The euphoria and
enthusiasm that greeted, no so long ago, the disappearance of ideological
East-West confrontation and the progressive expansion of freedom and democracy
are today giving way to general discouragement because of the obstacles to the
natural aspirations of peoples to freedom and legitimate well-being.
The forty-seventh session of the General Assembly has begun at a
particularly difficult time in the history of humankind, which means that
Mr. Ganev has assumed the presidency of the Assembly in a context of disquiet,
but also one that is hopeful, because in all likelihood only our Organization
can help the world to meet these challenges.
On behalf of the delegation of Togo, we wish to convey to Mr. Ganev
heartfelt congratulations on his election to the presidency of this session.
The selection of Mr. Ganev, who possesses such great intellectual qualities

and experience, is for his country the true embodiment of the ideals of peace
and justice that it constantly advocates. We will be available at all times
to work with him to ensure the success of his daunting mission.
The delegation of Togo wishes to pay well-deserved tribute to his
predecessor, Mr. Shihabi, for his outstanding performance in conducting the
work of the forty-sixth session. His dynamism, his high standards of
excellence and his zeal for punctuality compelled our admiration and accounted
for the great success of our deliberations. I reiterate our sincere
congratulations to him.
We take this occasion to salute the Secretary-General of the United
Nations, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the dynamic work that he has
undertaken since his election to the head of our Organization. The
serious-mindedness and pragmatism he has demonstrated since taking office in
January of this year lead us to believe that the United Nations will be able
to make an even greater contribution to the maintenance of peace throughout
the world and the promotion of solidarity among nations.

In recent months, the family of the United Nations has grown with the
addition of new Members. We wish to bid them welcome and to say how proud and
happy the international community is to welcome them to our midst, with the
hope that in keeping with the statements they made upon admission to
membership they will espouse the San Francisco Charter in its entirety and
will comply with its fundamental principles.
Since the end of the last session, many events have marked the world.
Efforts have been stepped up to build a new world order which must before all
else be liberal, because it is based on the absolute need to respect human
rights, which is a fundamental requirement for the establishment of relations
of trust, peace and solidarity among peoples of our planet.
The turmoil we have witnessed throughout the world, particularly in
Europe, Asia and Africa in recent years, reflects the resolve of peoples to
gain new freedom within which man can become the unchallenged artisan of his
Government's destiny. Throughout the world, peoples are seeking freedom,
peace and justice that only proper multipartite democracy can guarantee.
Among these are the people of Togo, which for 13 years has been persevering in
the effort to adapt the structures and the basic choices governing its
socio-political context to meet the needs of our time and changing attitudes.
Having broken with the previous regime and gained a constitution in 1979,
our country resolutely committed itself to implementing measures of
liberalization, detente and progressive democratization of our political
life. These measures inter alia made it possible to hold free elections under
the second and third legislatures and during municipal and prefectoral
referenda of 1987, at the same time as they strengthened protection of human
rights, particularly by setting up an independent commission.

The subsequent adoption of laws relating to the liberalization of the
press, political pluralism and general amnesty, along with the development of
a draft constitution to establish a multipartite regime, shows that already in
the middle of 1991 the Government and the people of Togo truly desired to move
on, without undue haste, to a higher stage in the process of democratizing our
institutions.
The tremendous speed of this movement that was started in the late 1980s
culminated with the National Sovereign Conference of the living forces of the
nation, which led to the transitional Government which was to lead Togo to
elections and establish democracy.
We must state that one year after the establishment of these transitional
institutions the Government has faced enormous difficulties, and that
tremendous efforts must be made before we attain our goals.
The recent adjustment of the machinery of the institutions of this
transition, proposed following the consultation meeting between the various
protagonists of political life and endorsed by the Government and the
legislature, the High Council of the Republic, overwhelmingly demonstrate the
desire of the people of Togo to do everything possible to achieve peace and
security, a State of law that they all sincerely want to see, by establishing
new institutions through free and dependable democratic elections. The latest
of these, the Presidential elections, are to end on 20 December of this year.
This recent adaptation of the workings of this transitional Government
meets the needs of our march forward, both by ensuring proper application of
the constitution for this transitional period, so that no organ be unjustly
deprived of its constitutional prerogatives, and by involving in the
democratic process all national political leaders to rally consensus around
the values underpinning our democratic renewal.

These bodies have sufficient power to lead the country to this
irreversible democratic peace process, but they do not have enough power to
block our march to democracy. Accordingly we can only express satisfaction
that the two senior officials of the executive branch, the President and the
Prime Minister, have solemnly proclaimed their determination to continue to
its end the democratic process that is under way and to devote all their
energy to organizing referenda set by the electoral timetable. It is at this
stage in our apprenticeship of democracy that the new Government of National
Union of Transition, formed by the Prime Minister together with the Head of
State and after consultations with the large political families, was approved
on 14 September by a majority of 60 per cent by the High Council of the
Republic and following a secret ballot.
Very revealing indeed of the resolve of the people of Togo to overcome
its contradictions in order to promote democratic renewal, this vote of
approval, cast in a particularly difficult context, sufficiently demonstrates
"that in Togo, whatever might be said, we can still say no in full freedom and
without any fear of a proposal from the executive power".
We take this opportunity to inform this Assembly that the draft
constitution of the Fourth Republic, submitted to referendum on Sunday
27 September 1992, was adopted by 99.09 per cent. The referendum met with
great enthusiasm and almost unanimous support, with a participation rate of
nearly 75 per cent. The Government will not fail to learn the lesson from
this first vote to correct the mistakes revealed in the first referendum.
This is a guarantee for the acceptance of ballot results by all parties.
It is appropriate to reiterate to our friendly countries and to the
United Nations, as well as to the entire international community, the profound

gratitude of the Government and the people of Togo for the invaluable support
they have given to our democratic process. We sincerely hope that this
assistance will be continued throughout the coming elections.
It is undeniable that the struggle to establish a State of law in Togo is
a job that falls essentially to the people of Togo themselves, and that they
bear the primary responsibility for fashioning their democracy, according to
the means they have and in keeping with their culture and their national
spirit. With courage and determination, we will strive to meet the challenge
in union and mutual acceptance.
In keeping with the conclusions of the work of the joint commission, the
Government has set up a security plan the results of which can already be seen
in the field.

Thanks to this consensus, political violence, which until recently was
rampant in my country, is now being stemmed throughout Togo. All political
parties will have access, without restriction and with complete security, to
all parts of Togo during their political campaigns.
Management by consensus in this short period of our political life is
without any doubt the driving force behind political detente in Togo and a
guarantee of the reliability and transparency of the coming elections.
Finally, the major protagonists of our political life have agreed to the
principle of mutual guarantees, whose importance is clear to all. We must
implement all the measures that we have decided on before, during and after
the elections. Our country, determined to restore peace and tranquillity,
assures the Assembly that the democratic process under way is irreversible.
Despite our hope that we can live from now on in an international society
without conflict, the world continues to witness a growth of armed conflict.
It is no longer merely Africa and Asia that contain pockets of tension.
Europe, with war raging in the former Yugoslavia more precisely, in Bosnia
and Herzegovina is now affected. That tragedy challenges the international
community to do all it can to ensure respect for man and human dignity. We
unreservedly support all the European initiatives and salute the laudable
efforts of the United Nations to restore peace to that part of Europe.
Elsewhere in the world, in Africa for some years now Somalia and Liberia
have been two more hotbeds of tension where fratricidal war rages, already
claiming thousands of victims. Death, desolation, poverty and hunger are the
daily lot of these peoples.
From this United Nations rostrum we call upon our Somali and Liberian
brothers to demonstrate positive nationalism and constructive patriotism to

help implement the relevant resolutions of the Organization of African Unity
(OAU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to contribute
to restoring peace to their respective countries.
The South African Government must understand that the wheels of history
are still turning and that it is now clear that structures imposed by force
cannot survive the determination of the people to live in peace. The
continued plight of that part of our continent demands that the General
Assembly intensify its efforts for victory in the fight to eradicate
apartheid. This requires that all forms of pressure be maintained to compel
the De Klerk Government to commit itself fully to the political and
institutional reforms that it has already courageously undertaken.
Togo is following with particular interest the developing situation in
the Middle East. It reiterates its full support for the peace process started
in October 1991 in Madrid, and calls upon the parties to demonstrate greater
wisdom, courage and restraint in order to strengthen that process and bring
about a final solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It should be based on a
negotiated agreement acceptable to all, guaranteeing the security of all the
States of the region, including Israel, within secure, internationally
recognized borders, and allowing the Palestinian people freely and fully to
exercise their right to self-determination.
With regard to the Arab-Persian Gulf, where peace still seems to be
threatened, my country reiterates its appeal to all the States of the region
scrupulously to abide by the various relevant resolutions of the Security
Council, and to make every effort to avoid the risk of new confrontations
which still hovers over that part of the world.

In Asia, Togo appreciates the Secretary-General's efforts to deploy the
United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC). We hope that the
national reconciliation effort now going on will gain further ground.
Because of the great suffering they inflict on peoples, the conflicts to
which I have referred render sterile any notion of sovereignty and
independence. Is it not better, then, to prevent armed conflicts rather than
seek to resolve them?
Efforts made throughout the world by regional and international
organizations in the search for new machinery to prevent war and maintain
peace are likely to promote social progress and to establish better living
conditions for our peoples. Accordingly, my delegation welcomes the fact that
the Security Council on 31 January 1992 held a Summit meeting which considered
ways of strengthening and making more efficient the United Nations capacity
for preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping. Togo very much
appreciates the conclusions of that meeting and the report (A/47/277)
submitted by the Secretary-General at the Council's request.
In dealing with the many conflicts raging throughout the world,
preventive diplomacy would allow, with real determination by the protagonists
of international life, particularly the parties to a conflict, the speedy
attainment of its goal of peace.
The world is now witnessing the end of East-West antagonism, but the much
feared danger of a world war has not yet been overcome. Arsenals of highly
sophisticated weapons still exist throughout the world, posing serious threats
to international peace and security. There is an urgent need to destroy
weapons of mass destruction and halt the arms race; the military Powers should
devote themselves to that task in order to curb any reflex action to have
recourse to war.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty has been renewed without time-limit and the
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Treaty on Conventional Armed
Forces in Europe (CFE) have entered into force. The final text of the
convention banning chemical weapons will be submitted for our consideration
this session. All these developments increase the international community's
hope that the military Powers will embark on general and complete disarmament.
Furthermore, with the end of the cold war, and with distrust now giving
way to trust and cooperation, the delegation of Togo believes that it is time
for the international community to envisage drafting, without delay, a
comprehensive test-ban treaty, after which the United Nations would play a
leading role as the main body where consensus can be forged on security and
disarmament problems.
We welcome the recent initiative of President Francois Mitterrand in
unilaterally decreeing a one-year moratorium on nuclear tests by his country.

We also welcome the statement made on 2 July 1992 by
President George Bush on repatriating certain tactical nuclear weapons of the
United States with a view to destroying them.
As we see it, recent events and initiatives, as well as many positive
world developments in the disarmament field, are encouraging. However, the
proliferation and international transfer of conventional weapons, particularly
in Africa, are a source of major concern on the part of the authorities of
Togo. In this respect, we believe that a United Nations regional centre for
peace and disarmament, like the one in Lome, is still useful and we should
seek to increase its role, its powers and the scope of its activities. The
United Nations should give the regional centres greater means so that they
could fully participate in the strengthening of security and peace.
Serious problems such as the ones connected with the maintenance of
international peace and security persist, and this absolutely dictates the
exploration of new approaches that could lead to a strengthening of the
ability of the United Nations to act. While the East-West confrontation
paralysed the Organization as it tried to carry out its noble mission, the
current detente seems to offer greater opportunities now to Member States to
reaffirm their commitment to the purposes and principles of the Charter. For
its part our country reiterates its faith in the United Nations and adheres to
the mechanisms for establishing preventive diplomacy and restoring and
maintaining peace. However, the efficient functioning of the United Nations
presupposes restructuring its organs and adapting them to contemporary facts.
The promotion of democracy and human rights means today that the fate of
mankind as a whole in the special and delicate field of the maintenance of
international peace and security should not be left to the discretion of only

a few States. The management of peace and security requires the concerted
action of States as a whole, whatever their geographical size or their
economic, financial or military power. Consequently, Togo unreservedly
supports any proposal to revise the composition of the Security Council. If
that were done, the democratic revolution going on in States will finally have
reached international organizations.
Peace and democracy presuppose the existence of a viable economy capable
of meeting the vital needs of food, health, training and housing. The
progress that needs to be made for man's full development is essential for
democracy and its consolidation. It is a basic truth that there can be no
development without democracy, just as one cannot conceive of democracy
without development or peace.
In order to safeguard peace in the world we must commit ourselves fully
to the idea of a fairer division of the riches of the Earth. But we must
note, with regret, that the international situation has not changed in this
respect.
At the end of this century an analysis of the international economic
situation points up many social inequalities between nations. The hopes we
had at the end of the cold war should find their justification in a
partnership between rich countries and developing countries so that the
appetites of some do not cause starvation in others. Unfortunately, we look
on, powerless, as the gap between rich and poor grows ever wider.
The economies of the developing countries are in a state of chronic
recession, the most serious in several decades. Growth has slowed,
particularly in Africa, where the crisis has fundamentally affected all
aspects of life, and a real deterioration of living conditions has resulted in

these countries. It is clear that this situation will continue unless efforts
are made to establish a new world economic order based on fairness and a more
generous humanistic vision of international cooperation. In this respect, we
very much appreciate the decision taken by Japan to make available to Africa
an aid package of $700 million spread out over the next three years. This
action, and other measures too, although encouraging are far from meeting the
real concerns of the developing countries, in particular the least developed
of them.
Indeed, if these countries are to break out of the profound crisis,
urgent and appropriate action must be taken by the international community to
guarantee remunerative prices for commodities and to dismantle tariff
barriers, which are obstacles to the exports of these countries. It is vital
that the international community mobilize larger resources to relaunch
investment and that it find a lasting solution to the debt problem.
Appropriate mechanisms must be found to make it possible to reimburse and
generate resources to ensure economic recovery.
The economic crises of our countries have social consequences that
particularly affect young people. Juvenile delinquency, illicit
drug-trafficking, drug abuse and the acquired immune deficiency syndrome
(AIDS) are serious threats for mankind. Constant attention should be focused
on them.
Sustainable and lasting economic and social development is impossible
unless there is a healthy environment. Fortunately, today the international
community has mobilized to solve the problems caused by the deterioration of
the Earth and of nature.

We are living in a new era today. This new era should be based on
freedom, understanding, and love of one's neighbour and of peace.
Guaranteeing peace and security, working for freedom and democracy, ensuring
world prosperity through free international trade, preserving a healthy
environment and creating stable international relations based on dialogue and
cooperation: all these, among others, are challenges that should be met by
the United Nations in order to establish the new world order that we all
sincerely wish to see. Therefore we must give of our very best to attain
these goals.
We hope that the twenty-first century will give us a world in which man,
freed from the plight of poverty, oppression, tyranny and destitution, can use
all his faculties and give free rein to his creativity in order to achieve his
own full development and the social and economic development of the State as
the guarantor of peace and security.


 It is a great pleasure to see you,
Sir, a youthful symbol of a profoundly changed Bulgaria, in the Chair. I know
and trust that you will steer us skilfully through this session of the General
Assembly.

The cold war is over. The world has heaved a sigh of relief. The United
Nations now has an unprecedented opportunity to carry out the mandate
contained in the Charter, even though politically the world has grown much
more complex and complicated.

Of course, no change has occurred in the underlying problems of a
long-term nature. The threat to the very survival of the human race posed by
the deterioration of the environment, overpopulation and poverty was there
already, even though awareness of the threat has increased quite dramatically
in recent years. It is a threat that will be with us for years to come, and
it will grow more and more acute if there is a lack of appropriate action.
One course of action is for the United Nations to put its house in order in
these areas through a restructuring of its economic and social sectors and
through a meaningful follow-up to the Rio Summit. The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development has put sustainable development high
on our agenda, and there it should remain. The establishment of solid
machinery, including a high-level commission on sustainable development, will,
we hope, be one of the major achievements of this session of the General
Assembly.
But in the political field, on which I will concentrate today, there has
been a qualitative change. We are still thankful for the end of the cold war,
with its menace of massive nuclear destruction, but in its stead a plethora of
conflicts and potential conflicts has sprung up with a vehemence which nobody
had foreseen. Each of these conflicts has its own characteristics, and each
has to be dealt with in a particular fashion. The United Nations is, on the
whole, the right organization to deal with these emergencies, whether directly
or indirectly. In order to carry out that task it will need to possess all
the means necessary for what I would call a flexible response, ranging from
preventive diplomacy to repressive action. A number of these requirements
have been set out by the Secretary-General in his impressive report "An Agenda
for Peace" (A/47/277). This Agenda will form the basis for our discussions on
the subject.

Where and when should the United Nations intervene? Clearly, it cannot
be everything to everyone. In order not to overstretch, it inevitably has to
apply a certain degree of self-restraint. Moreover, the membership of our
Organization consists of sovereign States, and respect for their sovereignty
is one of its principles. Nevertheless, it would be too easy to make
non-intervention and deference to domestic jurisdiction the leading
guideline. Moreover, it would not work. Frontiers have become porous and
information world-wide. Atrocities and aggression committed within a country
cannot pass unnoticed, and once noticed will not be tolerated by world
opinion. For the United Nations to stand idly by would be detrimental to its
new-found status, which we all have an interest in protecting.
With the end of the cold war, regional conflicts have proliferated, but
at the same time the possibility of doing something about them has increased.
This is both because the Security Council is not paralyzed by vetoes any more
and because the risk of a conflict's degenerating into global war has
subsided. This makes it possible to contemplate international action where it
would have been impossible or unfeasible before. With the possibility of
action comes the notion that lack of action is a form of action as well,
requiring a decision, just as a decision is necessary to act. A decision not
to act in the case of flagrant violations of human rights or the rights of
minorities, or in the case of large-scale human suffering, will now set a
precedent, just as planned intervention does. It is no longer possible just
to look the other way.
Perhaps somewhat belatedly, this has been recognized in the case of
Somalia. The international community could not afford to condone the

intolerable situation in that country any longer. The short-term task
consists of assuring the survival of the people. In the somewhat longer term,
the whole country will have to be reconstructed. The United Nations has a
major role to play on both counts.
The United Nations has also become involved in former Yugoslavia. Here
we see massive aggression, destruction, impending starvation and even the
establishment of concentration camps, all with a view to making large areas
"ethnically clean", as the ugly saying goes. Nationalism and irredentism have
run wild and are threatening neighbouring States as well. Everyone knows who
is mainly responsible.
Concerted action can and should be taken. Effective delegation and
cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations is crucial.
Joint United Nations-European Community efforts to help solve the Yugoslav
crisis are a clear example. Interaction between the United Nations and the
European Community, in their co-chairmanship of the London Conference, has
underlined the potential for coordination between the United Nations and
regional organizations in the field of preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping and
peacemaking. It is not only Chapter VIII that is being put into practice
here. Even more important is the linkage between the quest for a diplomatic
solution on the one hand and the possibility of enforcement action by the
United Nations on the other hand, in the event of non-compliance by the
parties concerned. The recognition of territorial and ethnical faits
accomplis would be an insult to the Charter. To my mind, the Yugoslav crisis
is a compelling case for action. More could be done, and I hope that more
will be done soon.

The Netherlands fully supports the Secretary-General's view that:
"regional arrangements or agencies in many cases possess a potential that
should be utilized in serving... preventive diplomacy, peace-keeping,
peacemaking and post-conflict peace-building". (A/47/277, para. 64)
Indeed, I am convinced that regional organizations increasingly have to take
up responsibilities with regard to regional peace and security. The role of
the Conference for Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in the Yugoslav
crisis is a clear example of this trend. So are others, such as the
Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity.
The process of delegation and cooperation between the United Nations and
the various regional organizations does not have to stop at this level.
Organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Western
European Union have specific operational contributions to make as well. Both
organizations recently announced at the CSCE Summit in Helsinki their decision
to make resources available to support the CSCE or the United Nations in
carrying out peace-keeping activities. The CSCE can also call on others, such
as the Commonwealth of Independent States, to contribute to peace-keeping
activities. This development is a concrete example of an evolving network of
organizations which we refer to as 'interlocking institutions'.
The Security Council is rightly the focus of world attention nowadays.
This new interest has provided the discussion on the Council's membership with
a fresh impetus. In the last chapter of "An Agenda for Peace", the
Secretary-General observes that agreement among the permanent members of the
Security Council must have the deeper support of the other members of the
Council. It should also have the wider support of the membership of the

Assembly if the Council's decisions are to be effective and are to endure.
This raises the question of the relationship between members and non-members
of the Council and of the Council's composition.

The achievements of the Council in terms of effective leadership and
decision-making, particularly during the last two years, need not be
elaborated upon. Supporters of the maintenance of its current composition can
hence, with some justification, argue that there is no need to change a
winning team, or, to use a colloquial expression of our host country, "If it
ain't broke, don't fix it." The critics of the status quo argue that the
Council's present composition is a reflection of the balance of power of days
gone by. This leaves us with a dilemma because both sides have a point.
Important changes have taken place in international relations. The
number of Member States has increased enormously since the enlargement of the
Council in 1963. The Charter specifies in Article 24 that the Council acts on
behalf of all Members. This implies that the Council should be, to a certain
degree, representative of the international community. Were the Council to
become an exclusive club disconnected from the United Nations membership as a
whole, this might tend to undermine its authority and diminish its
effectiveness. So what are we to do when faced with the question of the
Council's effectiveness on the one hand and its representativeness on the
other?
A possible solution to this question might be found in severing the
automatic link between permanent membership of the Council and the right of
veto. A number of concrete options can be considered in this respect. One
would be to consider the adoption of a double veto: two negative votes by
permanent members being required to hold up a decision instead of one.
Another suggestion put forward is the creation of semi-permanent membership of
the Security Council. This membership would apply to a certain category of
important States for a period of, say, five to seven years, possibly without
the right of veto.

To determine which countries would be eligible for this type of
membership, it seems that two criteria are relevant: both the political
weight of the country concerned and the degree to which its membership would
contribute to a more equitable geographical distribution of the Council's
composition. In view of the Council's responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security, it would appear to me that those two
elements should be carefully balanced against each other.
Clearly, the creation of semi-permanent membership is only one of a
number of options that can be considered. A broad international discussion on
this issue has already begun. The basis of this discussion should be in the
agreement that any change envisaged should first and foremost seek to ensure
the continued effectiveness of the Council for the United Nations as a whole.
In recent years we have seen some very encouraging developments all over
the world in the field of human rights. Many nations have taken the difficult
but promising road to democracy. Their success will undoubtedly contribute to
a further spread of respect for fundamental human rights. It was our hope
that the United Nations World Conference on Human Rights, to be held next year
in Vienna, would contribute to this positive trend. The Netherlands welcomed
the process from the start. We are, for instance, a major donor to the fund
that allows delegations from the least privileged countries to participate.
However, the preparatory process has thus far failed to produce an agenda
for the Conference. The Chairperson of the preparatory process rightly
concluded that most States will be disappointed at the lack of results. The
Netherlands shares this feeling of disappointment. Curiously enough, the
results thus far have lagged behind the constructive and relatively harmonious
results achieved in other United Nations forums such as the United Nations

Commission on Human Rights. The perfect example of this was the recent
unanimity displayed by this Commission when it met for its first emergency
session, which was devoted to the human rights situation in former
Yugoslavia. In view of this sharp contrast, one cannot but wonder what causes
the World Conference process to be so polarized and, subsequently, what
positive contribution the Conference can make in these circumstances to the
United Nations work in the field of human rights.
Meanwhile, human rights are still, in practice, being violated in
numerous countries. I have already mentioned former Yugoslavia, where outrage
at the massive violation of human rights and international humanitarian law in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, confirmed by the report of the United Nations Special
Rapporteur, Mr. Mazowiecki, has increased the calls for measures against the
perpetrators of such acts. Personal accountability under international law
and the appropriate machinery to deal with the individuals responsible are
still lacking, but Security Council resolution 771 (1992) paves the way for
follow-up action by Member States. My country favours the establishment of
machinery for the systematic gathering of data concerning criminal acts
committed by individuals with regard to the Geneva conventions and the human
rights conventions. I believe that such an approach can be expected to have a
deterrent effect.
For the longer term. Member States could consider the establishment of an
international criminal court, taking into account work already undertaken by,
among others, the United Nations International Law Commission. Although it is
clear that the establishment of such a court will not come about overnight, it
is certainly worthy of careful consideration by the 'Assembly. The Assembly
might give the International Law Commission the task of developing this idea
further.

The United Nations involvement in conflict settlement has led to a wide
array of peace-keeping operations. The number of Blue-Beret military has
reached an all-time record. The Netherlands contributes sizeably to United
Nations operations worldwide and will continue to do so: taking into account
other obligations and practical limitations, all units of the Netherlands
armed forces can in principle be assigned for peace-keeping. We support the
concept of making available contingents to the United Nations at short notice
and have included this in our standing offer to the Organization.
The Preamble to the Charter clearly states the United Nations
determination to promote social progress and better standards of living. Many
countries are confronted with a lack of social stability, mass migration,
rapid urbanization and other problems which affect the fabric of society. The
world summit for social development, in principle to be held in 1995, will
allow us to address these issues at the highest levels of government. This
will help the United Nations to carry out the tasks inherent in its important
social mandate.
The Security Council has rightly qualified the proliferation of all
weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security.
This underlines the importance of combating their proliferation. Arms control
and regional, political and security arrangements have their role to play. So
have export control regimes.

The Netherlands attaches particular value to the United Nations Register
of Conventional Arms, and it is heartening to see before the Assembly the
concrete elaboration of technical procedures for this Register, agreed to by
consensus by a representative panel of governmental experts. The time has
come to render the Register fully operational starting next spring, in 1993,
and we look forward to a universal implementation of its provisions.
A convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons will be put before
this session of the Assembly. It is a magnificent achievement for all the
members of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament. My country hopes that many
countries will be amongst the original signatories of the chemical weapons
convention, so that it can be strictly implemented. The Netherlands, as host
country for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW),
has a special role to play, and we shall endeavour to live up to expectations.
With the chemical weapons convention achieved, it becomes all the more
important to reflect upon ways and means to strengthen the biological weapons
Convention, in particular in matters of verification. Securing compliance
with the Convention could involve more than just voluntary measures, important
though these may be.
As to the third category of weapons of mass destruction, we have to bear
in mind that the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is up for extension in
1995. My country strongly advocates such an extension for an indefinite
period. We welcome the progress made recently to strengthen the
non-proliferation regime by both further accessions to the NPT and
modifications of the Tlatelolco Treaty, opening the way for the entry into
force of that Treaty for all Latin American and Caribbean States.

We are are placing ever-increasing demands upon the United Nations.
Cambodia, Yugoslavia and Somalia are only a few examples of its increasing
involvement. This is not without severe financial consequences for the
Organization. Quite frankly, I find it hard to believe that, at a time when
we expect the United Nations to play its demanding role, an important number
of Member States is not paying its contributions on time and in full. We
believe it is essential for the proper functioning of the United Nations that
all Member States, not just 5 per cent, meet the condition of full and timely
payment. The United Nations will not be able to fulfil its task unless
everyone picks up his share of the bill. Financial discipline on the part of
Member States is as important as it is on the part of the Organization.
With regard to peace-keeping especially, if regional responsibility for
the maintenance of peace and security is to acquire real meaning, we would
strongly favour Member States looking at the concept of burden-sharing on a
regional basis. In any case, the present short-term solutions of ad hoc
financing are neither satisfactory nor equitable. If we want a healthy United
Nations to deal with tomorrow's problems, this issue needs to be addressed
today. It would be an illusion to think that the current stopgaps, creative
as they may be, will eventually suffice.
As I have already stated, the opportunities for the United Nations to
carry out its mandate are unprecedented. This is true for a number of
conflicts which until recently seemed intractable. Cambodia is the clearest
case where a United Nations peace plan is being implemented. Angola is
another example of what the United Nations can do. The continuing dialogue by

South African parties provide us with a spark hope for the establishment of a
non-racial democracy. There is an initial involvement on the part of the
United Nations. Negotiations within the framework of the Madrid Conference
have carried the Middle East peace process further after a long period of
standstill. I hope that in this area, too, the United Nations can at some
stage become closely involved.
My friend and colleague Douglas Hurd, speaking on behalf of the European
Community and its member States, rightly observed that the challenge facing us
in this turbulent time is to reinforce the system of collective security based
on the United Nations. As I said earlier, the United Nations cannot be
everything to everybody. Nevertheless it is clear that, because of the
success our Organization has achieved over the last few years, enormous
expectations have been raised. It is our duty to see to it that the United
Nations is equipped in terms both of personnel and financing to face the tasks
with which it will of necessity be confronted.
That brings me, logically and finally, to the Secretary-General. It is a
source of the greatest satisfaction to me to see Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali in
this august position. His profound international experience, his keen
intelligence and the determination which he has already shown in tackling a
number of issues make him very much the right man in the right place.
I wish to assure Mr. Boutros-Ghali of the co-operation of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands in the discharge of his arduous task.


Mr. President, allow me to congratulate
you most warmly on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at
its forty-seventh session. I am confident that, given your skills and
experience, you will successfully guide our deliberations. I wish also to pay
a well-deserved tribute to your predecessor. Ambassador Samir Shihabi of the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for the excellent manner in which he steered the work
of the forty-sixth session.
It is with a sense of pride and satisfaction that I take this
opportunity, firstly, to congratulate Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, a
distinguished son of Africa, on his deserved election to the important post of
Secretary-General of our Organization; and, secondly, to express sincere
appreciation to him for the commendable leadership he has showed in carrying
out his duties. Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali's long and valuable service to
Africa, especially within the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the central
role he played in peacemaking under the Camp David accord, and the
considerable familiarity he has with the burning issues of the developing
world give him impeccable credentials for this Organization's highest and most
challenging post. We wish him every success; he enjoys Uganda's full
confidence; and he can count on our constant cooperation and support.*
Uganda welcomes the 13 new Members of the United Nations, with which we
look forward to forging close and mutually beneficial relations. An important
principle of this Organization is self-determination by the people of the
Member States. The admission of new Members is in keeping with that principle.
When we gathered here at the forty-sixth session of the General Assembly,
it was against a backdrop of international political developments which had
profoundly altered the global landscape. The transformation of international
relations has, over the last year, increased in pace and ushered in a new
pattern of relations. In place of the cold war between East and West, we now
Mr. Kalpage (Sri Lanka), Vice-President took the Chair.

see a more cooperative relationship. Mutual suspicion, conflict and the
attendant arms race between the major Powers have been replaced by dialogue
and joint endeavours. Dictatorships are giving way to democracies, and
conflicts are being resolved through dialogue.
As a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, Uganda has always urged the
major Powers to put an end to their rivalry and, instead, pool their efforts
to promote international peace and security and also the economic and social
development of all countries, as envisaged by the Charter. We therefore
welcome the emerging peaceful relations among the major Powers, and we
accordingly have a good basis for hoping that investment in economic and
social development worldwide will now receive a higher priority. In this
connection, special note must be taken of the important address to this
session of the Assembly by President George Bush of the United States when he
put forward new ideas about international economic cooperation. These ideas
merit serious consideration.
It will be recalled that the cold-war divisions hampered the efforts of
the Organization in fulfilling its mandate. But now the correspondence of
objectives among the permanent members of the Security Council, as
contemplated by the founding fathers, has facilitated the United Nations
central role in finding solutions to various regional crises. From Yugoslavia
and Cambodia to Somalia, to name but a few, it has now become possible for the
United Nations to handle the underlying causes of crises without its actions
being hamstrung by the ideological differences between its Members.
As the confidence being reposed in the United Nations has increased, so
have the responsibilities the Organization is being called upon to undertake.

Yet its resources remain precarious. There is an urgent need for the
Organization to be strengthened, in order to be able to be appropriately
restructured, and to be provided with adequate means meet the challenges
before it.
It is critical that the United Nations organs be made more representative
so that they can cater more meaningfully to the interests and aspirations of
all its Members. The objective should be to make the decision-making process
in the United Nations, including the Security Council, more democratic and
transparent. It is with this in mind that Uganda will positively examine the
various proposals for reform of the United Nations. We are thus prepared to
examine proposals for reform and expansion of the Security Council to reflect
contemporary realities that will lead to a more equitable and balanced
representation without, however, sacrificing capacity and efficiency.
The present structure of the Security Council reflects the realities of
1945 and the resultant cold war. Countries were designated permanent members
because of their capacity, at the time, to contribute to the maintenance of
international peace and security and to prevent war. For the record, it ought
to be stated, with appreciation, that the Organization's structures have
discharged their principal obligations well, and have, in particular,
safeguarded the international community against a world war and against a
nuclear catastrophe.
It must, however, be acknowledged that we are now moving into an age
where new issues such as development, environmental protection and
technological advancement are critical in international relations and affect

the security of the world. We therefore believe it is necessary to review the
criteria for permanent membership in order to take into account the capacity
of countries to contribute in this regard.

If only for the sake of accountability, it is imperative that Member
States, on which our Organization will increasingly depend as the main source
of contributions for the implementation of its new agenda for the next
century, should also have a say in the decision-making structures of the
United Nations.
Secondly, in any restructuring of the Council, it is also important that
consideration be given to having for each major region a permanent member,
which would be designated through consultation with the relevant regional
groups or organizations. An important criterion to take into account is that
a country, large or small, seeking membership on the Security Council must
fully embrace, and be seen to act in accordance with, the underlying values of
the United Nations mandate for peace, respect for human rights,
democratization and other accepted international norms. In our view that
would enhance both confidence in the Council on the part of the Members of the
Organization and the acceptability of the Council's decisions.
While the rapprochement between the super-Powers, as well as the
prevailing international climate, has been instrumental in the resolution of
long-standing conflicts, we should not be lulled into complacency. There are
still many formidable obstacles to overcome in our quest for a more peaceful,
secure, just and equitable new world order. Along with increased integration
among States and increased democratic governance, we see centrifugal forces
tearing States and societies apart, be it in Europe or in developing
countries. Many of those conflicts are driven by ethnic, religious, racial or
other sectarian differences and have resulted in the loss of many lives and
the suffering of very large numbers of innocent people on account of
displacement, the destruction of social and economic infrastructure, the

breakdown of law and order, and the lack of food, medical facilities and
shelter. Quite appropriately, these conflicts ought to be the focus of our
attention in our deliberations. In addressing ourselves to such conflicts, it
is legitimate for the international community to press for their peaceful and
prompt resolution and to resort to such mechanisms as are deemed practical in
coming to the immediate rescue, with humanitarian assistance, of those who are
suffering. National sovereignty should not be invoked for the prevention of
delivering needed humanitarian assistance to the innocent.
In South Africa we were encouraged by the positive steps taken by
Mr. De Klerk towards the dismantling of the apartheid apparatus. The repeal
of the legislative pillars of apartheid the Population Registration Act, the
Group Areas Act and the Land Act followed by the convening of the Convention
for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA), gave us hope that at long last we were
on the verge of putting in motion an irreversible process towards the
establishment of a united, non-racial and democratic South Africa. It was
therefore a matter of deep regret that the process was subsequently undermined
and endangered by the violence which claimed thousands of lives among the
black population. We vividly recall the carnage at Boipatong early this year
and more recently in the Ciskei bantustan. The failure of. the South African
Government to prevent and contain violence clearly raised doubts about the
Pretoria Government's commitment to the process of fully dismantling apartheid
and ushering into the country a truly democratic order.
We welcome the recent talks between Mr. Nelson Mandela and Mr. De Klerk
aimed at breaking the impasse. Those talks should give impetus to the
process. The De Klerk Government needs to take drastic steps to control
violence and to engender confidence in the negotiation process. It should

also release all remaining political prisoners without delay. We commend the
decision of the United Nations to station observers in South Africa at this
time to monitor the situation and to assist in the process towards democratic
change. It remains our conviction that many more observers are needed in
order to ensure an effective international presence.
This Organization has been at the forefront of the struggle against
apartheid and it is imperative for it to stay the course until the objective
is achieved. Uganda's position remains that until the apartheid constitution
is scrapped and replaced with one which guarantees human rights and political
freedoms to all South Africans on equal terms, we shall not have achieved our
goal. While agreeable to the phasing out of sanctions in response to the
progress registered, we believe the international community should maintain
the necessary pressure to keep the South African Government negotiating in
good faith. It is critical to agree on a constitution that enjoys the widest
consensus. To that end, it becomes crucial for all parties in South Africa to
take part in the negotiations and for South African leaders and the
international community to spare no effort in encouraging all necessary
consultations to ensure that no significant group feels left out.
The events in South Africa have a great impact on developments elsewhere
in southern Africa. Apartheid has always been a source of destabilization for
the region, especially for the front-line States, with Angola and Mozambique
being the most affected. Over the years, those countries have been the object
of a destabilization campaign that encouraged fratricidal internal conflicts.
We are glad to note that in both countries progress has been made towards
reconciliation and the comprehensive resolution of their internal conflicts.

Angola has just held an election in which all the parties have participated.
The United Nations, through the United Nations Angola Verification Mission,
(UNAVEM) II, has greatly contributed to the creation of an atmosphere
conducive to reconciliation. In Mozambique, the Government and RENAMO have
reached an accord, which is spelt out in the Joint Declaration signed in
Rome. We welcome that accord, and it is our hope that a cease-fire agreement
will soon be signed so as to facilitate elections and pave the way for an
enduring peace.
Mozambique, Angola and other front-line States have borne the brunt of
the struggle against apartheid. Their economic and social infrastructures
have, in the process, been damaged. Their economies will therefore take a
long time to recover. The long drought they are currently experiencing has
compounded these problems. I wish to call on the international community to
render them the requisite assistance for their economic recovery and
development.
In Somalia we have a disaster of enormous proportions which, on the one
hand, is man-made and, on the other, is compounded by drought. Both the OAU
and African leaders in the regional and subregional contexts have made
strenuous efforts to resolve the underlying political differences, but without
success. Last Saturday President Museveni of my country, with a view to
promoting dialogue between the parties, had discussions with, among others,
Somali interim President Ali Mahdi and General Farah Aideed of the United
Somali Congress, in which he appealed to both of them to resolve their
differences. Already the conflict has brought misery and massive loss of life
to the Somali people. A major problem now is that the continued fighting is

making it extremely difficult to distribute food. We appeal to the various
groups in Somalia to put an end to the conflict. We commend the efforts of
the United Nations and its agencies, such as the United Nations Children's
Fund (UNICEF), at providing humanitarian assistance, and we call on the
international community to increase support for this initiative. We appeal to
the various groups involved in the fighting in Somalia to cooperate with the
United Nations and work for national reconciliation. We support the call by
the current OAU Chairman, President Abdou Diouf of Senegal, for the convening
of an international conference on Somalia after due preparation.
The Secretary-General, in his annual report and in "An Agenda for Peace",
underscores the role of regional and subregional efforts in defusing tension
and in working out long-term solutions. We agree with the Secretary-General's
observations.
In East Africa the efforts of our Heads of State have gone a long way
towards finding long-term solutions to regional problems, in particular that
of refugees.

The joint commissions we have with our neighbours have been most helpful as
confidence-building measures. The United Nations should be supportive of our
efforts.
As regards Liberia, Uganda will continue to support the initiative of the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) for a peaceful settlement.
The groups in Liberia should cooperate with the EOWAS Cease-fire Monitoring
Group (ECOMOG) and abide by the terms of the accord they reached at
Yamoussoukro, which were recently reaffirmed by the Dakar summit of ECOWAS,
especially with regard to demobilization and peaceful transition to democratic
governance. There is also need for active involvement of the United Nations
to assist the subregion in preventing the situation from getting* worse.
The conflict in southern Sudan has been a source of anguish for us. The
people in this area have for long experienced the agony of war with the
attendant loss of lives and the problems of refugees and population
displacement. The path towards a long-term solution lies in dialogue and
reconciliation among the parties in the Sudan. Time is of the essence in this
situation. Uganda appreciates and encourages the efforts of President
Babangida and of the OAU towards this end. I wish to register our gratitude
to the international community for coming to the rescue of. the civilian
population with humanitarian aid. It is our hope that both the Government of
Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) will facilitate the
international humanitarian relief effort, which at the moment is, regrettably,
suspended, with only little help reaching the affected population.
Uganda commends the fruitful regional and international initiatives for
the resolution of the social and armed conflict in Rwanda. Uganda
acknowledges and supports the ongoing dialogue, under Tanzanian mediation,

between the Government of Rwanda and the Rwandese Patriotic Front, in
accordance with agreements and recommendations reached in regional conferences
and under OAU auspices. Uganda appreciates the constructive and helpful role
played by the international observers in these negotiations.
As to Western Sahara, Security Council resolution 690 (1991) remains the
only agreed basis for the resolution of the problem. It is our hope that the
obstacles with regard to the criteria of eligibility to vote will soon be
resolved so that the way can be paved for holding the referendum as envisaged
in the settlement plan.
The Middle East crisis, at the core of which is the question of
Palestine, has been one of the most intractable problems on the agenda of the
United Nations. Peace in the region will continue to be elusive if a solution
is not found to that question. Uganda thus welcomed the United States
initiative in launching negotiations between all the parties concerned,
beginning with the Madrid conference last year. While we regret that no
breakthrough has yet been made, we are encouraged that the dialogue is still
continuing. We call on the parties to persist in their negotiations, remove
mutual suspicion, engender confidence, and grapple with the real issues that
will bring forward a comprehensive, just and durable solution.
Uganda welcomed the restoration of Kuwait's independence, in which the
United Nations played a key role. It is our hope that with the Gulf War
behind us, it will be possible to restore prosperity and to refocus the
energies of the countries in the region on economic and social development.
As regards Cyprus, we support the Secretary-General's efforts to reach an
agreement on fundamental principles for an overall settlement. We maintain

our position that the settlement should safeguard the sovereignty, unity and
territorial integrity of Cyprus.
In the Korean peninsula, Uganda continues to be supportive of the
aspirations of the Korean people for peaceful reunification. We wish to
encourage them in their dialogue for. this purpose.*
In Cambodia, we note the progress made by the United Nations Transitional
Authority in implementing the agreements for a comprehensive political
settlement. It is for us a matter of regret that there are problems with
regard to the second phase of the cease-fire regarding the regrouping,
cantoning and disarming of the various armed forces. We call on all parties
to the agreements to live up to their undertakings so that peace and stability
can return to that country.
Uganda has been deeply concerned at the continuing conflict in the former
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia was a pillar of the
Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. It contributed a lot to the Movement and
to the struggle for the independence of our States when the cold war was at
its height. It is, therefore, a source of great anguish to see that in its
breakup, Yugoslavia has become a region of instability, strife and war based
on ethnic and religious differences. We reject the notion of "ethnic
cleansing" as being repugnant to accepted norms.
The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) has been functioning under
very dangerous and trying circumstances. It deserves our maximum support as
it endeavours to restore peace in the area. We call on the parties to embrace
the path of peace and reconciliation.

In the field of disarmament, Uganda welcomes the successful conclusion of
the negotiations regarding the Convention on the complete and effective
prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons
and on their destruction, which is due to be submitted to the Assembly at this
session for adoption. As a party to the non-proliferation Treaty, Uganda also
looks forward to actively participating in the preparation for the 1995 Review
Conference, which will decide on the extension of the Treaty. It is our hope
that the review will strengthen the Treaty by removing the present imbalances,
and result in increased assistance to developing countries in the peaceful
application of nuclear energy.
Uganda is happy to see that the question of human rights has a place of
pride on the international agenda. In both our domestic and our foreign
policies, we give high priority to this issue. As part of its commitment to
this end, a preoccupation of my Government has been to strengthen the rule of
law and our capacity to enforce those rights. We regard the proper training
of law enforcement officials as crucial. Therefore, this has been given due
priority in our programmes. Currently, Uganda has embarked on a process for
the enactment of a new constitution that should have built-in safeguards for
fundamental human rights and political freedoms. I wish to place on record
our appreciation to those countries that are rendering assistance to Uganda in
this regard.
Uganda looks forward to the third World Conference on Human Rights
scheduled to take place in Vienna next year. That Conference should provide
us with an opportunity to enhance the implementation of existing human rights
instruments, to develop new norms where necessary, and to examine fully the
intrinsic relationship between human rights and development.

It has been emphasized that people must be at the centre of development.
We agree. This requires us to strive for the attainment of social justice and
equality for all peoples. Our avowed commitment for human rights and
democracy cannot be taken seriously if it is not equally matched with a
commitment to address the problems of underdevelopment, mass poverty and the
social misery in which the overwhelming majority of the world population is
trapped. Durable peace can only be anchored in the bedrock of economic
progress among and within nations.

Regrettably, as we approach the next millennium, the economic and social
problems of the developing countries continue to worsen. The overall external
environment remains unfavourable, with most of our countries confronted with
worsening terms of trade, a crippling debt burden and a reduction in the flow
of resources earmarked for development. While there is increasing integration
in the process of production and the globalization of world trade, the trend
of marginalization of the least developed countries continues.
Of grave concern is the critical economic situation in Africa. The
Secretary-General in his annual report aptly describes the plight of Africa as
follows:
"Most Africans are poorer today than they were when their countries
achieved independence in the late 1950s and 1960s. The continent as a
whole accounts for 32 out of the world's 47 least developed countries.
Africa is the only low-income region in the world where the number of
people living in poverty is, if the current trends continue, likely to
increase by the year 2000. It is also the only region of the world whose
total debt equals or exceeds its economic output. The freshly-witnessed
momentum for political pluralism in Africa can hardly withstand a
continuing assault by desertification, famine and deprivation. Poverty
is infertile soil for democracy. It breeds a search for survival that
cannot be held back by national frontiers. The African countries need to
become masters of their economic destiny in a more supportive global
framework." (A/47/1, para. 62)
In response to this plight, the General Assembly adopted at its
forty-sixth session, in resolution 46/151, the New Agenda for the

Development of Africa in the 1990s, whose objective is to accelerate the
transformation, integration and diversification of African economies. The New
Agenda aims at achieving an average real growth rate in gross national product
of about 6 per cent a year through the decade, paying special attention to
such goals as increased life expectancy, lower rates of child and maternal
mortality, and improved health, water, sanitation, basic education and shelter.
Most African countries have undertaken major reforms of their internal
economic policies and mechanisms. In Uganda, for example, we are committed to
the liberalization of the economy and have enacted an attractive foreign
investment code. These reforms can be meaningful only if the external
economic environment is supportive and there is a positive response in the
form of increased investment and trade. It will be recalled that the United
Nations Programme of Action for African Recovery and Development 1986-1990 did
not achieve its objectives because of the failure of the international
community to provide the requisite resources. For the New Agenda to succeed,
therefore, our partners must have the political will to live up to their
commitments.
The System-Wide Plan of Action which is before the General Assembly
provides a framework for the United Nations system to give more focussed
attention to Africa. In this regard, Uganda strongly welcomes the
International Conference for Assistance to African Children, scheduled to take
place in Dakar in November, and we commend the United Nations Children's Fund
for the preparatory work already undertaken.
We appeal to the international agencies to earmark resources for the
implementation of the New Agenda. In this connection, we commend the

International Fund for Agricultural Development's Special Programme for
Sub-Saharan Africa. I also wish to register my appreciation to the Government
of Japan for initiating and arranging to host, in 1993, an African development
conference that will bring together African countries, major aid donors and
international agencies to discuss ways and means of accelerating African
economic development.
Two major conferences were held last year: the Eighth United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD VIII) and the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, which culminated in Agenda 21. It
is necessary to maintain the momentum achieved at Rio and at UNCTAD VIII by
putting in place measures to implement those decisions. The Rio Summit
established a clear link between environment, growth and development. The
need to help developing countries achieve sustainable development was
underscored. It is our hope that the Uruguay Round will soon be successfully
completed and that it will remove the impediments to our products reaching the
markets of the industrialized countries.
In the report "An Agenda for Peace" (A/47/277), issued as a follow-up to
the statement adopted at the conclusion of the Security Council's historic
Summit meeting of 31 January 1992, the Secretary-General outlines his
proposals on how the United Nations role in the maintenance of international
peace and security can be strengthened. The report contains a number of
useful proposals on preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peace-building and the
role of regional groupings which, if adopted, will enhance the effectiveness
of the United Nations. We agree that regional arrangements in many cases
possess a potential for early warning of.

monitoring and defusing conflict situations, a potential that should be
realized. The United Nations and the international community should help them
to improve that capability.
The Organization of African Unity, for example, is in the process of
trying to establish a mechanism for conflict-prevention, conflict management
and conflict-resolution. Such a mechanism would strengthen the OAU's
peace-keeping capabilities. Any assistance given in this regard will be an
important and useful investment for peace and development in Africa.
I wish to emphasize that, as indicated in the Secretary-General's annual
report, underdevelopment and poverty are prime sources of conflict. The
United Nations, through its macroeconomic policy formulation and
implementation, has played a central role in forging global consensus on
development issues. As envisaged by the United Nations Charter, the
Organization must continue fulfilling this function, especially now, when many
developing countries are restructuring with a view to integrating their
nations into the global economy. We should therefore endeavour to integrate
our agenda for peace with our agenda for development. By strengthening the
Organization's peacemaking and peace-keeping capabilities, we should not, by
default or neglect, reduce the United Nations focus on economic and social
issues. Clearly, development and peace are so intimately related that they
must be tackled under a common agenda.
We stand at a historic watershed, especially given the fact that the
global transition period we are entering is marked by contradictory trends.
At this crossroads, however, a unique opportunity exists for the United
Nations to achieve the objectives envisaged in the Charter. Whether or not

the United Nations can help create a better world for the twenty-first
century, in which the interests of us all are adequately catered for, depends
on the structures we create now. History will judge us harshly if we fail to
construct a firm foundation for the edifice of the future. That is our
challenge.


Let me congratulate you. Sir, on
your election as President of the General Assembly at its forth-seventh
session. I wish you much success and promise you full support.
I thank your predecessor, Mr. Shihabi, for guiding the General Assembly
to success at its forth-sixth session.
The past year weakened further the illusion that the end of the cold war
would facilitate a speedy and effective solution of problems that built up
during the post-war period. It has been a sobering year, during which we have
been involved in the gradual process of getting acquainted with the possible.
Sometimes we see euphoria replaced by total pessimism and little faith.
While the era of bipolarity is over and democracy is winning, many
conflicts remain unresolved, and a new generation of conflicts is beginning.
In addition to conflicts with which we have dealt routinely, but
unsuccessfully, over the years, we are now witnessing a great variety of
wars. The number of zones of conflict gets larger and larger.
Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina mainly Bosnia and Herzegovina - are new symbols of violence to
which we have no answers.
The United Nations, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE), the European Communities, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), the Western European Union (WEU) and the Council of Europe are unable,
despite all their commendable efforts, to exert sufficient pressure to secure
the desired solutions to these tragedies. In this respect, there has been
growing impatience and anxiety, as well as dissatisfaction and criticism, on
the part of the public and the mass media. It has become routine to question
the role of international institutions as instruments that are suitable for
conflict management. Let us be frank about this: we face a problem of
credibility. Much will be at stake if we fail to deal immediately with it.*
There is a risk that a very typical challenge of the 1990s the
relationship between statehood and nationhood will become a phenomenon of
world politics that defies efficient international regulation. In this
respect in particular, international institutions have a fundamental role to
play in providing a guarantee that the processes will develop on a basis of
democracy and of respect for universal and civilized human values.
However, it would be a mistake to start the search for solutions by
challenging international institutions as such. It would be a mistake to
decide to modify the United Nations radically and rebuild it by rejecting the
wisdom of its founding fathers, as embodied in the Charter. The claim that
revitalization of the United Nations requires not a change in the Charter but,
on the contrary, full implementation of the Charter is often considered to be
a cliche. I regard it not as a cliche but as a wise approach, indicating not
rigidity but, rather, a willingness to exploit fully the political potential
of the Charter.
It is true that the Charter makes no explicit reference to drugs,
organized crime, the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), indebtedness
or the widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. However, it contains
fundamental political principles on the basis of which these problems can and
should be solved. To that end, the things that are lacking are sometimes
instruments, sometimes money and very often the political will. What is
needed is - in short - a change in our approach to the priorities of the
activities of the Organization.
It is in this climate that the Secretary-General's report the "Agenda
for Peace" - has come into our hands. The recommendations contained in that
report provide useful guidelines for effective exploitation of the Charter's
potential. I believe that the section dealing with the prevention of conflict
requires elaboration, as it has been demonstrated that activity in this field
will increasingly become one of the basic orientations of multilateral
diplomacy.
In summary, the Secretary-General's report deals with confidence-building
measures, fact-finding, early warning and preventive diplomacy. I am familiar
with these terms as the CSCE, at its third summit, held in Helsinki, firmly
incorporated them into the list of its instruments.
Mention of the CSCE brings me to a question that Czechoslovakia has
proposed as a new item for the General Assembly's agenda - coordination of the
activities of the United Nations and the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe. In this connection, let me take the former Yugoslavia
as an example. Several times, in my capacity as Chairman of the CSCE Council
of Ministers, I have come across situations in which activities of the United
Nations and activities of the CSCE overlap. Naturally, such overlapping has
reduced the effectiveness of those activities.
My meetings with Tadeusz Mazowiecki, the United Nations Special
Rapporteur for Human Rights in the former Yugoslavia, clearly demonstrated a
need for, and an interest in, regular coordination of United missions with
those of the CSCE. In this connection, I should say that the United Nations
made an excellent choice when it picked Mr. Mazowiecki for its human-rights
activities in this explosive area.
However, this problem does not concern just the former Yugoslavia. Like
the CSCE, the United Nations has sent missions to Nagorno-Karabakh and
Transnistria. As the aims of all these missions have been coordinated only in
outline, it is no wonder that the parties to the conflict often fail to
understand the purpose of these foreign delegations coming to see them and
asking the same questions. It is often unclear how they differ.
The CSCE summit that took place in Helsinki in July laid the basis for
improved cooperation between the United Nations and the CSCE, as well as other
other organizations NATO, the Western European Union (WEU) and the Council
of Europe. The need for such interaction resulted in the London Conference on
the former Yugoslavia. This was the first example of systematic cooperation
between three international organizations, and it amounted to the first
interlocking action by the European Community, the United Nations and the
CSCE. As the London Conference was attended also by the Organization of the
Islamic Conference and the International Red Cross as a non-governmental
organization, I see it as the germ of a loose system of cooperation between
various institutions.
It seems to me that the time is right to consider seriously the convening
of an informal "brainstorming" meeting of the United Nations, the CSCE, the
European Community, NATO, the WEU and the Council of Europe to discuss the
idea of an interlocking system of international organizations. The purpose of
the proposed General Assembly agenda item on coordination between the United
Nations and the CSCE is not simply to secure a resolution. In my opinion,
that discussion of the issue at this session could develop at two levels - the
conceptual level, at which the fundamental political meaning of coordination,
both in the immediate future and in the light of medium-term and long-term
prospects, could be clarified; and the practical level, at which the
activities of the two institutions have already begun to overlap, making it
possible to draw conclusions.
It will certainly be in the interests of the United Nations and of the
CSCE to have the meaning of "preventive diplomacy" and "early warning"
clarified. These terms have already taken on a very definite meaning at the
CSCE, and the majority of United Nations Member States, as they do not
participate in the CSCE, will probably want to become acquainted with them.
The conceptual discussion might focus also on the relationship between
the United Nations and the CSCE as institutions each of which has the task of
looking after the security of its members. This is especially so as the CSCE
now covers an area stretching from Vancouver to Vladivostok.
For the purpose of getting the discussion under way, I should like, in my
national capacity, to put forward some ideas. Whenever the Security Council
wishes to discuss a security issue within the competence of the CSCE, a
representative of the CSCE should be invited to provide the Council with the
necessary information on any CSCE activities in respect of that issue or
otherwise to contribute to the work of the Council. The Council and its
President, as well as the United Nations Secretary-General, should be kept
constantly informed of the main activities of the CSCE, and the reverse should
apply.
Coordination of the human-rights activities of the United Nations and of
the CSCE could be improved by, for example, regular CSCE participation at
meetings of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and its committees,
the Economic and Social Council and the Third Committee of the General
Assembly. And is there any reason why we should not establish working
contacts between the United Nations Centre for Human Rights in Geneva and the
CSCE's Warsaw Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights?
In addition, one of the main elements of the CSCE's early-warning
system the High Commissioner on National Minorities might have some link
with the United Nations. Indeed, at the appropriate time, that might even be
turned into an institutional link. In the long term, the CSCE human-rights
institutions, structures and mechanisms could become tools of both the United
Nations and the Council of Europe.
Such discussion as I have suggested could dispel the fear of United
Nations Member States which do not participate in the CSCE that the Helsinki
process is an elite club that institutionalizes the gap between the rich North
and the poor South.
We must also ensure that there is a proper understanding of the
peace-keeping role of the CSCE vis-a-vis that of the United Nations. The most
recent reason for this comparison is to be found in President Bush's statement
to the General Assembly on Monday, in which he suggested that the
peace-keeping function of the United Nations should be expanded considerably.
The peace-keeping concept of the United Nations is not identical to that of
the CSCE, and I believe that there is a good prospect of their becoming
complementary. It should be remembered that, in this respect, the North
Atlantic Alliance and the Western European Union have made important offers.
It is unlikely that we shall be able to avoid having a debate on
peacemaking and peace-keeping. The crisis in the former Yugoslavia
necessitates a really serious discussion of this question. It is unnecessary
for me to reiterate my country's full support for the United Nations
peace-keeping operations, as there are Czech and Slovak "blue helmets" in the
former Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia has contributed to the United Nations
operations in Angola, Somalia and Iraq. To be of practical benefit,
discussion of the interaction between the United Nations and the CSCE should
take place annually.
In today's world the United Nations can play an even more important role
in arms control and disarmament. I am thinking especially of the Convention
on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. When
the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms becomes operational, it will
have a substantial role to play.
The Secretary-General's report, "An Agenda for Peace", says, "globalism
and nationalism need not be viewed as opposing trends" (para. 19). These
words attracted my attention as they reflect one of the peculiarities of our
times. They embody the historical experience of the two nations of
Czechoslovakia experience that I should like to share with members.
The idea of the right of nations to self-determination advanced by
President Wilson facilitated the disintegration of the former Austro-Hungarian
monarchy, thus opening up the way for the creation of Czechoslovakia. That
was 74 years ago.
Czechoslovakia emerged, however, under the influence of the notion that
there was a Czechoslovak nation, whereas it should have been admitted that
there were two distinct nations the Czechs and the Slovaks. But the idea of
Czechoslovakism, which resulted in the creation of a common State for the
world's two closest Slavic nations, impeded relations between those nations.
Thus a specific Czecho-Slovak problem was born, and it remains unresolved.
At about the same time, communism tied nations together by means of the
false idea of proletarian internationalism. This was bound to affect
relations between the Czechs and the Slovaks. However, our experience
indicates that communism was not the root of these problems; it simply gave
them a new dimension. Many nations are now searching for a new role in Europe
and in the world by seeking integration into larger economic entities and
political groups.
I believe that, so far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, one possible
solution lies in the replacement of the existing federalist pattern by new
ties. Understanding and viable coexistence between nations cannot be based on
false and outdated ideas. Czechoslovakia is therefore preparing to establish
two closely connected sovereign States by creating a common economy space and
retaining intact the close contacts between the peoples of the two republics.
We want to introduce elements of European integration into the relations
between the republics.
What is now taking place in Czechoslovakia is a process aimed at the
creation of a solid basis for a model of integration such as has been
developing democratically in Western Europe and has led to the creation and
development of the European Communities.
minim
Globalism and nationalism are not necessarily opposing trends, provided
that the right to self-determination is accompanied by the desire for closer
cooperation with other nations and by efficient participation in international
systems of guaranteeing the basic values upon which the world and especially
the fragile structure of peace are built. We live in an era of global
integration comprising different subsystems, among which the United Nations
has an irreplaceable role to play.
I should like, in conclusion, to say that this statement is a sort of
farewell speech of the Czechoslovak federation to the United Nations. It is
highly probable that by January of next year the federation will have ceased
to exist. Thus one of the founding members of the United Nations will give
its place in international politics to the two new independent States. It is
my hope that all the current Members of the United Nations will extend to the
Czech republic and the Slovak republic the understanding that they have always
shown to Czechoslovakia, by admitting them to membership as soon as possible.