I am pleased and honoured to convey a cordial
and respectful greeting from the people and Government of
the Republic of Honduras and from the other countries that
are members of the Central American Integration System,
of which I am proud to be the current Chairman.
Mr. President, Central America wishes to express its
satisfaction at your well-deserved election to preside over
this fifty-third regular session of the General Assembly.
Your outstanding professional and public career is a
guarantee that this session of the Assembly will yield
fruitful and significant results.
Our delegation wishes also to express its gratitude to
the representative of the Ukraine, Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko,
for the commendable work he did during the last General
Assembly. We also express our sincerest gratitude to Mr.
Kofi Annan, who, in discharging his mandate as Secretary-
General of our Organization, has displayed a spirit of hard
work and dedication in a particularly difficult period for the
United Nations.
Throughout its history, Honduras has fought for the
system of democratic government to take root on its soil. It
has fought to take its place in the world community as a
fully fledged State, to imbue its independent, republican
character with respect for basic human rights, and to ensure
public freedoms for all of its inhabitants. However, many
of those efforts were frustrated at certain regrettable times
in our past, a past that was closely interlinked with that of
the other States of the Central American region.
Fortunately, in recent decades Honduras has safeguarded
and strengthened its democracy and its internal institutions,
in spite of the deplorable and difficult circumstances
experienced by the Central American region as the
involuntary theatre of the cold war, which was imposed on
us from outside, and in spite of the undesirable
consequences of armed conflicts.
The Governments of Central America are currently
working hard to consolidate peace and a spirit of internal
reconciliation in our societies. Our resolve is strong in this
process, and the progress achieved is truly encouraging and
a just reward for these efforts. We are determined to turn
away forever from the fratricidal battles that have caused us
so much suffering and diverted our energy from the
construction of the prosperous, democratic, free and
happy region that our peoples yearn for and that their
democratic Governments strive to offer.
It must be said that although Honduras was not the
direct scene of Central American armed conflicts, it did
suffer the grave consequences of the instability,
uncertainty and violence of the region, which caused
thousands of Hondurans to emigrate to other countries,
mainly to the United States. Unfortunately, justice has not
been done to our compatriots, as they have not been given
the same opportunities and immigration status enjoyed by
other Central Americans. We trust that the sacrifice of
Honduras in the Central American conflicts of the past
will be fully understood and that our emigrants will be
given the consideration that they justly deserve.
Furthermore, the Presidents of Central America, in
ongoing consultations and regular meetings, are giving
strong impetus to regional integration in all fields:
economic, political, social and cultural. These dynamics
of integration include the States of Belize, Panama and
the Dominican Republic, through broad participation
mechanisms and the signing of economic treaties and of
bilateral and multinational exchanges. We are hoping also
for a joint venture with the Mexican Republic, and we
maintain that the region as a whole must enjoy the same
benefits that the three principal North American countries
have already agreed upon for themselves.
The Government of Honduras commends the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and fully
supports his efforts to reform the Organization. There is
consensus in Central America on the fact that United
Nations reform, including broader membership of the
Security Council, is a necessity for the international
system. But this expansion must be based upon equitable
geographic representation and the consensus of the
regional groups and the existing subregional mechanisms.
The restructuring must also include a procedural review
in order to ensure greater representation, transparency and
efficiency.
The Government of Honduras supports the initiative
of the President of the United States to establish a
worldwide organization to fight against terrorism. We
strongly condemn all types of terrorism without exception
because we believe it is a form of human cruelty that no
political, ideological, religious or cultural cause can
justify at this stage of our civilization.
6

On the subject of controlling illegal drug trafficking,
our Government reiterates its support for the special session
of the General Assembly on the world drug problem.
Because of its strategic geographic position, Central
America is in danger of becoming a production and trade
area for narcotic drugs and must therefore receive the
greatest possible international support to fight this scourge.
We are pleased also at the advances achieved by the
Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the
Establishment of an International Criminal Court, held in
Rome, whose goal was to create a legal forum with global
jurisdiction in order to bring to trial and convict individuals
for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The Honduran people themselves have suffered from
the use of anti-personnel mines, which have taken a high
toll in human lives. Consequently, we are prepared to
support the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel
Mines and on Their Destruction. The Government of
Honduras is proud to announce that today it has deposited
with the Secretary-General its instrument of ratification of
the landmines Convention.
The countries of the Central American Region view
with concern and deplore the recent nuclear tests conducted
in other geographical regions, and we advocate the
introduction and full implementation of the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty as an important step towards the
total elimination of these devastating weapons.
Honduras supports the efforts of the Republic of China
on Taiwan for full membership in the United Nations and
in the international agencies of the United Nations system.
We are convinced that conditions have changed
significantly and that at this time in our history there can be
no justification for the international isolation to which more
than 21 million people are subjected.
Among other noteworthy issues is the advancement of
women in society. We welcome this advancement not only
because women have the right to equality, but also because
with their help we can envision a fairer and more humane
world. We invite States to support the Platform for Action
in the effective implementation of the Fourth World
Conference on Women.
Likewise, because children and adolescents are the
most vulnerable members of society, we are prepared to
lend our vigorous support to the convening of a world
conference of ministers responsible for youth, with a view
to the implementation of national programmes and of the
World Programme of Action for Youth to the Year 2000
and Beyond, and in order to support the institutions and
programmes designed to safeguard our children and
young people as the generational and spiritual reserve of
our homeland.
Globalization is a subject of particular concern that
must be tackled in this unique forum — so vital to
humankind — because it gives rise to challenges of an
unprecedented magnitude.
It is true that humankind has always faced singular
challenges throughout the millennium that is now drawing
to a close. Major worldwide events have occurred that
have drastically changed the way of life of millions of
people: the Christian revolution, in the spiritual realm; the
liberal revolutions of France and the United States, in the
political realm; the Industrial Revolution, in the economic
realm; and the Russian Revolution, in the social realm.
Each of these historic events affected in a different way
humankind?s self-image and the role of States in
governing society.
Thus, the twentieth century — which saw great
achievements, serious errors, titanic efforts, enormous
upheavals and profuse bloodshed — is now drawing to a
close. We are about to open a new chapter for
humankind, one that is replete with uncertainty,
expectations, fears and hopes — the first century of the
approaching third millennium.
The twentieth century will bequeath to future
generations a legacy without parallel or comparison in the
history of human development. This is the century that
took us to the very depth of the microcosmos through the
splitting of the atom and the deciphering of the genetic
code, allowing us to unravel the components of matter
and discover and use an impressive number of new and
even-made elements with the help of innovative formulas
for nuclear energy, light, heat and sound. It has been a
century of great discoveries in all the sciences —
mathematics, physics, medicine, chemistry, optics,
genetics, psychology and electronics.
This is the century of the outer space and man?s
daring probes and adventures of man beyond his planet.
This is the century of vertiginous speeds that broke the
sound barrier and of communications and transport that
have, indeed, transformed the earth into a global village.
It is the century of universal cybernetic information,
which has connected man with his neighbour in the other
7

hemisphere, just as two friends used to talk in their back
yards, separated only by a garden fence. Today, the
computer performs tasks that would have taken the most
cultivated and talented man centuries of work, or that he
would have never been able to perform. Races and cultures
have been mixed, influencing each other in an unceasing
exchange of creations. There has been a massive spreading
of ideas, news, customs and new developments such as man
never dreamed of accomplishing in the course of his long
and trying existence on earth. This is the century of
geopolitical changes, as sudden as they are unimaginable,
so huge that their very force left their own protagonists
behind.
Unfortunately, it is also a century that will be
remembered with sadness, as the century of the two great
worldwide slaughters and many dreadful, apparently local
and centralized, wars. It is the century of thermonuclear,
toxic and chemical weapons and other means of mass
destruction. It is the century of merciless, senseless
terrorism, and also the century of the terrible AIDS
pandemic. It is the century, finally, of man?s greatest
destruction of the ecology and of the purity of his
environment, seriously threatening the very existence of his
planet. We are concerned, and we are surely ashamed, that
this century will also be remembered as the century of the
direst poverty in an alarming majority of countries. We are
grieved that when there is prosperity, it is concentrated
among the richest, but when there is a crisis, on the other
hand, its devastation is brought down on the poorest.
But if there is one issue that characterizes this century
and for ever marks it in the annals of the human race, it is
the desire for, the necessity of and the value of freedom.
Never have we fought so hard and paid such a high price
for freedom, or for the lack thereof, as we have done in this
century. Never have there been so many attempts to destroy
freedom through systems, ideologies, regimes and wars, and
never has man carried out such monumental exploits, such
beautiful and heroic deeds, in the defence or pursuit of
liberty, as in the last 10 decades of this millennium. The
great figures that left their mark on contemporary history
are those who denied freedom to their nations or achieved
it gloriously, sometimes at the cost of their own lives.
Thank God that we can say at this time, and in this
world forum, that freedom has triumphed and will continue
to establish itself in every corner of the world where it is
still denied or crushed, whenever conditions show our
peoples that freedom, an essential human value, is worth
the trouble and that to fight for it and to keep it are
important for man?s physical and spiritual well-being.
Along with freedom, democracy is triumphing
around the globe, but for this progress to continue to be
effective and to last, so that we do not lose what we have
gained and do not return to the tyrannies we defeated
with so much effort and suffering, certain conditions must
be fulfilled. This is the huge challenge of the next
millennium: how to keep this freedom, how to extend it
to the farthest corner of the planet and — the final test —
how to manage it for the benefit of all humankind.
It is true that, just as there are hopeful and
encouraging expectations on which we must capitalize,
there is also a lot of worry, and even fear, in our nations
concerning these swift, radical and dizzying universal
changes. The world economy has progressed and
developed dramatically in the last 25 years. Economic
globalization has opened up opportunities and risks for all
the countries of the world. However, at this time it is
quite clear that the benefits of globalization are not shared
by all countries and that, in many cases, there is an
increasing disparity between developed and developing
countries, an inequality that produces social and political
tensions in our countries and severely threatens the
democratic advances for which we have paid so dearly.
In the beginning of the process of global
liberalization, it was maintained that the reduction in the
flows of assistance for development would be far
outweighed by the commercial benefits and private capital
flows to our regions. The truth is that, even though we
support commercial liberalization with concrete measures,
our products have often been faced with various kinds of
barriers that are hard to overcome.
In combination, factors such as the reduction in
development assistance, barriers to the export of our
products, the scanty movement of private capital or its
excessive concentration in certain areas, and the burden
of foreign debt become formidable obstacles to the
economic growth and social development of our peoples.
I believe the time is ripe to evaluate what is happening at
the global level in order to take measures that will
prevent further deterioration of the living conditions of
our population and promote a more just economic and
social order.
This concern is especially legitimate in the light of
financial developments in recent days in certain countries
of South-East Asia and Japan. Those economies and
systems were held up to us as an example to follow and
as a standard for what can be achieved with full economic
liberalization. Russia followed that path that led to the
8

crisis affecting us today, which we all hope is temporary.
All of this means that the economy is not everything, and
that a setback in maintaining the welfare level of a people?s
well-being because of economic and financial mechanisms
can rapidly deteriorate its political and social conditions,
presenting the imminent danger of moving backwards in the
development of democracy and imperilling once again the
precious gift of freedom, for which millions of men and
women have given their lives in this century. Creating great
expectations and exaggerated hopes of well-being and
development is dangerous, as are the disappointments that
can be felt by our peoples when the democratic system and
the new economic order are incapable of giving concrete
answers to the basic needs of our nations. This is the risk
of backlash, the reversal of conquests and the return to
instability, rivalry, mistrust and the loss of internal, and
even international, peace.
Under the pressure of globalization, modernization and
economic adjustments, we have surely put at stake millions
of the planet?s inhabitants? right to better life especially in
Latin America. At stake is the national identity of countries
and the identity of regions faced with an increasingly rapid
process of universalization and assimilation, which is not
always laudable. At stake is the vulnerability or resistance
of our societies before the avalanche of influences,
requirements and models imposed from the outside, behind
the mask of structural adjustments and modernization. At
stake is stability: we are faced with the massive
development of violent, or simply rebellious, acts of the
poor, the marginalized and the excluded, because they feel
powerless before the walls that prevent their access to
survival, work, education, health and safety, which are
essential, basic rights, amply consecrated by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, whose fiftieth anniversary we
Hondurans have celebrated with the greatest pleasure and
with renewed hope that such principles can actually lead us
to fairer, happier societies.
We cannot hide the fear, shared by many of the
Governments represented here, that a new economic order
that is unfair, oversized and all-encompassing, and that does
not take into consideration the political and social realities
of each country and the processes that led us to these
vertiginous changes, would destroy any possibility for the
equitable development of each person and each people, to
the extent that globalization generates excessive
concentrations of power in large and monstrous
consortiums, instead of solidarity in the enjoyment of the
goods and opportunities afforded by a new, universal
society.
Whether we are moving towards an ideal, globalized,
fraternal and peaceful world of solidarity, or towards
other forms of tyranny, submission and cruelty — this is
the question we must ask, all of us who have public
responsibilities in Honduras and in every corner of the
planet. In a world where the borders no longer divide
countries, but rather swell to embrace the geographic
contours of the planet, in a world in which the scope of
international relations is limited only by human ambition
and imagination, the question is whether we are heading
for the globalization of ethics or an ethics of
globalization. This question must be answered if we are
to avoid the death, in the vortex of capital and market
growth, of humankind?s ethical and moral values, which
have been the pillars that prevent the crumbling of what
we all call civilization.
At issue, in short, is the ability to govern societies,
but without losing the freedoms that gave birth to States,
and without losing the ethical values that have kept them
alive, sheltered by eternal concepts such as national
sovereignty, basic human rights, the survival of the planet
and the self-determination of peoples.
After all, in the hierarchy of the values that define
our highest aspirations, the supreme goal of society and
State continues to be the human person, and the supreme
good we are trying to achieve is not growth, not
development, not globalization, but happiness and well-
being.
This is the right time, then, to seek alternatives such
as the needed reinforcement of multilateral institutions
with funds on preferential terms to support development;
increased cooperation in order to foster better
opportunities for those most in need and to reduce
imbalances and close the distance between the richest and
the poorest; the governing of globalization so that it does
not demand sacrifices from most nations while
concentrating its benefits in a few; and the search for
additional, expeditious mechanisms to reduce the foreign
debt that is choking most of humankind. The United
Nations must become the appropriate forum to foster
these and other initiatives required to guarantee better
conditions for developing countries, intelligent measures
to ensure universal peace and harmony.
Honduras, its people and its Government, declare
their faith in the superior qualities of man and his
capacity for hope and faith in a better destiny for all
humankind. We are sure that the unity of all the peoples
of the earth around the essential topics of peace, survival
9

of the planet, a worldwide economic system that is more
balanced and really open to all and the construction of
societies that are fairer, freer, and safer will remain the
raison d?être of the United Nations and its most important
task. In this effort, the Organization can count on the
support and solidarity of Honduras and other Central
American States.


Allow me first of all to congratulate you,
Mr. Opertti, on your election as President of the General
Assembly at its fifty-third session and, at the same time, to
wish you success in the performance of your important
function.
Your predecessor, Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko,
successfully headed the fifty-second session. I am
convinced that, as a distinguished Latin American politician
of great experience and energy, you will also make an
outstanding contribution to the successful outcome of this
session.
Allow me also to express our deep appreciation to
Secretary-General Kofi Annan for his leadership and to
extend to him our readiness for full cooperation.
It is my special pleasure to address this Assembly on
behalf of the Republic of Macedonia. My country managed
to avoid the turmoil of the war on the former Yugoslav
territory and to achieve its independence peacefully. We
also managed not only to maintain our internal peace and
stability but also to produce peace and stability in the
troubled and volatile region of the Balkans. Under much
more difficult conditions than those prevailing in the other
countries in transition, we managed not only to finalize the
reforms of the political and economic systems, but also to
democratize society, to build the institutions of the state
of law and to put into full function the mechanisms of
market economy. In addition, we managed to emerge
from the deep financial and economic crisis resulting
from the high price we had to pay for these radical
reforms, and, above all, from the losses we suffered due
to the war in the region and the sanctions against our
neighbour, Yugoslavia.
According to the last report of the World Bank, the
Republic of Macedonia, among all the countries in
transition, today shares first place with Estonia in the
results on macroeconomic plans and is in fourth place in
the field of structural reforms. Over a number of years,
my country has had a stable currency and an annual
inflation rate of about 5 per cent, and this year has had an
industrial production growth rate of over 10 per cent. The
Republic of Macedonia, through its policy of equally
good relations with all its neighbours, has managed to
establish outstanding relations with almost all of them,
particularly with the Republic of Slovenia, the Republic
of Croatia, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
Republic of Turkey, the Hellenic Republic and the
Republic of Albania. It has also managed to become one
of the most active countries in all of the regional
initiatives in South-Eastern Europe.
Having committed itself to full integration into the
European and Euro-Atlantic structures, the Republic of
Macedonia is investing great efforts to enhance its
relations with the European Union and to fully integrate
itself into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), thus contributing to the establishment of the
new Euro-Atlantic security architecture and to the united
Europe of the twenty-first century.
The Republic of Macedonia has achieved all of this
in a region in which, as is well known, we cannot yet
speak of lasting peace and stability, due to the crisis in
Bosnia, the crisis in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo,
the recent events in Albania and the stalled processes of
democratization in some of the neighbouring countries.
Other factors are the threats posed by illicit drug-
trafficking, money-laundering, the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction and small arms,
transnational and local terrorism and so forth.
These are only some of the issues that burden the
overall situation in the region I come from, but these are
also issues that burden citizens worldwide. We still live
in a period characterized by uncertainty and
15

unpredictability. Local wars and ethnic conflicts continue.
The threat of weapons of mass destruction is increasingly
alarming. Organized crime, illicit drug-trafficking and
terrorism trouble the whole world. Financial and economic
crises have become more frequent than ever, as have
environmental disasters.
These complex issues, together with the issue of
globalization, which marks the end of this century and will
prevail in the coming one, as well as the issue of the
reform of our Organization, are the main issues of debate
at this session. That is why my country, the Republic of
Macedonia, attaches such enormous importance to this
session, with the expectation that the decisions to be
adopted in those respects will improve our mutual
cooperation and will strengthen the role of the United
Nations in the spirit of its Charter.
In the twenty-first century, our Organization will face
a lot of new challenges, which will differ from those we
have dealt with during the past decades. The appropriate
response to these challenges requires even further
globalization of cooperation, through the United Nations,
and we therefore should, in due time, do everything
possible so that it will be prepared to tackle them.
We believe that the Secretary-General?s reform
programme is an excellent basis for this. These reforms are
in the interest of all Member States, and we therefore fully
endorse them. We believe that they should bring about
substantial improvement in the work of all the bodies
within the United Nations family.
In that regard, we are in favour of the eventual
increase in the number of permanent and non-permanent
members of the Security Council, derived from and based
upon real political relations among Member States.
The processes of globalization that have engulfed our
planet are irreversible. They enhance our possibilities for
confronting international threats jointly, but they should
also provide benefits for all participating countries. The
United Nations is the only Organization which can define
the principles, norms and rules, and which can give
guarantees that both the obligations and the benefits will be
shared by all members of the international community.
Only in this way can we, all together, avoid the eventual
negative effects of these processes of globalization.
As a modest contribution in that regard, the Republic
of Macedonia has submitted a draft resolution for this
session on the prevention of marginalization of small and
weakened economies of developing countries and of
economies in transition.
The international community is witnessing many
new crises and conflicts, which most frequently turn into
violence of an unprecedented intensity and fierceness. The
United Nations has all along been engaged in their
prevention and management. The lessons learned from the
crisis of the region I come from have indicated that our
Organization, in dealing with them, needs to take the
following steps: first, concentrate on their root causes;
secondly, concentrate on early warning; thirdly, activate
preventive diplomacy for peaceful settlement of these
disputes before violence arises; and fourthly, deploy
preventive forces in the neighbouring regions or countries
to prevent their eventual spillover.
In 1992, when the war in Bosnia was spreading,
endangering the regions to the south, as well as my
country, which was not yet a Member of the United
Nations, we requested the deployment of a preventive
mission along our northern and western borders. The
Security Council took a positive decision, and, as a result,
the first preventive United Nations mission, the United
Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP), was
born.
I avail myself of this opportunity to express the
gratitude of my people and my country for this wise
decision of the Security Council, to the troop-contributing
countries — the United States of America, Norway,
Sweden, Finland and Denmark — and to all the other
countries that have contributed to the stabilization of the
situation along our northern and western borders.
As members know, the UNPREDEP mission has all
along also acted as a deterrent to possible conflicts in the
region. This most successful preventive mission has
always enjoyed the support of our citizens, as well as of
my Government. We are particularly pleased that such
positive assessments are contained in all the reports of
Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
We are convinced that last year?s crisis in Albania
and the crisis in Kosovo, which has particularly
intensified since the beginning of this year, would have
had much more negative consequences on peace and
stability in the region had the UNPREDEP mission not
stayed in the Republic of Macedonia or had its stay been
terminated last year, as some had proposed. Therefore, I
would like to express our gratitude to all the States
16

members of the Security Council that adopted the resolution
extending its stay.
I would also like to point to the need for the
UNPREDEP mission to stay in the Republic of Macedonia
until the situation in neighbouring Albania stabilizes and the
Kosovo crisis is peacefully settled. As an immediate
neighbour, we are most interested in this and therefore,
through our constructive policy, we are trying to make our
own contribution to the efforts of the international
community to resolve the Kosovo crisis.
Even though we see the solution in the framework of
the Republic of Serbia and within the internationally
recognized borders of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
it is well known that conditions have not yet been created
for a lasting settlement. Therefore, we believe that the
interim solution proposed by the American diplomat
Christopher Hill and the Contact Group will lead towards
resolving this crisis. The sooner this temporary solution is
accepted and implemented, the sooner will conditions be
created for reaching a lasting settlement of the crisis in
Kosovo, as well as for eliminating this threat to the stability
of the region.
Should this not happen, as an immediate neighbour we
are most concerned by possible new waves of refugees,
which could destabilize not only the countries of the region,
but also those beyond. For the time being, this crisis has
not significantly affected the peace and stability of the
Republic of Macedonia, in which there lives a considerable
Albanian minority. However, all of our citizens, regardless
of their national or religious identity, are concerned by a
possible deepening of the crisis.
Though some initial steps have lately been made
towards settling the Kosovo crisis and broader conditions
have been established to that end — such as, for example,
the decision of the Defence Ministers of the Partnership for
Peace and of States members of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) from South-East Europe, to establish
the first multinational brigade for peace support operations;
or the positive results of such regional initiatives as the
Central European Initiative (CEI), the Royaumont Initiative,
the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC), the Initiative
of Cooperation of South-East Europe (SECI), and the
process on security, stability and cooperation in South-
Eastern Europe — recent events in Kosovo, in which a
number of citizens were massacred, will very negatively
affect the overall security situation. We condemn all such
uncivilized acts and underline that this is not the way to
overcome the disputes or to settle them peacefully.
Therefore, we call for the full mobilization and
harmonization of the activities of the international
community, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the European Union and
NATO, as well as our Organization, the United Nations,
since we believe that the possibilities for a peaceful
solution have not yet been exhausted. In that regard, my
country has invested great efforts to make a constructive
contribution. As is known, at previous sessions of the
General Assembly, three resolutions for the development
of good-neighbourly relations in South-East Europe that
were proposed by the Republic of Macedonia were
adopted unanimously.
At this session, we have submitted a proposal for the
adoption of a new draft resolution on the prevention of
the violent disintegration of States. I hope that this draft
resolution will also be adopted by acclamation. By this,
the Republic of Macedonia is making a concrete
contribution and giving strong support to the efforts of the
United Nations to establish early warning of eventual
conflicts, achieve political settlements of outstanding
disputes, and avoid their short-, medium- and long-term
consequences.
In the period between the main parts of the fifty-
second and fifty-third sessions of the General Assembly,
our Organization undertook a great number of activities
to resolve the current and to prevent the outbreak of new
crises. The measures that could greatly contribute to
preventing such violent conflicts certainly include the
prosecution of war criminals and the punishment of the
criminal acts and atrocities they have committed.
The successful completion of the Conference on the
creation of the International Criminal Court is of
historical importance. The Republic of Macedonia has
fully supported the outcome of the Rome Conference, as
well as the Statute that was adopted by the majority of
the attending countries, including my own. Now, the
General Assembly should adopt the necessary decisions
to allow the Court to assume its full functions.
In that regard, no less important is the fact, that
within a very short period of time, 40 countries, including
the Republic of Macedonia, have ratified the Ottawa
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
Their Destruction. Thus, the Republic of Macedonia has
firmly reaffirmed its commitment to the full elimination
of anti-personnel landmines, just as it has, by investing
enormous efforts, made a great contribution to preventing
17

the proliferation of the small arms that abounded in the
region following last year?s crisis in Albania.
Human rights, democracy and the rule of law have
proven to be the basic preconditions for the promotion of
peace, security and the sustainable development of States.
Since the very first days of its independence, the Republic
of Macedonia has committed itself to the establishment of
these preconditions.
Today, as we celebrate the fiftieth anniversary of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we feel the need
to particularly emphasize that the adoption of the
declaration on the defenders of human rights will not only
create new responsibilities for all the States Members of
our Organization, but will also encourage all the activists
who work for the protection of human rights throughout the
world.
As a country whose Constitution abolishes the death
penalty, we support the draft protocols to the Convention
for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against
Women and the Convention against Torture, as well as a
broad scope of projects and programmes in the field of
human rights, the rule of law and so on.
Allow me to conclude by reaffirming the firm
commitment of the Republic of Macedonia to the objectives
and principles of the United Nations Charter. We are a
small country that struggles for progress and development
within a still troubled and unstable region. Perhaps that is
why we so strongly feel the threats and the challenges that
are common to the whole world. Thus, each and every
State Member of the United Nations, regardless of size and
human potential, should make its contribution to decreasing
the risks of these threats and should also enjoy the benefits
of the current processes of globalization. The survival of
each State, of each people, of the whole planet depends on
the common solidarity among all of us and on our common
responsibility for future generations that could be united
only here, in our common Organization, the United Nations.


Singapore was delighted
to see Mr. Didier Opertti unanimously elected as the fifty-
third President of the United Nations General Assembly. As
this century draws to a close, the world is experiencing
dramatic changes. We live in an era of great uncertainties.
At this crucial juncture, we are delighted that a
distinguished man of letters and man of law from a fellow
small State has assumed this distinguished office. We
would also like to place on record our gratitude to his
predecessor, Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, for his able
stewardship of the fifty-second session of the General
Assembly.
In the last two decades, the world has changed. The
growth of international institutions, cross-border trade and
investment, the opening up of markets, the advent of
instant communication — all these have altered the face
of the world. From the Americas to Europe to the Middle
East, to Africa and to Asia, no country has been
untouched by the forces of globalization. The expansion
of global economic activity has forced globalization onto
the agendas of United Nations Members. At one point or
another, we have all asked how our peoples could benefit
from globalization and wondered how our nations could
be better plugged into the global economic grid. Keen
international interest at the United Nations about
globalization was also evident from the active
participation of many Member States in the high-level
dialogue on the impact of globalization held last week on
the fringes of the General Assembly.
At that dialogue, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said
that there was no subject more important than
globalization. I agree. The long-term benefits deriving
from the free trade of goods and services and from the
free flow of capital and information are generally
accepted.
In the last year the desirability of a freer flow of
capital has been severely questioned. When the currency
crisis erupted in South-East Asia, some expected the crisis
to blow over quickly. Unfortunately, this was not the
case. Economic problems quickly developed into full-
scale social problems, which in turn became political
problems. The crisis has since spread from South-East
Asia to North-East Asia, Russia and even Latin America.
Even as we speak, it laps at the shores of America and
Europe. What started out as a national problem has
ballooned into a regional problem, and it is fast
threatening to become a global crisis.
The United Nations cannot avoid coming to grips
with globalization. Events in East Asia over the last year
have caused enthusiasm for this phenomenon to give way
to uncertainty about its value. The questions foremost in
our minds are: is globalization good for us? How do we
prevent ourselves from being hurt by it? We are all
groping for answers. The challenge for us is whether we
are able to draw the right lessons from recent events.
On the whole, globalization has done a lot of good.
The process has enhanced the free flow of goods and
services, capital and information; it has spurred innovation
and competition and has lifted hundreds of million of
people out of poverty. East Asia has enjoyed two decades
of unprecedented economic growth. Our landscape has
been radically transformed. Financial centres have
14

replaced sleepy villages. Lifestyles which were a dream for
our parents are a reality for us. Our cities are increasingly
plugged into the world information superhighway. Less than
10 years ago, letters would have taken at least a week to
cross the globe. Today, with the advent of electronic mail,
it takes seconds. We can now chat “real-time” on the
Internet. Initially, the Internet was used mainly in developed
countries. Increasingly, it has spread its wings around the
globe.
Dialogue and cooperation between countries have
improved as the countries found issues of common interest
and more areas of interdependence. Isolated economies
have joined hands to form regional economic groupings and
to promote regional prosperity. Look how the globalization
of information has helped the work of the United Nations
itself. Today, anyone with a computer and modem can gain
electronic access to over 360,000 official documents of the
United Nations, dating back to 1947. The complete list of
United Nations peacekeeping operations, including potential
training programmes, is available on-line. More crucially,
the Organization’s “Relief Web” provides situation reports
on humanitarian relief efforts in disaster areas around the
world, along with instant information on how individuals
and Governments can contribute to specific humanitarian
operations. One major force of globalization, the Internet,
has tied all of us together, very much like a global family.
But, like any man-made phenomenon, globalization
inevitably creates some problems. Some countries have
been made more vulnerable by the opening up of their
economies to the global market. Control has now passed
largely into the hands of thousands of money traders who
can move billions of dollars across boundaries with a single
click of a computer mouse. Effectively, there is now no real
force that can stop them.
As the former Chairman of Citibank, Mr. Walter
Wriston, noted in a recent article:
“When I started in the banking business, the total
foreign exchange market in New York was only about
$50 million. If the Federal Reserve called Citibank or
Chase and instructed them to sell $10 million, an
order that size could move the markets. Today, that
market is $1 trillion and Central Bank intervention in
foreign exchange becomes an exercise in futility.”
In today’s CNN world, live images are transmitted
from one end of the globe to another as events unfold.
Perceptions can be changed, emotions stoked and
confidence irrecoverably shaken within minutes. This exerts
greater pressures on Governments, on businesses and even
on peoples to respond, rationally or otherwise.
The way ahead is not to turn our backs on
globalization. This is no longer a viable or realistic
option. To repudiate globalization will hurt our long-term
growth prospects. It is vital to remind ourselves in this
crisis that the tremendous economic growth that much of
the world has experienced since the Second World War
has been the result of the free trade in goods and services
encouraged since the formation of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade in 1947. There is an overwhelming
consensus among economists that we should continue to
push ahead on this front, despite the fact that
protectionism has once again reared its ugly head. If we
try to turn the clock back and walk away from free trade,
the impact will not just be domestic nor will it be merely
economic.
Domestic political pressures can find regional and
international outlets. The prosperity resulting from open
markets has provided a foundation for national stability
and regional and global peace and security. If countries
cannot get access to the raw materials, goods and services
they need through peaceful and open competition, they
will resort to other means. Economic rivalries can have
political and military consequences. A return to global
tensions cannot be ruled out, but we must avoid it. The
core interests of the United Nations — the maintenance
of peace and security — may be endangered. The only
way forward is to find solutions to deal with the
vulnerabilities created by globalization.
At the domestic level, we must promote higher
standards of national government by strengthening our
regulatory and supervisory frameworks, improving
corporate governance, increasing transparency and
lessening government interference in market decisions.
We need to put in place sound macroeconomic policies
and build strong regulatory structures to make our
economies more resilient.
On the international front, the United Nations can
play a leading role in the international effort to help
countries reap the benefits of globalization. We should
encourage the developed world to assume the primary
responsibility for bringing the world out of this crisis.
There should be greater dialogue and partnership between
the developing and developed world to ensure that
globalization benefits every country. Globalization should
bring security and confidence, not greater vulnerability, to
our people.
15

United Nations Members have a common interest in
revitalizing and reforming the major multilateral
institutions, including the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), the World Bank and the World Trade Organization
(WTO). The United Nations, for its part, has prevented the
scourge of another world war. The IMF, World Bank and
WTO have overseen a great burst of economic expansion
of a size never seen before in the history of man. Together
with other key United Nations agencies, they have made
significant contributions to development efforts and to
poverty alleviation. However, recent developments have
shown that these institutions have their weaknesses. They
should be reformed, but not destroyed.
So, we at the United Nations can play a constructive
role in this process. As Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan
said at the high-level dialogue recently, the United Nations
has
”A unique and indispensable role to play. Our broad
mandate, our universal membership and our ability to
involve non-State actors all make the United Nations
uniquely well equipped to help forge a global response
to the crisis, which is global not only in the
geographical sense, but also in the range of issues that
it raises.” (A/53/PV.6)
I am glad that one clear conclusion of the high-level
dialogue on globalization was, as the Secretary-General
reiterated in his closing remarks, the need for the United
Nations and Bretton Woods institutions to now work
together as equal members of the same team. In my view,
we will also have to work together to deal with the new
challenges which were not anticipated when the Bretton
Woods institutions were set up in 1944.
We stand at a critical juncture of international
discourse. As we approach the twenty-first century,
paradigms that have brought us wealth and peace in the last
half-century are now being questioned. The temptation to
take the easiest route — to close our doors on
globalization — is very great, but the quickest route is not
necessarily the right or best route.
We can begin by holding full discussions on this issue.
A good start was made at the recent high-level dialogue.
Many good ideas have been raised. We should continue this
process in order to come up with a global understanding of
the challenges and to formulate a global response. I am
pleased to learn that preparations have already begun for
the Millennium Assembly in the year 2000. Many questions
will certainly be discussed then, but I dare say that no
question may be more pressing than the challenge of
globalization.


On behalf of the
delegation of the Republic of Korea, I sincerely
congratulate Mr. Didier Opertti on his election to the
presidency of this session of the General Assembly. We are
fully confident that the Assembly will reap fruitful results
under his distinguished leadership. I would also like to pay
tribute to his predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Hennadiy Y.
Udovenko, and to the Secretary-General, His Excellency
Mr. Kofi Annan.
I would like to discuss today our common future and
the various efforts that we will need to consider to ensure
its betterment. With the new millennium just around the
corner, we must contemplate the possibilities for our future
world. With confidence and pride, we can look back over
the past five decades and note with appreciation the
tremendous contributions the United Nations has made
towards international peace and prosperity. We must also
note that today the United Nations is confronted with
enormous challenges and opportunities. The identification
of these challenges, both within the United Nations itself
and in the world with which the United Nations must
engage, is where our discussion must begin.
As a world community, we face trends and challenges
that test our wisdom and courage. Before I discuss our
common efforts, I would like to begin by addressing how
we are now handling our own concerns in Korea. Last
February, the Republic of Korea inaugurated the
Government of President Kim Dae-jung. This Government
carries special significance for the Korean people because
it marks the first time an opposition party has acceded to
power in the 50-year constitutional history of Korea.
The Republic of Korea is one of the countries that
gained independence during the last half-century; it has
subsequently developed into a liberal democracy within a
relatively short period of time. Poverty-stricken and war-
torn only 50 years ago, the Republic of Korea has now
grown to be a middle-power State.
My country is currently endeavouring to overcome
enormous economic difficulties and to ensure the parallel
and harmonious development of democracy and free
market economy. We are well aware that the world is
watching to see if and how we can accomplish such a
difficult task. On 15 August 1998, on the fiftieth
anniversary of the Government of the Republic of Korea,
President Kim Dae Jung proclaimed the launching of our
“Second Nation Building” to define the nation?s efforts to
overcome the current crisis and to foster Korea?s
democracy and market economy to greater maturity.
Our immediate concerns, however, are not only
economic. The new Government of the Republic of Korea
formulated the “Sunshine Policy”, a policy of constructive
engagement, as the cornerstone of its stance towards
North Korea. Division, war and confrontation have more
often than not characterized inter-Korean relations.
Changing the nature of this relationship requires the
restoration and cultivation of mutual trust between the
two parties. To achieve these goals, President Kim
announced the following three principles immediately
after his inauguration: no tolerance of any military
provocation by North Korea; no attempts on our part to
absorb the North; and the active promotion of inter-
Korean reconciliation, exchange and cooperation.
In line with these principles, my Government is
encouraging private sector initiatives to pursue exchanges
and cooperation with the North at their own discretion,
while maintaining the principle of reciprocity at the
governmental level. The Republic of Korea will remain
committed to actively responding to the appeals of the
United Nations and other international organizations to
assist North Korea to overcome its food shortages and
economic difficulties. We believe that inter-Korean
consultations are indispensable for North Korea?s
economic recovery. In this regard, we also look forward
to the role of the United Nations system as a facilitator of
this process.
In his August speech, President Kim Dae Jung
further proposed the establishment of a permanent inter-
Korean dialogue arrangement headed by ministerial or
vice-ministerial officials, in the hope of opening a new
11

era of reconciliation and cooperation between the two
Koreas. He also made it clear that the Republic of Korea is
willing to send an envoy to Pyongyang to discuss this
proposal. The main thrust of President Kim?s engagement
policy is to establish a workable system of peaceful
coexistence based on reconciliation and mutual trust.
The Democratic People?s Republic of Korea reacted
passively or even negatively to these proposals. It provoked
the Republic of Korea by infiltrating a submarine into
South Korean territorial waters in June, and again in late
August by launching a rocket into the western Pacific
Ocean without any prior warning. My Government deplores
these acts of provocation. They pose a serious threat to our
security. But despite these acts of provocation, my
Government continues to uphold the keynote of its
engagement policy so that the two Koreas might come to
enjoy the benefits of peaceful coexistence.
My Government hopes that the leadership of the
Democratic People?s Republic of Korea will put aside its
defiance and respond positively to our calls for dialogue
and collaboration. We would like to revitalize and
implement the Inter-Korean Basic Agreement of 1992
through South-North dialogue. My Government will try to
ease tension and create a peaceful environment on the
Korean Peninsula through the four-party talks process. I
wish to reiterate that our immediate objective is, first and
foremost, peaceful coexistence. We hope that the
Democratic People?s Republic of Korea will respond with
an equal display of sincerity and good faith to our policies
of accommodation.
I would now like to share some thoughts with you on
the current global economic situation. In the past decade,
we have witnessed deepening interdependence among
countries in the accelerated, market-driven process of
globalization. However, contrary to earlier expectations that
the globalization process would stimulate world economic
growth and reduce the gap between developed and
developing countries, the international community is now
baffled by the negative repercussions of rapid globalization.
Asian countries, which have long been a model of
economic development, are now struggling with serious
financial crises. Other countries are also suffering economic
unrest, and together these may lead to global economic
turmoil.
The international community, amid sudden and
unexpected economic turbulences, would be well advised to
develop a common strategy to maximize potential economic
benefits of market liberalization and globalization. Towards
this end, my Government welcomes the United Nations
initiative to strengthen its dialogue and cooperation with
the Bretton Woods system. The United Nations is
expected to play a more active role in addressing diverse
problems arising from the globalization process.
Among the various factors that triggered our own
domestic economic difficulties was a loose application of
the rule of accountability in the corporate and financial
sector. My Government is trying to turn the current
financial crisis into an opportunity to reform and
revitalize its economy. We are taking bold and decisive
steps towards a comprehensive structural reform based on
democracy and market principles. This structural reform
is intended to ensure deregulation of economic activities,
transparency and accountability in the financial and
corporate sector, and mobility in the labour market. When
the ongoing structural reform is successfully completed,
the Republic of Korea will be a more free and more open
society, contributing to the resurgence of economic
dynamism in the Asian region. This is the goal of our
structural reform.
In spite of overall growth in the world economy, the
least developed countries continue to be marginalized and
still do not receive their fair share of the benefits of that
general trend. As a community, we should pay more
attention to the deteriorating situation in these
marginalized countries and should strengthen economic
and development cooperation for their sustainable growth.
For this purpose, my Government supports the
development of the least developed countries through the
Korea International Cooperation Agency (KOICA) and
cooperates with United Nations regional economic
commissions, such as the Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) and the
Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). Even with the
current financial crisis, the Republic of Korea continues
to play its due role in development cooperation, with
KOICA as its focal point.
While contributing to the strengthening of
multilateral cooperation, we are also participating in
regional cooperation efforts aimed at stimulating and
sustaining steady regional growth and balanced
development for the Asia-Pacific region. We are
contributing to regional liberalization of trade and
investment through active involvement in the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation Council (APEC). In addition, my
Government is scheduled to host the third summit of the
Asia-Europe Meeting in the year 2000. We will do our
12

best to make the summit a milestone in building a
comprehensive partnership between Asia and Europe.
Beyond these immediate concerns for economic
revitalization in Korea and the world community in general,
we are faced with another long-term challenge, that of
environmental protection. Climate changes, for instance,
demand urgent attention and concrete actions by all
countries. Last year, we made historic progress in
combating global warming by adopting the Kyoto Protocol.
I am pleased to say that my Government will accede to the
Kyoto Protocol this afternoon.
I should like to take this opportunity to say a few
words about the International Vaccine Institute (IVI). My
Government has hosted IVI as a part of its commitment to
international efforts to prevent childhood diseases,
especially those in developing countries. Thirty-two
Governments and the World Health Organization (WHO)
have signed the Establishment Agreement of IVI, aimed at
developing and distributing non-commercial vaccines.
Yesterday in New York, the Government of the Republic
of Korea and IVI signed the Headquarters Agreement. I
look forward to more active support and to the substantial
participation of Member States in this worthy project.
Fifty years after the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and despite strenuous efforts
by the United Nations and human rights defenders, we are
still witnessing, to our dismay, serious human rights
violations and blatant challenges to United Nations human
rights mechanisms throughout the world. Notwithstanding
these grim realities, I am convinced that history is moving
towards universal respect for human rights and dignity. In
this context, my Government fully supports the Secretary-
General?s initiative to mainstream human rights in all of the
United Nations activities and programmes. As an initiative
to bolster national human rights safeguard mechanisms, my
Government has begun preparations for enacting a
comprehensive human rights act and establishing a national
human rights institution.
My Government welcomes the adoption of the Statute
of the International Criminal Court in Rome last July. We
are confident that the establishment of the Court will be a
landmark in strengthening the international legal system.
We earnestly hope that the Court will be launched as soon
as possible.
In the rapidly changing international security
environment of the post-cold-war era, the United Nations is
now faced with new challenges arising from the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
means of delivery. We deeply regret the recent nuclear
tests carried out by India and then Pakistan. These tests
seriously undermine the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
We call upon the States concerned to desist from further
nuclear testing and weaponization, and to accede to the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) and to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
(CTBT) without delay. We also urge the international
community to maintain vigilance to prevent the transfer
of their nuclear weapons-related materials, equipment and
technology to third countries.
In this context, we believe that the early entry into
force and the securing of the universality of the CTBT
should be a high priority of the disarmament agenda. My
Government is proceeding with its domestic procedures
for the ratification of the CTBT next year. At the same
time, we welcome the decision made at the Conference
on Disarmament in Geneva last month to establish an ad
hoc committee on the Fissile Material Cut-off
Convention. We also call upon all nuclear-weapon States
faithfully to comply with their obligations to undertake
nuclear disarmament pursuant to article VI of the NPT.
We stress once again that the Democratic People?s
Republic of Korea, as a State party to the NPT, should
fully comply with the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement. It should also
carry out its obligations to freeze its nuclear activities and
eventually dismantle the related facilities in accordance
with the Geneva Agreed Framework. In particular, it
should cooperate closely with the IAEA in preserving
necessary information related to its past nuclear activities.
Furthermore, we urge the Democratic People?s Republic
of Korea to demonstrate its sincerity in upholding the
Agreed Framework by guaranteeing full transparency with
regard to the recently discovered underground facilities
near Yongbyon.
For its part, my Government will make continued
efforts, together with the United States, Japan and other
parties concerned, for smooth progress in the Korean
Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)
project, pursuant to the Agreed Framework. As the KEDO
project contributes to the peace and security of the region,
we look forward to continued political and financial
support from the international community. We also
believe that both Koreas should renew their efforts to
implement the Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization
of the Korean Peninsula of 1992.
13

My Government shares the grave concern of the
international community over the launching of the rocket-
propelled object by the Democratic People?s Republic of
Korea on 31 August. The Democratic People?s Republic of
Korea?s ability to develop delivery means of weapons of
mass destruction poses a serious threat to peace and
security on the Korean Peninsula and in North-East Asia.
The international community should make concerted efforts
to induce the Democratic People?s Republic of Korea to
refrain from conducting further missile development, testing
and exporting.
Chemical and biological weapons are another category
of weapons of mass destruction that requires our serious
attention. We commend the valuable achievements of the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons over
the last year and a half. Regrettably, a number of countries
presumed to possess chemical weapons, including the
Democratic People?s Republic of Korea, have not yet
acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention. We urge
those States to do so without delay. My delegation also
hopes for an early adoption of the Verification Protocol to
the Biological Weapons Convention.
In recent years, we have seen the United Nations
peacekeeping operations expand their activities to such
areas as repatriation of refugees, demilitarization and
disbanding of armies, and the policing and monitoring of
elections. While this trend can be viewed positively, my
delegation is deeply concerned about the increasing number
of victims among civilian volunteers and United Nations
personnel. The Republic of Korea, while serving as a
member of the Security Council last year, initiated a
Council open debate on protection for humanitarian
assistance to refugees in conflict situations, which led to the
adoption of a presidential statement. We hope that the
Secretary-General?s report on this topic, released this week,
will renew the international community?s awareness of this
issue and lead to concrete follow-up measures.
My delegation is deeply disturbed by the recent
increase in brutal international terrorist activities. The
Republic of Korea will not tolerate any acts of terrorism,
and urges all Member States to cooperate in devising
effective international measures to combat terrorism.
On the threshold of the new millennium, the
international community is encountering an increasingly
complex set of challenges to peace and security. At this
critical juncture, the Security Council needs to reform itself
to adapt to the drastically changed international
environment.
The Republic of Korea fully supports an expanded,
more representative and democratic Security Council.
However, no Security Council reform package will be
feasible without universal support among Member States.
In this regard, we hope that the Council reform package
will be worked out on the broadest consensus possible,
far exceeding the mandatory endorsement by two thirds
of the members of the General Assembly. In this context,
we note with appreciation the efforts of the Working
Group on Security Council reform to seek a realistic and
practical solution which should enjoy general agreement
among Member States.
My delegation welcomes the reform efforts that
Secretary-General Kofi Annan has made since taking
office. The Republic of Korea has consistently supported
the Secretary-General?s reform initiatives and will
continue to do so in our common efforts to revitalize the
Organization in the years ahead. We hope that the
Millennium Assembly, to be held in the year 2000, will
serve as an opportunity to crystallize the visions and
strategies needed to meet the challenges of the twenty-
first century.
We look forward to the twenty-first century with
great expectations. The time ahead of us will undoubtedly
pose daunting challenges. Of this, I am certain. But it also
promises a bright future if we, together, can successfully
rise to the occasion. The United Nations is a tool and a
forum; it is a symbol — the best that we have — of our
joint commitment to making the next century more
secure, more humane and more hopeful than the last one.
The Republic of Korea, together with other Member
States, stands ready to make its due contributions towards
these lofty goals.


As the Prime Minister of
Israel, I represent a State whose creation was envisioned,
encouraged and advocated by the League of Nations 80
years ago and by the United Nations 50 years ago. That
extraordinary recognition by the international community
confirmed what the Jewish people have known and felt for
two millennia: the bond between the people of Israel and
the land of Israel is eternal, and the rebirth of the Jewish
State in the land of Israel is a historic imperative.
Religious and non-religious people alike have viewed
this rebirth as a modern miracle, the realization of the
vision of the Hebrew prophets. Yet ever since that miracle
occurred, we have all been hoping that it would be
accompanied by the fulfilment of another biblical prophesy:
“nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more.” (The Holy Bible,
Isaiah 2:4)
It was in fact in that spirit that the founders of Israel
stretched out the hand of peace to our neighbours in our
Declaration of Independence some 50 years ago. Now, half
a century later, as we view with pride our nation?s
extraordinary accomplishments and achievements, we are
determined to complete the circle of peace around us. No
people have suffered more from war and violence than the
Jewish people and no one wants peace more than we do. I
know that that is not a common perception of us. I,
personally, am often accused of not wanting peace. Nothing
could be further from the truth. I have been on the fields of
battle. I have seen my comrades fall. I have two small
children at home. I want a future free of war — a future of
peace, for them and for Palestinian children like them.
We want peace for us and for the Palestinian people,
whose prolonged suffering has been one of the cruel
consequences of the wars waged against us. We are willing
to make painful compromises for peace. We hope that the
Palestinians are ready to make those necessary
compromises as well. What is at stake is our life together
in a very small land, and there is no reason that we should
not be able to live together. All of us are, after all, the sons
and daughters of Abraham.
As we search for peace, we naturally encounter
crises and stalemates, frustrations and obstacles — that is
inevitable in any negotiating process. But only
negotiations can solve our problems. An outcome which
is not the result of negotiations is an invitation to
continued conflict. Negotiations accompanied by violence
and threats of violence are an invitation to failure. T h e
option of violence must therefore be totally discarded and
permanently disavowed.
Peace will be achieved only by heeding the call
made by two great leaders, the late Egyptian President
Anwar Sadat and Israel?s former Prime Minister
Menachem Begin. Twenty-one years ago they declared in
Jerusalem, “No more war. No more bloodshed”.
The Treaty they hammered out at Camp David was
a historic turning point which changed the face of our
region. It has benefited both countries and brought hope
to all of us, as has the peace with Jordan, which is a
model peace for all our neighbours. King Hussein?s
contribution to this peace, his devotion to the
advancement of our relationship and his efforts to help
the peace process with the Palestinians have been
invaluable. In the name of the people of Israel and, I am
sure, on behalf of all the peoples and Governments
represented in the Assembly, I want to send King Hussein
our most heartfelt wishes for a quick and complete
recovery.
I believe we can achieve a successful peace
agreement with the Palestinians as well. But for that
peace to endure, it must be based on two principles. The
first is security. A peace that cannot be defended will not
last. That is the central lesson of the twentieth century.
None of us can afford to forget this lesson, least of all the
Jewish people. As the Prime Minister of the one Jewish
State, I must ensure Israel?s ability to defend itself,
regardless of criticism and misunderstanding by those
who do not share this responsibility.
The second principle of a durable peace is
reciprocity. Only agreements honoured by both sides can
be successful. The agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians is at bottom based on a simple equation: the
Palestinians receive jurisdiction in the territory in which
they live, and in return they prevent terrorist attacks
against Israel from those territories. Israel has been
fulfilling its part of this agreement: 100 per cent of the
Palestinians in the Gaza district and 98 per cent of the
Palestinians in Judean Samaria, known as the West Bank,
are now living under Palestinian rule. They enjoy the
13

attributes of self-government: they have their own flag,
their own executive, legislative and judiciary bodies and
their own police force.
It can no longer be claimed by anyone that Israel is
occupying the Palestinians. We do not govern their lives.
But we cannot accept a situation in which they will threaten
our lives, and that is of paramount concern to us as we
approach further redeployment.
The territory we are negotiating about is virtually
uninhabited by Palestinians — there are only a few
thousand Bedouins there who roam about. Yet this land is
the canvas on which thousands of years of Jewish history
have been etched. And it has powerful implications for our
security. We should remember that at its widest point Israel
is all of 50 miles wide, and should it cede all of the West
Bank, as some so cavalierly tell us to do, that distance
would be reduced to the distance between this building and
La Guardia airport. How many Governments and leaders
would put their nations at such risk? None. Yet we are
prepared to undertake careful, controlled and calculated
risks for peace. Nevertheless, to part with one square inch
of this land is agonizing for us, and for me personally.
Every stone and every hill and valley that I have walked —
I know them intimately, as do my people — resonates with
our forefathers? footsteps, from the cradle of Jewish
civilization through the biblical kings and prophets and the
sages, scholars and poets of Israel, down to our own time.
Yet in the spirit of compromise and reconciliation we
have agreed to transfer to Palestinian jurisdiction some of
this hallowed land, provided that the principles of security
and reciprocity are kept. This means that Israel would retain
the ability to defend itself, and that the Palestinians would
fulfil their commitments, first and foremost to shun
violence and fight terrorism.
Under the Oslo and Hebron agreements, which I
signed, the Palestinian Authority and Chairman Arafat
agreed to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and arrest
and prosecute terrorist operatives. They agreed to collect
and dispose of illegal weapons, imprison and hand over
wanted murderers and reduce the Palestinian police to the
numbers prescribed in the Oslo agreements. That has not
been done to date. They also agreed to cease the vicious
daily propaganda on official Palestinian television; there are
Sesame Street programmes which exhort five-year olds to
become suicide warriors. This, I am afraid, is education for
war, not for peace. And they agreed that they must
complete the annulment of the Palestinian Charter, which
can only be done by the Palestinian National Council. That
Charter is still on the books and still on the Internet — if
representatives turn it on they can find it. It still calls for
Israel?s destruction thorough armed struggle, which is a
euphemism for terrorism. So I say today to our
Palestinian partners “Choose peace. Fight for peace. You
cannot talk peace and tolerate terrorism”.
Of course, terrorism endangers our peace, but it is
also a global cancer. Many leaders today understand this,
as President Clinton made abundantly clear from this very
podium a few days ago. But what makes the terrorism
rooted in the Middle East so pernicious and so dangerous
is that the terrorists invoke a distorted, twisted and fanatic
interpretation of Islam, which is very distant from
enlightened Islam. We have no quarrel with Islam. It is
one of the world?s great religions, and we have
admiration and respect for its institutions and its
teachings. But fanatic Islamist terrorism is religion
betrayed, and it not only threatens us but undermines
Arab Governments and societies. It endangers the peace
of the world.
For terrorism to be defeated, terrorists must be
punished and deterred, and the climate of support they
enjoy in various lands must disappear. That is the only
way that terrorism will decline and its growth be arrested
and that it will ultimately be rooted out from our lives.
The elimination of terrorism will undoubtedly lead
to prosperity in our region. We envision a market-based
regional economy between Israel, Jordan and the
Palestinian Authority. As I speak we are lifting the
barriers to trade, eliminating red tape and promoting joint
business ventures between the parties. Trade between
Israel and the Palestinians has shot up enormously in the
last two years because our policy is a liberal policy. If
things are better for them economically, things are better
for us. I should like to give an example relating to the
transfer of value added tax (VAT) from Palestinian
workers working in Israel, whose numbers have grown
enormously in the last two years. Three years ago we
transferred about 700 million shekels to the Palestinian
Authority from the work of Palestinian workers in Israel.
This year that figure will reach 2 billion shekels. That is
almost a threefold increase in three years. Representatives
do not know that; none of them knows that we have
dramatically improved the Palestinian economy because
we believe that life better for them is life better for us.
The absence of violence will enable all of us,
Palestinians, Jordanians, Egyptians and Israelis, and, I
may add, Syrians and Lebanese — this is not a far-
14

fetched dream; it is certainly one that I have — to reach a
standard of living and quality of life now considered
unimaginable. Once we complete the current talks we will
begin negotiations for the final settlement — a final
settlement of peace with the Palestinian Authority.
I urged starting these negotiations a year ago, but I
regret to say that my offer was turned down. This phase is
long overdue. But as the late Yitzhak Rabin noted, no dates
in the Oslo accords are sacrosanct. No target date in them
was met on schedule. This failure to meet deadlines did not
put an end to the agreement. The Oslo accords are not
about meeting deadlines. Their essential purpose is to reach
a peace agreement through negotiations.
An arbitrary, unilateral declaration of a Palestinian
State, in disregard of this basic purpose of Oslo, would
constitute a fundamental violation of the Oslo accords. It
would cause the complete collapse of the process. I strongly
urge the Palestinian Authority not to take this course. Such
actions will inevitably prompt unilateral responses on our
part, and that development would not be good for the
Palestinians, not good for Israel, and not good for peace.
We must continue to negotiate, earnestly, continuously
and tirelessly until a final peace agreement is reached. No
other way will do.
What would such a peace look like? I envision its
success would lie in ensuring the following balance: the
Palestinians should have all the powers to govern their lives
and none of the powers to threaten our lives. They will
have control of all aspects of their society, such as law,
religion and education; industry, commerce and agriculture;
tourism, health and welfare. They can prosper and flourish.
What they cannot do is endanger our existence. We have a
right to ensure that the Palestinian entity does not become
the base for hostile forces, including foreign forces. We
have a right to ensure that it does not become a base and
haven for terrorists. In some cases we are talking about a
base — in New York city terms — five blocks away, and
without the East River. We are talking about something that
is not hypothetical.
As I prepared this speech, I was informed of a
terrorist attack — another one — in Jerusalem, in a bus
station. Happily, no one was killed today. But can we be
sure? We are seeking a peace that is peaceful, that is not
violent — a peace without terror, which is the only peace
that means anything.
Nor can we accept the mortal threat of weapons such
as anti-aircraft missiles on the hills above our cities and
airfields. If any representatives were to land at Tel Aviv
airport — as many have in the past — their planes could
be endangered by the inability of Israel, in a permanent
peace settlement, to control the importation of these lethal
weapons. This is the great challenge of the permanent
status negotiations: to achieve a durable peace that will
strike a balance between Palestinian self-rule and Israeli
security. This peace can be achieved by negotiation, and
negotiation alone. There is no other way.
Negotiation for peace is what we want with Lebanon
and Syria as well. As representatives know, over six
months ago our Government announced an initiative to
implement Security Council resolution 425 (1978). In our
decision, we said that Israel was prepared to withdraw
from south Lebanon provided that one condition was met:
that there would be security arrangements to ensure the
safety of the civilian population on both sides of the
Lebanese-Israeli border.
I can report that I find myself now in the bizarre
position of offering to withdraw from an Arab country
and meeting with Arab refusal to negotiate such a
withdrawal. But I can also report that we remain hopeful.
We have not abandoned this initiative.
Peace with Syria and Lebanon will complete the
circle of peace with our immediate neighbours. But the
achievement of a lasting peace in our region requires
addressing the ominous existential dangers which still
threaten Israel beyond the immediate horizon. Both Iran
and Iraq continue their efforts to acquire non-conventional
weapons and ballistic missiles with strategic reach. Iran
has just successfully tested an intermediate-range missile.
Iraq has declared that it will no longer accept
international inspections of its non-conventional
programmes, inspections mandated by Security Council
resolutions.
These developments threaten not only Israel, but all
the nations represented in this Hall. In the hands of the
rogue regimes of the Middle East, weapons of mass
destruction may pose a greater threat to the world, and to
world peace, than anything we have known in the past. I
want to caution members about something else: to let
sweet talk by leaders of these regimes lull us into inaction
is to repeat the worst mistakes of this century. What is
required instead is concerted international action to
prevent disaster.
15

That, after all, is what this body was established to do.
And if it is to live up to its founders? expectations, it will
have to be far more adept at distinguishing between
fanatical aggressors and their intended victims. I believe
that the United Nations can help foster a climate of peace
and stability in our region by encouraging the reactivation
of the multilateral committees conceived at the Madrid
Conference. By addressing such issues as regional
economic development, arms control, the resolution of
refugee problems, water and the environment, these
committees can produce the important building blocks of
peace.
But ultimately, as in every conflict, the crucial
decisions must be made by the peoples of the Middle East
themselves. They must decide whether the region will
continue to be an arena for terrorism and war or become a
full participant in a peaceful, prosperous global economy.
Cooperation and peace can give the Middle East a leading
position in the world of the next millennium. Violence,
terrorism and war will assure stagnation and misery.
Deep in our hearts, we know which choice we want
for our children. My wife and I hope that when our two
little boys grow up, the only competition they will engage
in with Palestinian boys, and Egyptian boys, and Jordanian
and Syrian and Lebanese boys, will be on football fields
and in debating societies.
It is characteristic of the Jewish people to live in hope.
It is the name of our national anthem. It is what has made
it possible for us, despite unparalleled persecution, despite
the most horrific calamities to befall any people or any
nation, clinging to hope, to contribute as much as we have
to human progress in the past 4,000 years. And this hope is
reflected in the prayer we utter this week as we celebrate
the Jewish new year. It is a wish we extend from our
eternal capital Jerusalem, the city of peace, to all our
neighbours and to all present here today: “May the year and
its maledictions end, and a new year and its blessings
begin”. Shana tova — may you have a good year.


On behalf of the people
and the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, I wish
to join previous speakers in congratulating Mr. Didier
Opertti on his election to this high and important post.
His unanimous election as President of the General
Assembly at its fifty-third session shows the esteem in
which the international community holds both him
personally and his country, Uruguay. The Republic of
Vanuatu and its delegation are confident he will guide
this fifty-third session of the General Assembly to a
successful conclusion.
May I also take this opportunity to express my
delegation?s sincere appreciation to his predecessor,
Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko, for his outstanding stewardship
in facilitating the work of the fifty-second session of the
24

General Assembly. I also wish to commend our Secretary-
General, Mr. Kofi Annan, for his wise leadership and his
dedication to the reform and restructuring of our
Organization. We ask the President to assure him of our
total support.
Three years ago, we all gathered here to celebrate the
fiftieth anniversary of our Organization and, in particular,
to renew our commitment to the fundamental principles that
created it in 1945.
We also made a strong commitment to further
strengthen our genuine, collaborative efforts to ensure that
this Organization continues to promote global peace, justice
and a healthy environment, as well as to support the
process of sustainable development of its Member nations,
in particular the small island least developed countries such
as those in the Pacific region, including the Republic of
Vanuatu.
The current international political and economic
situation has grown ever more complex and makes
increasing demands on our own resources and on the
support available from our development partners.
We are deeply concerned by the continuing escalation
of such international crimes as drug-trafficking, money-
laundering, terrorism, organized crime and other similar
activities which have the potential to place the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of small island States at great risk.
The international community must show its genuine
collaboration in combating these criminal phenomena if the
new philosophy of globalization is to progress in a positive
manner.
We do not believe that the world is doing justice to its
people and to the fundamental principles of peace and
economic prosperity as enshrined in the Charter of the
United Nations if we do not observe our joint call for the
disarmament of nuclear weapons and other weapons of
mass destruction. International security cannot be
guaranteed if we fail to accord priority attention and
resources to the education and health of humankind and its
survival into the next millennium.
The momentum of the fiftieth anniversary of our
Organization, the lessons we have learned from past
mistakes and our renewed commitment must guide us in
our pursuit of a better world where, through this
Organization, a renewed sense of mutual trust and genuine
dialogue can be achieved to ease political tensions and
economic crises in all regions and subregions of the planet.
In our part of the world, these new developments
constitute a real threat to the already vulnerable
environment of our island economies and populations.
Confronted with these challenges, many countries in the
Pacific region, including the Republic of Vanuatu, do not
have much choice, at the end of this century, but to
embark on difficult programmes of reform both within
their respective Governments and within their societies.
Last year, my predecessor, The Honourable Serge
Vohor, advised this Assembly that Vanuatu had initiated
a comprehensive reform programme, with the support of
both multilateral and bilateral donor agencies and
countries. He also made an appeal to this Assembly,
explaining that in order for the reform programme to be
successful and responsive to the needs of the national
population, 80 per cent of whom live from subsistence
farming in rural areas, Vanuatu would continue to need
the special support accorded to it as a least developed
country.
The role of Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko and the
Secretary-General in subsequently facilitating a
constructive dialogue and a comprehensive appreciation
of the economic hardships of Vanuatu must be
commended.
In this regard, the Government and the people of
Vanuatu warmly welcome the recent decision of the
Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to
defer consideration of Vanuatu?s graduation from least
developed country status, pending full assessment of the
usefulness of the vulnerability index and ecological
fragility as criteria for least developed country
designation. We would like to register our most sincere
appreciation and recognition to each and every country
and group of countries for their support.
One of the commitments we all made during the
fiftieth anniversary celebrations in 1995 was to reform our
Organization so that it could be effective in addressing
the problems and needs of its Member States, both
individually and as a group.
From our perspective — and we have no doubt that
others share it — the United Nations must include in its
reform agenda a full assessment and recognition of the
inherent particularities of small island States such as the
Republic of Vanuatu, and the impact of the international
economic crisis on their economic performance and the
sustainability of their political stability.
25

The impact of the Asian economic situation and such
recurrent national disasters as tropical cyclones, tidal waves
and global warming on our island economies has yet to be
fully appraised. This warrants the urgent and dedicated
attention of our Organization.
With particular regard to the environment, the first
chapter of the Barbados Programme of Action for the
Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States
clearly states that small island States are particularly
vulnerable to global climate change and rising sea levels.
We would therefore like to suggest, in the spirit of
reform, that the current scope of development-related
indicators being used by the United Nations to designate the
status of each Member State be thoroughly reviewed in
close consultation with the Member States and other
regional and multilateral organizations, such as the South
Pacific Forum and the Commonwealth.
This is an important exercise at a time when we must
adjust our national administrative structures, policy
directives and legal framework to gradually accommodate
the requirements of globalization. It would be unfair and
unrealistic to expect small island least developed countries
to satisfy all the administrative, financial and legal
requirements of the World Trade Organization, for instance,
within the same time-frame as the developed countries. An
effective sequencing of the accession process is needed,
taking into account the capacity of each country?s political
and economic system or structure to adjust without
affecting social cohesion.
The Republic of Vanuatu is committed to the principle
of global trade liberalization. The current reform
programme reflects this. We are asking the international
community to recognize that we should be allowed to be
integrated on a gradual basis, taking into account our
capacity to administer the process and to adjust to the new
environment.
It is in this same spirit that the Government of the
Republic of Vanuatu welcomes the decision of the fifty-
second session of the General Assembly to convene the
Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed
Countries in the year 2001.
It is still in this spirit that the Government of the
Republic of Vanuatu endorses the Declaration of the eighth
annual meeting of ministers from least developed countries,
adopted on 28 September 1998.
The Republic of Vanuatu is proud to be associated
this year with the fiftieth anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the fifth anniversary of
the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.
I am pleased to advise this Assembly that the current
reform programme of the Republic of Vanuatu has taken
full account of the above principles and the Government?s
commitment in this regard.
An example of this commitment is our wider
recognition of the rights and the role of women in our
society through the establishment, within the Prime
Minister?s portfolio, of a more systematic mechanism of
constructive dialogue between the Government on the one
hand, and the National Council of Women and other non-
governmental organizations on the other hand. The recent
enactment of a first ever leadership code for Vanuatu is
another example in this regard. This will not only ensure
good governance, transparency and the rule of law, but
will also act as an effective deterrent to corruption and
abuse of power by national leaders in political circles, in
public service and in the religious community, as well as
in traditional society.
The pursuit and promotion of a free and responsible
press and the protection of individual rights are matters
which are receiving more attention under the reform
programme. These are real challenges to Vanuatu today,
but they are challenges which we are confident that we
can successfully address over time with the necessary
support of the international community.
The right to self-determination must also continue to
occupy our agenda. The United Nations, as mandated by
its Charter, must be seen to encourage and support
dialogue at appropriate political levels in the regions and
countries where human sufferings and social disorder
continue as a direct result of conflict of opinions on the
issue of self-determination. In the Pacific region, we
warmly welcomed the signing earlier this year of the
Noumea Accord between the French Government and the
major political parties in New Caledonia. We believe that
this new agreement marks a stronger commitment by all
parties to work together to support an irreversible trend
for the future political status of New Caledonia.
As I said earlier, the world and our Organization will
be going through very challenging times as we are set to
turn the page of this century and start a new one. The
credibility of the United Nations in the next millennium
will be measured in terms of its effectiveness in
26

responding to the real situations prevailing in its Member
States, especially in small island States. It is therefore vital
that we all support and supplement the process of reform
spearheaded by the Secretary-General and aimed at
streamlining and strengthening the Organization.