping operations, humanitarian aid, assistance for building social institutions, and aid for peace-building, such as rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance.
Convinced of the importance of taking measures before conflicts become intractable, I am a strong advocate of the vigorous promotion of preventive diplomacy. From this viewpoint, I believe we should, in cooperation with the countries concerned, actively consider extending assistance for the stabilization of social and political conditions in regions or countries where there are elements of instability.
United Nations peace-keeping operations have proved successful in Cambodia and many other regions, and they are expected to play an increasingly important role. Further improvement of the effectiveness of peace-keeping operations will require closer examination of, inter alia, their mandates, duration, scale of activities and cost, as well as full consideration of the safety of personnel. Strengthening the financial base of United Nations peace-keeping operations is an urgent task. It is necessary, in particular, that Member States that are in arrears pay their assessed contributions. It is also imperative that ways be sought to put peace-keeping operations on a sounder financial basis.
Japan, for its part, will enhance its support for democratization with a view to helping peace take root after the fighting has ceased. It places particular importance on assisting efforts to hold free and fair elections.
Responding to the unspeakably tragic situation of the Rwandan refugees, Japan has provided both financial assistance and material support through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda. The Government of Japan has decided to dispatch more than 400 members of its self-defence forces to the region to provide assistance in such areas as medical treatment, water supply and air transport. Some of these activities have already commenced. Working together with the international community - particularly with the countries of Africa - Japan is determined to continue its efforts toward a solution of the Rwandan issue.
With regard to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, Japan continues to support the efforts of the international community to restore peace. It calls upon all the disputing parties concerned to accept the peace plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina devised by the Contact Group and to cooperate with the activities of the United Nations there.
The second task of the United Nations is the solution of problems in economic and social areas, including those regarding development, the environment and human rights.
With the changing international circumstances, the issue of development is now re-emerging as a global concern; a new strategy for development is thus called for. It is from this viewpoint that Japan has been advocating a development strategy that entails a comprehensive approach, combining assistance, trade, investment, and the transfer of technology, as well as a differentiated approach, tailored to the needs of developing countries according to their respective stages of development.
The International Conference on African Development, held in Tokyo last year, proved to be a worthwhile forum for the discussion of how such a development strategy might be realized. In an effort to build upon the results of that Conference, an Asia-Africa seminar will be convened in Indonesia this December.
In today's world, South-South cooperation, where more advanced developing countries share their experience and technology with other developing countries, is of increasing significance. Japan intends to suggest concrete plans for the promotion of South-South cooperation around the globe.
Moreover, as the world's largest donor country, Japan continues its efforts to expand its official development assistance. In extending such assistance, it gives full consideration to such factors as trends in the recipient country's military expenditures and in its development and production of weapons of mass destruction, as well as its efforts to promote democracy and to introduce a market-oriented economy.
It is my hope that meaningful discussions of an Agenda for Development will take place at the current session of the General Assembly and that the points I have just mentioned will be taken into account.
At this time of increasing global interdependence, all humankind is confronted with new challenges, such as environmental and population problems, which can be overcome only through close cooperative efforts between industrialized and developing countries.
Japan, for its part, is actively engaged in environmental- protection efforts. For example, it is working to strengthen the international framework for such efforts, to transfer relevant technologies to developing countries, and to expand and strengthen its official development assistance in environmental areas. With regard to population and AIDS, in February of this year Japan launched its Global Issues Initiative, under which it is greatly expanding assistance to developing countries to address these problems. At the International Conference on Population and Development, recently convened in Cairo, I stressed the importance of finding a solution to issues relating to population.
Japan is profoundly aware that human-resources development and the further advancement of the status of women, achieved through international cooperation, have important implications for social stability. We therefore eagerly anticipate the successful outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and the Fourth World Conference on Women, which will be convened next year. By the same token, Japan actively participates in the Women-in-Development programmes and other social-development activities administered by the various United Nations agencies.
Economic development and human rights may be likened to the front and rear wheels of a vehicle: they must work in tandem to advance the development of democratic societies. In order to encourage respect for human rights as universal values and to improve effectively the human rights situation in every country, it is important to make continuous efforts to establish legal systems and to raise awareness of human rights, in addition to promoting political, economic and social stability. Toward this end, Japan will cooperate in every way possible to assist the work of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
If it is to carry out effectively its two major tasks - maintaining international peace and security and resolving economic and social problems - the United Nations must make a serious effort to adapt to the new era by undertaking structural reform as well as administrative and budgetary reform.
As the United Nations seeks to strengthen its activities through reform, the restructuring of the Security Council is of particular importance. Today the activities of the Security Council span a wide range of issues relating to world peace and stability. While the membership of the United Nations has grown from 51 countries in 1945 to 184 countries at the present time, the composition of the Council, which was intended to reflect the world situation as it existed when the United Nations was established, has remained virtually unchanged. In the interim, we have witnessed the emergence of countries that are capable of shouldering greater international responsibilities. It is therefore necessary to restructure and strengthen the Security Council, while ensuring its efficiency, so that it may reflect world realities.
In keeping with Japan's basic philosophy regarding international contributions, which I outlined earlier, I wish to state that Japan is prepared, with the endorsement of many countries, to discharge its responsibilities as a permanent member of the Security Council. It is my hope that United Nations Member States will accelerate the deliberations on this subject during the current session and that an agreement will be reached on a reform plan in time for the commemorative fiftieth session of the General Assembly next year.
The Security Council is not the only organ requiring reform. The General Assembly, in which 184 States participate, also needs to be reinvigorated, and it must coordinate its activities more closely with those of other United Nations agencies. Recently, efforts have begun to fine-tune United Nations activities in economic and social fields, such as development, the environment and human rights, and to establish clear priorities among them. In addressing these issues, which have profound implications for the future of humankind, it is necessary to continue to work towards the functional and organizational strengthening of the Economic and Social Council. The Trusteeship Council, by contrast, has completed its historic mission, and it is my view that it would be appropriate, in the context of the reform of the United Nations as a whole, to consider its abolishment. Building on the creation of the Office of Internal Oversight Services at the last session of the General Assembly, we must redouble our efforts to promote administrative and budgetary reform.
The passage of a half century since the signing of the United Nations Charter has rendered the so-called "former enemy clauses" meaningless. Japan continues to seek their deletion from the text of the Charter.
I have focused my remarks today on the three challenges facing the United Nations: the maintenance of international peace and security, the resolution of economic and social issues and the need for the reform of the Organization. If the United Nations pursues reform to meet the changing needs of the times and supports and expands cooperation among its Member States, I have every confidence that it will enhance its legitimacy as a universal organization and develop a capacity to respond to new challenges even more effectively.
In closing, I would like to call upon all Member States to cooperate to ensure that this will be remembered as the historic session of the General Assembly that ushered in a new era for the United Nations.
The next speaker is the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Portugal, His Excellency Mr. José Manuel Durão Barroso.
It is with pleasure that I warmly congratulate Mr. Amara Essy on his election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session. In his election I see a recognition of the role that Côte d'Ivoire, a friendly African country, has played on the international scene as well as an appreciation of his personal qualities and experience.
A word of recognition is also in order for the outgoing President, Ambassador Samuel Insanally, for his dedicated and positive service during the last session of the Assembly.
To the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, I renew my homage for the secure and committed manner in which he is carrying out his mission. As he already knows, Portugal can be counted on in the pursuit of the objectives of peace and development and in the consolidation of a substantial reform of the United Nations system.
My German colleague has already addressed the Assembly on behalf of the 12 member States of the European Union, expressing positions to which Portugal fully subscribes. Nevertheless, I would like to reflect on certain issues which are of particular importance to my country.
The end of the bipolar era has created, somewhat perversely, greater unpredictability and uncertainty in the system of collective security, which has most visibly led to a rebirth of extreme nationalism and new focuses of conflict. In this perspective, I would like to underline the importance we attach to cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations and mechanisms. Such cooperation implements the concept of complementary actions and allows for more agile solutions adapted to concrete circumstances.
The road to stability and the progressive development of a new concept of security also passes through the stimulation of political institutions capable of guaranteeing respect for universally recognized values. Similarly, greater international control of the use of force will require not only the best and most adequate means but also a constantly renewed political legitimacy in order to wield them. In my view, this legitimacy is tied to the goal of building an international society based on ideals which promote peace, democracy and human rights.
We must also keep in mind the socio-economic dimension of the issues that threaten international stability and security. More than ever, we need an integrated approach within which the preventive dimension is given priority, both in its purely political and diplomatic aspect and in its development-aid aspect.
In this context, we underline the importance of the committed participation of all nations in an Agenda for Development, as the Secretary-General has invited us to do. Today more than ever, the portentous words of the Pope ring true: "Development is the new name of peace."
In this regard, we need to rethink, not only the role of development aid, but also the very concept of development. It should become more comprehensive, including respect for democratic values and human rights as well as social and economic issues and other issues related to the preservation of the environment, demographics, the prevention of endemic diseases and the fight against the traffic in drugs.
Here we must also underline the importance we attach to helping countries that are truly committed to implementing social and politico-economic reforms conducive to sustainable development. However, such a process must be complemented by an increasingly liberal international system and by a set of measures that seek to reduce the burden of external debt and create the conditions for a reactivation of private investment in their economies.
In this context, I welcome the signing in Marrakesh of the Uruguay Round agreements and the forthcoming start-up of the World Trade Organization, which will allow for freer trade, with the simultaneous strengthening of rules and disciplines.
As a member of the European Union, Portugal firmly defends the enlargement of the Union and the strengthening of ties with other countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean basin. For the entire continent, the European Union is undoubtedly an immense consolidating force of democratic ideals, stability, prosperity and respect for human rights.
Other organizations, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the Western European Union (WEU) and the Council of Europe contribute equally to the same ideals. If the democratization of Eastern Europe has created the possibility of future adhesions to the European Union, it has also led to a new relationship as regards security on the continent.
We understand the desire already expressed by many countries of Central and Eastern Europe to join the defence and security organizations, and we are ready to consider, in due time, a gradual and balanced enlargement of NATO to include those States that share with us the same democratic values and respect for human rights and the rule of law. The question of the enlargement of NATO to the east cannot, however, overshadow the essential transatlantic dimension which must remain the cornerstone of European security. On the other hand, any increase in the membership of NATO must not create new divisions in Europe. Therefore, Portugal affirms that all the possibilities of the Partnership for Peace, a mechanism aimed at uniting countries of the Eurasian region in activities of military cooperation, must be pursued.
Last year, I stated here that Portugal considers the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty fundamental for international security. As we approach the 1995 Conference I should like to reiterate the intention of my Government to support all efforts that will lead to the unconditional and indefinite extension of that instrument.
While referring to security, I should like to welcome and support the initiative announced here yesterday by President Clinton to reach an agreement on reducing the proliferation of anti-personnel mines. Such an initiative could not be more timely and, for our part, I can announce here that Portugal is in the process of preparing legislation to outlaw the commercialization of those weapons and their production.
In the context of Europe, I cannot avoid referring to the situation in the former Yugoslavia and, in particular, to the terrible conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Despite all the efforts applied towards bringing an end to that situation, war goes on with its tragic fare of death, destruction and suffering.
The international community has demonstrated that it possesses a common interest in the search for a political solution to the conflict. We must, however, recognize that this progress is insufficient and that, without real political will shown by all parties directly involved, a stable and long-lasting solution will never be found.
Portugal has actively participated in the efforts of the international community with both men and matériel, and will continue to remain on the ground for as long as it is useful and necessary. We are, in fact, reinforcing the Portuguese contingent in the area within the activities of the Western European Union (WEU).
Sub-Saharan Africa, to which my country is linked by particularly strong cultural and historical ties, continues to be the region of the planet with the most worrying levels of development. Portugal has defended the idea that the international community should grant Africa first priority, commensurate with the unparalleled magnitude of the problems that need to be overcome. But firstly, Africans themselves must prove that underdevelopment is not inevitable. And the greatest contribution that they can make in this direction is a determined commitment to search for peaceful solutions to both existing and potential conflicts, and a continued deepening of the process of political and social democratization on the continent, as well as the adoption of indispensable economic reforms.
The first free and democratic elections in South Africa and the investiture of Nelson Mandela as its Head of State, as well as the formation of a Government of national unity, represent historic achievements not only because they have left apartheid behind but also because they have proved the viability of finding in Africa peaceful solutions to complex situations. Portugal, which actively participated in all efforts to support the process of democratic transition in that country, warmly salutes the new South Africa, a country which is host to an important Portuguese community. We believe that the human, economic and technological potential of that country can undoubtedly constitute an important factor for economic recovery in all of southern Africa.
In Mozambique also there are signs that the hopes of its people with regard to the peace process will not be disappointed. The completion of the cantonment and demobilization processes, the formation, despite some delays, of the new armed forces and the peaceful manner in which the electoral campaign has been conducted are all crucial achievements to be recognized, and foretell the coming elections of 27 and 28 October 1994 as being a crucial moment for the future of Mozambique.
We appeal to the main Mozambican political forces to find the forms of dialogue and understanding conducive to guaranteeing a true national reconciliation with full respect for democratic principles.
Portugal was an observer at the negotiations and is represented in all the commissions created by the peace accord, playing a major role in the formation of the new army, as well as participating significantly in the United Nations Operation in Mozambique (ONUMOZ).
Portugal will remain committed to following this process closely in the context of the accords and we consider it important that the international community support Mozambique not only during this particular phase but also in what we hope will be the following stage of national reconstruction and reconciliation.
In southern Africa, one of the longest, and surely deadliest, conflicts the world has ever known rages on. Angola continues to be the stage for a war that has already claimed hundreds of thousands of innocent victims.
Portugal, as a member of the troika of observer countries, will continue to do all it can in actively supporting the United Nations mediation in the person of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, whose efforts I take this opportunity to salute, in the search for a definitive solution to the Angolan conflict.
The international community cannot and must not forget the origins of the current conflict, which frustrated the hopes of the Angolan people created after the Bicesse accords and the elections of September 1992. Beyond attributing blame, it is now more important not to give up the efforts to bring this terrible conflict to an end.
The Lusaka negotiations, which seek to promote - within the context of respect for the peace accords and relevant resolutions of the Security Council - a genuine reconciliation in Angola, have reached a crucial stage.
The complete acceptance by the Angolan Government and UNITA of the set of proposals of the mediation on national reconciliation constitutes an important step. UNAVEM II must be given the necessary means to complete its mission. For this to happen, appropriate forces must be placed on the ground immediately following the initialling of the accords and the correct dimensions of that peace-keeping operation must be defined.
In any case, peace will not be possible unless there is a genuine will on the part of the Angolans themselves.
I appeal here to the Angolan Government and UNITA to do all in their power so that this opportunity is not lost.
I also appeal to the international community to redouble its commitment and support.
Despite the continuation of the conflict in Angola, the historical changes under way in southern Africa offer possibilities which must be consolidated and developed.
Portugal has from the very beginning supported the project for a dialogue between the European Union and that region of Africa, an idea that has just been expressed in the recent Berlin Conference between the European Union and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). As was stated in the Berlin Declaration, the aim of this dialogue is, inter alia, the promotion and development of trade, investment and cooperation, in order to stimulate a balanced development of that region which may, in turn, provide an engine for progress in the rest of the continent.
The dramatic situation in Rwanda shows how important the role of the Organization of African Unity is in the prevention of similar situations, namely through the implementation of its mechanism for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts created last year on 29 July at the Cairo Summit. From the very beginning, Portugal has supported the creation of this mechanism and, in conjunction with African and other like-minded countries, is prepared to participate actively in the search for means that will permit the empowerment of such an instrument.
I cannot end this reference to Africa without welcoming the way in which the first democratic and free elections were held in Guinea-Bissau and expressing satisfaction at the peaceful and orderly climate that has characterized the campaign for the elections in Sao Tome and Principe, to be held in a few days.
One of the current priorities of our foreign policy is the convergence of efforts with those countries which share with us the Portuguese language. With them we are building a community which I am sure will come to represent a new and exemplary political reality.
We are also seeking to deepen the political dialogue and cooperation between Europe and Latin America. That cooperation is institutionalized in its own mechanisms, among which I single out the dialogue between the European Union and the Rio Group as well as the Ibero-American Summits. These in turn have allowed open and profound discussions of political questions of common interest to countries united by close historical and cultural ties and by shared sensitivities. This is what happened, once again, at the Summit in Cartagena, Colombia.
I am glad to be able to acknowledge here the clear evolution towards democracy and respect for human rights that has occurred in all of Latin America and the Caribbean. That very positive evolution contrasts even more strongly with such shocking situations as that of Haiti, a country where conditions are being created for the re-establishment of democratic constitutional order following the intervention of a multinational force authorized by the United Nations Security Council.
Portugal continues to devote special attention to the evolution of the situation in North Africa. To that end, we have advocated a rapprochement with the countries of that area in accordance with the Lisbon Declaration of the European Council, which, I recall, defined a new concept for a political, economic, social and cultural relationship between the European Union and the Maghreb. Following the Corfu meeting of the European Council, which attached particular importance to stability and security in the Mediterranean, we reaffirm our dedication to a dialogue and a deepening of ties with the countries of the region. Nor can we defend any other approach when we consider the geographical proximity and close historical ties that unite Portugal and North Africa.
In fact, it is important that the countries of both sides of the Mediterranean deepen their dialogue so that we can avoid the spread of an idea which we reject - that of conflict between civilizations. On the contrary, we should value the concept that countries with different political ideas and whose populations espouse diverse religions are able to establish ties of trust and true cooperation.
It is my opinion that we have today well-founded reasons to believe that a comprehensive peace in the Middle East will be a reality in the not-too-distant future. The accords already signed between Israel and the Palestinians on the one hand and Israel and Jordan on the other testify to their determination in seeking a comprehensive, just and lasting peace. The achievements already made will certainly serve as a catalyst for new initiatives. From this perspective, the decisions and resolutions of the United Nations should reflect the positive developments already registered.
It is also necessary that the international community, and in particular the countries of the region, support the efforts under way. We hope that progress in the peace process, in both its bilateral and multilateral aspects, foreshadows the capacity to generate a new era of stability and development in that part of the world.
Universalism has always marked the ideas and behaviour of the Portuguese. In Asia Portugal has centuries-old ties with a number of countries which we wish to maintain and develop. It is with great admiration that we look upon the development of some areas of that continent. We are certain that the countries of that region will have ever-increasing importance in the determination of the fate of our planet.
Portugal attaches the greatest importance to respect for human rights, so much so that this respect can be considered to be a major pillar of its foreign policy. Our action has as a fixed reference point the results of the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, which rejected any regression or reduction of the established norms. We support the work of the High Commissioner and the Centre for Human Rights, both of which should be granted the necessary financial means for an efficient exercise of their functions.
We defend with particular commitment the principle of universality when applied to respect for human rights and their indivisibility, and we oppose any attempt to subordinate their strict observance to other objectives. On this issue, we cannot and must not yield. We believe that democracy, respect for human rights and development are mutually reinforcing.
We attach the greatest importance to the international conferences to be held in 1995: the World Summit for Social Development and the World Conference on Women. We consider promising the positive results recently achieved in Cairo by the International Conference on Population and Development, which we welcome.
In the context of human rights, among which this Organization has always included with special distinction the right to self-determination, I feel duty-bound to touch upon a question to which the international community has been giving growing attention. I am referring to the Non-Self-Governing Territory of East Timor. I reaffirm before this Assembly that Portugal has no specific objective concerning the question of East Timor beyond the defence of the rights of its people and the conclusion of the process of decolonizing the Territory in accordance with international law and with full respect for the legitimate rights of the Timorese people. For this reason, we remain committed to talks that, under the auspices of the Secretary-General, are being held with the Indonesian Government with the aim of finding a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable solution.
Undoubtedly, progress has been slow and we have not advanced on the substance of the matter. But, as a reading of the progress report of the Secretary-General reveals - and I must express here a word of appreciation to him - some steps have been taken, not only through the so-called confidence-building measures, but also with the involvement of the Timorese themselves in the search for a solution to a problem in which they are the principal interested party.
East Timor has recently ceased to be an almost forgotten Territory. We sincerely hope that the growing attention that has been granted it will contribute decisively to an improvement in the concrete situation of its people and to the adoption of a more coherent attitude in the recognition and defence of their legitimate and inalienable rights.
On 16 November the Convention on the Law of the Sea will come into force, culminating a long and important process which will open new and determinant channels of action and cooperation. The importance of this area will clearly justify the General Assembly's adopting by consensus the draft resolution of the Economic and Social Council on the proclamation of 1998 as the international year of the oceans. We are confident that its proclamation will contribute in an effective manner to a wider debate and a greater enlightenment of world public opinion on the importance of the problems which we face in this area, thus enabling the adoption of solutions that will permit their resolution at a global level. Portugal actively participates in this debate, seeking with the holding of Lisbon Expo-98 - the last great exposition of the twentieth century, the subject-matter of which is directly related to this area - to provide an important instrument for the achievement of the goals we have set.
In conclusion, I should like to reflect upon the institutional reforms that are so necessary for adapting the Organization to the new international context, its challenges and the greater possibilities of global cooperation. These reforms, which we believe to be essential and urgent, should be carried out with transparency and on a consensual basis. They must be realistic and be aimed at increasing efficiency.
Although we are still at a preliminary stage, we consider it useful to state here the aim of our thinking on this matter. First of all, we believe that it is necessary to reinforce the efficiency and responsibility of the Security Council. We maintain that a third category of members should not be created beyond those of permanent and non-permanent members. A pragmatic and reasonable solution to ensure greater representation on the Council would be to increase the number of non-permanent members by one for each region. We are also of the opinion that the number of permanent members should be increased, but such an increase should not be achieved at the expense of the number of non-permanent members.We encourage regional agreements which, through increased rotation, will permit greater representation on the Council. It is crucial that permanent members of the Council should have the ability and the political will to assume fully the responsibilities that come with that status as regards the maintenance of international peace and security.
Some States have declared themselves ready to assume greater responsibilities in regard to the achievement of the objectives of the Charter. The Portuguese Government declares - here today - its support for the inclusion of Germany and Japan as permanent members of the Security Council. Both the unified Germany, a country that provided a notable incentive for the construction of the European Union, and Japan, a great Power of the Asia-Pacific region, are in a position to make an effective contribution towards increasing the weight and the efficiency of the Security Council. It would however be difficult to comprehend if an increase in the number of the permanent members did not also include the southern hemisphere of our planet. In this context, and among the eligible countries, we point naturally to Brazil, a founding Member of the United Nations, the largest country in Latin America and a State that has unequivocally abided by the principles of the Charter.
Portugal is a candidate for a seat on the Security Council for the biennium which begins in 1997. Our candidature reflects a position of profound commitment to the main objectives of the United Nations as set out in the Charter. It reflects also our desire to contribute fully to the maintenance of international peace and security.
Thus, Portugal reaffirms its commitment with regard to the objectives of the United Nations, which my country has supported with increasing responsibility as an active participant in the different areas of the Organization and, particularly, in the United Nations peace-keeping operations.
We are approaching the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations Charter. Portugal will seek to emphasize this commemoration and to ensure that its significance is understood by the public at large and, in particular, by young people.
In this celebration, we wish to contribute to renewing our ideals and sparking people's conscience in order to promote increased participation in the objectives established by the Charter of the United Nations.
In short, this means the creation of a greater sensitivity to the irreplaceable role of the United Nations in the resolution of the major issues faced by humanity at the turn of the century.
I now call on the Minister of State, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Senegal and for Senegalese Living Abroad.
The international community is meeting once again, assembling the great diversity of the nations which are its members, to consider the state of the world and to chart the paths of progress for the 12 months that lie ahead.
We give thanks to God for having inspired the delegations here present in their choice of His Excellency Mr. Amara Essy, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the sisterly and friendly Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, as President of the Assembly at this session. His election is both an honour to him personally and a tribute to his country inasmuch as the world recognizes and acknowledges the great dedication of Côte d'Ivoire to everything affecting peace and understanding among people. It does so thanks to the vision of the late President Houphouët-Boigny, which continues to be carried on by his illustrious successor, President Henri Konan Bédié.
The personal joy and pride which I feel concerning him as our friend and brother is shared by my entire delegation as well as in Senegal which, since time immemorial, has had numerous ties of friendship and cooperation with Côte d'Ivoire. Hence, the acknowledgement of his merits by the international community was received and hailed in Senegal with the same intensity as in Côte d'Ivoire. The President can count on the support of the delegation of Senegal to contribute to the success of his mission. The warmth of the congratulations we extend to him today is equalled by the pride which we feel at seeing him preside over the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly.
We pay a tribute to his predecessor, the Permanent Representative of Guyana, Ambassador Insanally, for the skill and authority with which he guided the work of the Assembly at its forty-eighth session.
I should like also to repeat our gratitude to our Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the energy and dedication which he continues to devote to his outstanding mission at the head of our Organization, a mission which he is carrying out with the same efficiency in an ever more difficult global context.
Finally, allow me to thank delegations for the unanimous decision to elect the Permanent Representative of Senegal to the United Nations, Mr. Kéba Birane Cissé, one of our most outstanding diplomats, as Chairman of the Third Committee. In so doing this mission is entrusted to Senegal, whose dedication to human rights and to the other areas falling within the competence of this important Committee, is known to all. Mr. Cissé and all of us intend to dedicate ourselves fully, together with the other countries represented here, to ensure that the work of the Third Committee is crowned with success.
If there are years which the history of the world cannot ignore, the twelve-month period that has just elapsed is doubtless among them. It has been extremely rich in events of great political significance characterized by the positive developments of the situation in South Africa which saw the end of apartheid and which, only a few months ago, saw the advent of a democratic Power. It was also a period marked by the political and psychological upheavals that have taken place in Arab-Israeli relations. In this context, we are gratified to see South Africa now occupying its rightful place in the family of nations.
The truth always wins in the end. It is in the name of that inevitable reality - which is the token of the ultimate objective of just causes - that the chronic problem of the Middle East - at the heart of which is the question of Palestine - has, since the Declaration of Principles of 13 September 1993 in Washington, seen developments marked by the continued collapse of important panels of that psychological wall that has so long divided Arabs and Israelis.
Thus, in the region which was the cradle of the sublime spiritual messages of the religions of the Book, such developments now justify hope - the hope of finally seeing the creation of a space for lasting coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, between Israel and the Arab countries, with genuine respect for the inalienable rights of the peoples and States of the entire region. They justify the hope of seeing the establishment, between those States and peoples, of cooperation at all possible levels, to manage, together, their vital support systems.
It is only fitting that in mentioning those hopes we pay a tribute to all those involved in this positive development whose efforts have made possible the opening of this new window of opportunity on the conflict in the Middle East, especially the Palestinian and Israeli leaders who, thanks to their political courage and sense of history, finally agreed to set out on this path towards a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
In again expressing to His Excellency President Yasser Arafat Senegal's support and admiration for the courage and political farsightedness which led him to keep a firm grip on that olive branch of which he spoke here in 1974, I should like on behalf of Senegal to formulate the hope that as he takes the additional steps necessary to reach an overall solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict all the other aspects of this matter will be dealt with in accordance with the positive trend of present developments, and that a settlement will be reached in keeping with the relevant resolutions of the Security Council.
We also wish wholeheartedly to extend these congratulations and expressions of encouragement to the Israeli Prime Minister, His Excellency Mr. Yitzak Rabin, and to his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Shimon Peres, for their sustained efforts to achieve a settlement of the Middle East crisis. Such efforts must be pursued, stepped up and encouraged.
However, the past year, although marked by such positive and historic events, was not free from reasons for concern and even, at times, despair. Indeed, despite our constantly renewed efforts, a number of conflicts persist and are even sometimes becoming mired down in scenes of horror we had hoped never against to witness.
From Angola to Bosnia and Herzegovina, from Liberia to Somalia, and recently in Rwanda, we have received the echoes and images and witnessed the piercing horror of persistent crisis situations that leave us no choice other than to continue doggedly to strive for dialogue and concerted action to find lasting solutions based on equity, based on justice, based on law and based on the unshakeable will to live finally in peace in a community made up of human beings.
In the conflict situations on the African continent, today, more than ever before, machinery for the prevention, management and settlement of African conflicts must be implemented through respect for the various peace agreements that have been signed among factions that are, sadly, continuing to kill each other; our continent of Africa must be committed once and for all to the only battle worth the candle, namely, the battle for democratic development and the advancement of human rights.
The Organization of African Unity (OAU) has dedicated itself to this task, and it has done so persistently and courageously. Today, it needs the support of the whole of the international community.
The question of Angola must be peacefully and finally resolved in the spirit of the Lusaka negotiations, under the aegis of the United Nations. After having hailed the meritorious efforts undertaken by the authorities in Luanda, we must launch another strong and concrete appeal to UNITA to allow peace finally to reign in Angola.
In connection with the problems in Somalia and Rwanda, I should like to recall certain specific facts concerning the position that my country, Senegal, has taken on these questions of such concern to everyone.
In Somalia, the peace so long sought by the international community can obviously come about only through an overall political settlement that would deal with all aspects of that fratricidal conflict. Moreover, because he understood this at a very early stage, His Excellency President Abdou Diouf - then the Chairman of the OAU, and also in his capacity of President of the Sixth Summit Meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference - speaking from this rostrum in 1992, put forward the idea of convening an international conference devoted to Somalia. The General Assembly at that time responded to the appeal by the Senegalese Head of State by adopting a resolution to that effect that is still highly relevant. Given the persistence of the problem of Somalia, which today seems more than ever likely to take another tragic turn, it would appear that the time has come to re-examine that initiative.
In Rwanda, a human tragedy on a virtually unprecedented scale took place following the events of last April. In this connection, I should like to note that our country has been actively involved in the search for a solution to this conflict since 1992. Indeed, President Abdou Diouf, then the Chairman of the OAU, presided over the lengthy negotiations that culminated in the Arusha Agreements. In addition, officers from the Senegalese national army were part of the Group of Neutral Military Observers of the OAU entrusted with supervising the cease-fire, a group that was as we know replaced in 1993, with the signature of the Arusha Agreements, by the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), in which Senegal has participated and continues to participate.
Thus, it was quite natural that on 22 June of this year, faced with the inadmissible continuing massacre of civilians, the Security Council adopted resolution 929 (1994), which established a multinational force for humanitarian purposes, and that Senegal decided to participate in it.
With regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina, need we recall that this is a United Nations Member State to whose territorial integrity and sovereignty the international community is committed. This places full responsibility on the community of nations, gathered together here, to settle the conflict after identifying the aggressor.
However, it is as though the Bosnian Serbs had been actually authorized to defy with impunity and in an ongoing fashion the expressed will of the international community. The attacks against the personnel of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR), the repeated violations of security zones, the rejection of the latest peace plan proposed by the Contact Group of five Western countries, are all part of a pattern of confrontation with which the international community must finally deal, firmly and with determination.
In this connection, we believe that the adoption on 23 September 1994 of Security Council resolution 943 (1994), which suspended the economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), is not only premature but untimely, given the deterioration in the situation.
It is our opinion, one shared by the majority of States here present, that the sanctions should be, if not strengthened, at least maintained until favourable conditions have been created - that is, the establishment of an effective system of international monitoring of the border between Serbia and Montenegro, on the one hand, and the territories occupied by the Bosnian Serbs, on the other; the lifting of the siege of Sarajevo; the sincere commitment by the Bosnian Serbs to cooperate in reaching a comprehensive political settlement of the crisis; the lifting, where the Bosnian Government is concerned, of the arms embargo imposed by Security Council resolution 713 (1991) in order to restore to Bosnia and Herzegovina the means for its self-defence as set forth in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
It is also important that the international community dedicate itself to the reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a country that is today being battered and devastated by blatant aggression.
In our view, those measures represent the minimum we should expect from the international community in order to give credibility to the peace process being pursued in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On this delicate issue, Senegal, whose Head of State is also the current President of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, will continue to act within the framework of international law to ensure that the Bosnian people, finally reconciled among themselves, may know lasting peace based on an equality of rights and duties among its various components.
The economic problems today are of such a magnitude that a new concept of world security has been generated. Today, indeed, the feeling of insecurity emanates more often from the vicissitudes of daily life than from any fear of global cataclysm. That is the conclusion reached in this year's report by the United Nations Development Programme on human development.
Job security, health security and environmental security are the forms that the global problem of security takes today. This development naturally raises the question of the definition of a new "social pact", which must give further priority to human solidarity - solidarity among the communities of men - and it demonstrates the great importance that Senegal attaches to the Summit on social development that is to be held in Copenhagen next March. On that occasion we shall have to restructure our thinking about development, and it will be necessary to highlight better the human aspect of development based on greater international solidarity.
It was in this spirit that, here on 30 September 1992, Senegal's Head of State proposed to the international community the conclusion of a general agreement on solidarity - a gentlemen's agreement on solidarity. It is a positive thing that this proposal has been largely taken on board in the United Nations Secretary-General's outline, Agenda for Development, which is designed to promote a genuine culture of development that will take into account all aspects of the human condition.
For the same reasons Senegal welcomes warmly the reforms of United Nations bodies that are under way - in particular, those bodies that are responsible for questions of economic and social development.
We favour the formula "Trade, not aid", which has often been used to indicate that global trade is the genuine driving force for economic progress - more so than aid for development. It is beneficial that, along these lines, on 15 April last, in Marrakesh in the Kingdom of Morocco, the representatives of 126 countries signed the agreement that created the World Trade Organization (WTO).
We hope that the birth of the WTO represents the completion of the structure that was conceived half a century ago in Bretton Woods as international trade has been raised to the same status as monetary policy and finance for development. Thus, the Marrakesh Final Act opens the way for a new dynamic of concerted action, of consultation and solidarity, that will finally allow for the promotion of a more just and more balanced system designed to govern international trade.
If it is to do so, its practical application will have to involve integration of the specific needs and specific problems of the group of developing countries - such as greater justice in the definition and application of new machinery designed to govern international trade; regional economic integration; immigration policies; professional training; job creation; and the transfer of technologies to meet the needs and aspirations of the countries of the South.
In this regard, I must mention an event of great importance: the adoption, in Paris on 18 June 1994, of the International Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa. Many of us here represent those countries.
This is the outcome, in terms of action, of one of the major recommendations to emerge from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. As an initiator of the Convention, our continent - Africa - cannot but welcome the conclusion of this multilateral legal instrument, which recognizes the existence of such a worrying environmental problem.
It is desirable that there should be available to this Convention, as to others of the same type, sufficient financial resources to enable it to halt and reverse the process of desertification, which is a real scourge for the African continent.
The changes of considerable scope that have taken place on the world stage over the past few years confront the United Nations with new challenges and new missions. For example, how can the Organization deal with identity claims, domestic difficulties and civil wars while respecting the principle of the sovereignty of States, which is the cornerstone of the San Francisco Charter?
In what way can it - must it - react when individuals and groups perpetrate all types of serious violations of fundamental human rights, as happens in the case of the conflicts that prevail in the former Yugoslavia, Angola, Somalia and Rwanda? What barriers can be erected against terrorism and civil war in order to cope with the fragmentation of State entities, which are factors for peace? In these difficult areas, as in others, our Organization will have to demonstrate its ability to engage in innovation and adaptation.
The establishment of an international Tribunal to deal with war crimes in the former Yugoslavia; the plan to set up an international criminal court; the deliberation, begun last year, on reform of the Security Council and on better implementation of Chapter VIII of the Charter - these all demonstrate that the United Nations has committed itself firmly to that course.
As regards the Security Council in particular, the reform that is envisaged should be carried out with concern simultaneously for efficiency in the functioning of this body and for real representativeness in keeping with the new realities of the world.
The changes that have taken place in the world during the last few years have as their essence the fundamental aspiration of peoples to freedom, justice and development in a spirit of human solidarity. If it is to last, the wind of democratization that they have created at the national level requires parallel action at the international level. Indeed, we must all ensure the equal participation of all States in the establishment of new norms that can give international life a more solid foundation and provide better security for all. Such security can be founded only on shared confidence in the principles that govern our collective contribution to a better future for the world - to the salvation of mankind.
Therefore, on the eve of the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of our Organization, let us, hand in hand in a spirit of friendship and solidarity, behave in such a way that the new era will shine with the radiance of justice, peace and solidarity so that we may bequeath to future generations a world of peace, justice and friendship.
I now call on the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, His Excellency Mr. Donald Charles McKinnon.
I should like, first, to congratulate Mr. Amara Essy of Côte d'Ivoire on his well-deserved election as President of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session and to convey to him our good wishes for every success in his work.
The general debate is our chance, as Members of the United Nations, to undertake together an annual review of the Organization's work - its successes and its failures - and to identify collectively the issues we want to focus on. With the fiftieth anniversary next year, there is a pressing need to do so. That will be the occasion to chart our new priorities for the twenty-first century.
Our responses to some of today's challenges and tragedies have ranged from excellent but often under-reported to woefully inadequate and, consequently, defiantly reported.
The peoples of the world want to believe in the United Nations and what it should achieve. If, however, within some parts of the Organization we are bereft of purpose and intentions this golden anniversary threatens to be less joyous and more muted than many of us anticipated.
Prince Sisowath Sirirath (Cambodia), Vice-President, took the Chair.
New Zealand has a strong vested interest in the United Nations success, as do most small States. The New Zealand people have always believed in the United Nations, in a collective approach to the resolution of global and regional problems. This has been demonstrated by strong support for the United Nations by successive Governments.
From our experience of - and I do not hesitate to say this - a turbulent two years on the Security Council and as a committed founder Member of the Organization, I would like to take this opportunity to offer some observations about the problems we see as players in the collective decision-making process.
When New Zealand took part in the founding of the United Nations we and many others saw our primary purpose as providing for a system of collective security. Until very recently that was little more than a vision. With the end of the confrontation between two super-Power blocs, the goal of "the organized common peace", of which President Woodrow Wilson spoke so eloquently three generations ago, presents itself. We must not let it slip from our grasp this time. It will, however, take real effort and real determination.
Collective security, or working together, is the cornerstone of the security of small States. Today they are the overwhelming majority of the membership of this Organization. New Zealanders recognize that peace is indivisible, that remoteness is certainly no safeguard: a problem in any part of the world can ripple to the Earth's farthest corners. While we are the country probably most distant from the Balkans conflict, we have sent an enhanced company of soldiers to help in efforts to ease suffering and, I earnestly hope with the will of the parties involved, one day bring peace throughout the former Yugoslavia.
For the same reasons, our defence personnel can be found engaged in peace-support operations in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and most recently Haiti. And there are New Zealand nurses, firefighters and aid workers spread around the globe in support.
Against this backdrop, however, New Zealanders are puzzled at times by the way in which the United Nations carries out some of its important tasks. In Bosnia, despite the employment of what is by any standards a large, well-armed and well-trained force, people see on their television screens nightly the frustration of the United Nations Protection Force by small groups of irregulars, a single policeman or even small groups of non-combatants. In Haiti they witnessed a boat full of Blue Berets turned away by a small group of pistol-toting thugs unconvincingly called "attachés".
And what can one say about the appalling tragedy in Rwanda? How can so much hatred have been unleashed so viciously, killing hundreds of thousands? What we watched with horror on our television screens was destruction on a scale we thought only megaton bombs were capable of. The systematic slaughter of men, women and children simply because of their ethnic origin leaves us all outraged.
There are no easy answers. But the first key to unlocking the possibilities for a genuine collective security must be the proper application of the United Nations Charter. We have to decide at exactly what point the United Nations should get involved in the peacemaking operation. Do we recognize a problem, and, if we do, is the preventive diplomacy that we so firmly believe in occurring?
In my view, we have to follow the intention of the Charter. First, at the outset of a crisis, or even the signs of a crisis, we have to make more serious efforts through that preventive diplomacy to resolve p