Please accept my most sincere congratulations, Sir, on your election to the presidency of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session. Let me also thank the outgoing President, Ambassador Insanally, who displayed exceptional diplomatic skills in managing the business of the General Assembly this past year.
I wish to welcome the delegation of South Africa, which has joined us after an absence of many years. We have been following developments in that country with particular attention and are delighted with the remarkable progress it has chalked up. The restoration of South Africa's full membership further augments the universality of the United Nations, which is something we all favour.
The Czech Republic takes very seriously the responsibility it shares for the maintenance of international peace and security. This is reflected, on the one hand, in our participation in United Nations operations in the former Yugoslavia, Mozambique, Liberia and Iraq and, on the other hand, in our aspirations to become a member of Atlantic and European security organizations - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Western European Union. This is why we have also joined the Partnership for Peace, one of whose priorities is coordination and cooperation by its participants for peace-keeping missions. The Czech Republic is also participating as best it can in humanitarian assistance to stricken countries. We are fast approaching the time when we will be able to provide direct economic development assistance as well.
The active part the Czech Republic is trying to play in the Security Council stems from our belief that we were elected to serve: to serve not our particular interests, but certain fundamental principles, irrespective of where in the world they may be imperilled.
The Security Council has in recent months dealt with several truly extraordinary situations. Let me examine some of them.
With regard to the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, reaching a political settlement is a key objective of world diplomacy. The United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) has been a critical element in managing this problem, and my country is proud of having a mechanized battalion integrated in this Force.
Belgrade, in accepting the Contact Group plan, has taken a helpful step towards an overall solution of the area's problems. We also welcomed Belgrade's closing of the border with Pale. In response, the Security Council re- evaluated the extent of sanctions imposed on Belgrade, hoping that its change of attitude would turn out to be serious and lasting. We will, nevertheless, be carefully examining reports of international monitors on how strictly Belgrade keeps its international border with the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina sealed.
The mutual recognition of the States of the former Yugoslavia within their internationally recognized borders is the most important next possible step, one that is important for all countries of the region.
We are following closely the operations of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) forces and their cooperation with the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG). The case of Georgia is viewed by some observers as paradigmatic: this was the first time that a peace-keeping operation - to wit, UNOMIG - included the forces of a Power of the region. It was also the first time the Security Council actually welcomed the use of a force dominated by such a Power - the CIS force - in solving a local conflict. According to this view, cooperation between UNOMIG and the CIS in Georgia might perhaps serve as a model for resolving certain other conflicts elsewhere in the CIS. The Czech Republic, however, strongly believes that each peace-keeping operation is sui generis. Each conflict is different, and each operation therefore has to be evaluated on its own merits.
Africa, the continent of the President of the General Assembly, has this year seen some of the greatest tragedies to befall mankind since the Second World War. The scope and ferocity of the genocide in Rwanda is hard to comprehend. It goes far beyond anything that can be considered a "mere" civil war, and we are hard pressed to find any parallel to it. We welcome the conciliatory attitude of the new Rwandan Government.
The multinational force in Haiti led by the United States has raised many hopes in the initial phase of its operations. Its difficult task will be to curb and, better yet, prevent violence in a society that has seldom known any other way of solving political differences.
The Middle East is, fortunately, moving towards peace, and we congratulate the leaders of Israel, Palestine, Jordan and others who have amply demonstrated that even the most intractable problems of the world can be solved.
In some circumstances the United Nations has played a gallant role in the region. The liberation of Kuwait was a case in point. Since the Gulf War, we have insisted that Iraq fulfil all of the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. We have great appreciation for the work of the Special Commission (UNSCOM) and have taken serious note of a number of measures Iraq has undertaken to meet the demands of Security Council resolutions concerning weapons of mass destruction. We are still, however, looking for a declaration by appropriate Iraqi authorities recognizing the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Kuwait within its internationally respected borders.
Even this review suggests that a large portion of the Security Council's agenda has to do with peace-keeping operations. Following the end of the cold war, their number increased dramatically, with skyrocketing costs. This could not of course continue unchecked. Exercising restraint in authorizing new peace-keeping operations is the first condition for putting the whole system on a sound footing. In peace-keeping, as in every other aspect of its operations, the United Nations must live within its means.
There are of course two financial flows that determine the means at the disposal of the United Nations. On the one hand there is the outflow: a function of how troubled our world is and of which of its troubles we choose to tackle. On the other hand there is the inflow: a function of equity in allocating the financial burden and of the discipline of Members in shouldering it.
Only a few operations come to mind as having been largely successful. Let us take a closer look at one of these - the United Nations Operation in Mozambique. In that operation we see the following success factors: a well- crafted peace plan; a realistic mandate for the United Nations force; the fact that the politicians concerned put the interests of their country above all else; the tenacity of United Nations personnel in carrying out their mandate, and the timing of the operation. One wonders whether, today, the necessary troops could even be assembled.
By contrast, a number of peace-keeping operations are facing difficulties. Angola's peace plan, for example, was probably not crafted quite well enough; post-election fighting is a consequence of the fact that the antagonists kept their armies intact. In Somalia, the factions do not seem to agree that there ever was a peace plan in the first place. This is perhaps the case in Liberia as well. In the former Yugoslavia, the strength of United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) troops is in many ways not commensurate with their mandate.
We must therefore draw the necessary lessons. It is very important to examine the key success factors of successful operations and to try to ensure that they are present in every peace-keeping operation. But the main lesson is this: the United Nations is not a panacea for all of the world's ills. The Security Council is often sought out by factions who cannot agree on anything among themselves. But we have to insist on one principle: in general, it is the people and the leaders of a country who themselves have to demonstrate a readiness to tackle their problems before the United Nations can come in and assist them.
So much, in general, about the outflow of resources. At the same time, the United Nations faces a terrible crisis of inflow.
A radical reform of the existing system of financing is needed to overcome the crisis in the financing of peace-keeping. We strongly support the idea of replacing the existing arbitrary mechanism with a system based on standard, objective and quantifiable criteria. We also support the idea of establishing an independent body to study the principle of the capacity of countries to pay. This should become the fundamental criterion for determining the scale of assessments.
The Czech Republic meets its financial obligations towards the United Nations in full and on time. It has also covered an appropriate share of the obligations of the former Czechoslovakia. My country has not yet, however, been assessed for peace-keeping operations, pending determination of the group in which it should be placed. This matter should be settled in the context of agreement on objective criteria for making such determinations in general.
The increase in the number of peace-keeping operations has increased the dangers faced by their personnel. We therefore consider it particularly important to complete as soon as possible the work on a convention dealing with responsibility for attacks on United Nations and associated personnel. Last year we were acutely aware of the need for greater responsiveness on the part of the Security Council to United Nations personnel at large. This need continues, but some slight progress has been attained. Meetings of Security Council members with countries contributing troops to major peace-keeping operations have become more frequent, perhaps even routine.
Improved cooperation between the United Nations and regional organizations would no doubt improve the efficiency of both in dealing with international crises. We are particularly interested in further strengthening the cooperation on the part of the United Nations with the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, but also its cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That is why last January, during our Presidency of the Security Council, we suggested the possibility of a United Nations seminar with regional organizations. Understanding full well that they all have different charters, characters and qualities, we still feel that a continuing exchange of experience can enrich the entire international system of multilateral diplomacy. We commend the Secretary-General for organizing the first meeting along these lines earlier this year.
The future shape of the Security Council is one of the most important questions this General Assembly session will deal with. The effort exerted to date is reflected in the report of Ambassador Insanally, Chairman of the ad hoc Working Group. The basic role of the Security Council - maintenance of international peace and security - determines its unique position. There is no question about the need for it or about its impact on international affairs. This exceptional position of the Council should be maintained.
Efforts to improve its functioning are thus informed by other considerations. It has to earn the greater confidence of Member States. Even after it is reformed, the Council will have to remain rather small to maintain its efficiency. If its work improves, that should not be because of increased size or expanded responsibilities but because of its enhanced authority. The countries that should be considered for new permanent membership are those that have the economic, political and military potential to contribute to the maintenance of global security, are prepared to assume the responsibilities implied by permanent membership, and are ready actively to participate in the implementation of Security Council decisions. The key factor, in our view, is the global influence of candidates. The principle of unanimity and its obverse - that is, veto power - expressed in 1945 the fundamental responsibility of the great Powers for maintaining world peace. Since the dissolution of the bipolar world, this responsibility has, if anything, further increased. We therefore favour maintaining the unanimity principle.
We are delighted that our last General Assembly session resulted in the creation of the post of High Commissioner for Human Rights and congratulate Ambassador Ayala Lasso on his appointment. Even during his very first few months in office, he has demonstrated its usefulness. We have no doubt that this Assembly will follow through with the implementation of additional recommendations of the 1993 Vienna International Conference on Human Rights.
The danger of nuclear proliferation has not disappeared. Ongoing discussions with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are one example that proves this point. We support an indefinite and unconditional extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and we will advocate this position at the fifth Review Conference of that Treaty next year. We support an increased role for the International Atomic Energy Agency in verifying how the Treaty is being adhered to.
We favour accelerating work on the comprehensive test-ban treaty. We share the view that the production of fissionable material for nuclear weapons and of nuclear explosive devices should be banned. We support maintaining a moratorium on nuclear tests and an agreement on banning all such tests, as well as further negotiations on limiting nuclear arsenals and on the measures necessary to prevent illicit trafficking in nuclear material.
Ours is a small world full of problems, with almost 50 years of global peace but replete with local wars; abundance side by side with poverty; success in South Africa, progress in the Middle East, but a Bosnia and a Rwanda torn asunder. All this, and much more, is characteristic of today's world and is reflected in today's United Nations. Our fervent hope is that when the leaders of the world meet here next year, they will be celebrating 50 years of an Organization that will have become even more successful in a world that will be much closer to overall peace, prosperity and democracy.


I
should like to convey to you, Sir, my warmest
congratulations on your election to the presidency of this
Assembly and to wish you great success in the performance
of your duties. With your election, the members of the
General Assembly recognize in your country, Côte d’Ivoire,
the decisive contribution of Africa to the work of the
Organization. I am confident that the General Assembly
will follow the course of consensus that was set in the
previous session, under the leadership of Ambassador
Insanally, to whom I should like to pay a warm tribute.
Moreover, I wish to once again assure Mr.
Boutros-Ghali, who honoured us last April with his official
visit to my country, of the full cooperation of the Spanish
authorities in assisting him in the difficult task he faces of
meeting the increasingly complex challenges with which
our Organization is faced.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Federal
Republic of Germany, in his address on behalf of the
European Union, has set forth our common points of view
in this general debate. These reflect the advances made on
the path to a common foreign and security policy, which is
a major goal of the Union. On behalf of my delegation, I
wish now to consider some issues in more detail.
The fundamental changes in the international system
that we have witnessed in recent years have provided the
United Nations with the great opportunity finally to
establish itself as the venue for the universal harmonization
of the efforts of the international community to fulfil the
common purposes contained in its Charter. However,
they have also confronted the Organization with one of
the greatest challenges in its history. Some have even
cast doubt on the actual ability of the United Nations to
contribute effectively to the solution of the many conflicts
that have arisen or have been rekindled over the past few
years.
After the first shock, provoked by crises such as
those in the former Yugoslavia, Somalia and Angola, we
have been confronted with appalling situations such as
that in Rwanda, where the Organization’s limited means
have unfortunately proved insufficient to redress the
plight of millions of human beings.
At the same time, the United Nations, with its
resources stretched to the limit, is undergoing a financial
crisis which can be addressed only with the resolute
cooperation of the Member States. This should entail,
first of all, the timely payment of their financial
contributions, an obligation specified in the Charter. Only
then will the Organization have the necessary means to
achieve its objectives. Moreover, these means must be
used in the most effective possible way.
Beyond the efforts for renewal already achieved or
in progress, we must undertake a process of careful
consideration at the highest level, with a view to deciding
whether we are willing to provide the Organization with
the legal, material and financial instruments it needs to
meet successfully the growing demands made on it by the
international community. The credibility of the United
Nations is at stake.
The reform of the Security Council is an extremely
important and complex matter, which will have to be
accomplished through a careful process of dialogue
leading to an understanding among all Member States.
Spain, which in the last two years has been a
non-permanent member of the Security Council, reiterates
its position in favour of a revision, without undue haste,
of the composition and functioning of the Security
Council, based on the criteria of representativity,
efficiency and transparency, with the ultimate goal of
reinforcing the legitimacy of the actions of the Council.
Spain, which has taken and will continue to take an
active part in the meetings of the Ad Hoc Working Group
of this Assembly, favours a moderate increase of the
Council’s membership. This would allow for a more
frequent presence in the Council of States with specific
13

weight and influence in international relations, and which
are, likewise, able and willing to contribute in a significant
way to the maintenance of international peace and security
and to fulfil the other purposes of the United Nations. The
enlarged composition of the Council will also facilitate
equitable geographical distribution among the different
regions of the world.
Frightening events, such as those in Rwanda, make it
more necessary than ever to continue the strengthening of
the indispensable machinery for action required to execute
the increasingly broad and complex mandates given by the
Security Council to peace-keeping operations.
First of all, we must further improve the management
and control mechanisms here in New York. The Secretariat
has already made a major effort to strengthen the
Department of Peace-keeping Operations by adding a
Situation Centre, enlarging the Office of the Military
Adviser and giving a boost to the planning unit.
Secondly, in order to speed up the effective launching
of operations, the provisions relating to standby
arrangements for peace-keeping should come into effect.
Spain is prepared to participate in this mechanism, which
should be broadened to include the police components of
peace operations, as well as transport-related equipment and
logistics in general.
Thirdly, it is important to face the issues relating to
the safety of the personnel of the peace-keeping operations.
Many casualties have been suffered by United Nations
forces and humanitarian-assistance personnel, among them
Spanish nationals who gave their lives in the quest for
peace.
The setting up of an Ad Hoc Committee on the safety
and security of United Nations and associated personnel, in
particular those involved in peace-keeping operations, has
been a step in the right direction, and we hope that the draft
international convention on this matter will be adopted.
Notwithstanding the continuous efforts of the
international community and of many of the political forces
in the area, peace has not yet arrived in the Balkans. It is
true that developments have occurred that give us cause for
hope. We have witnessed a new international cohesiveness,
which we must preserve at all costs. A rapprochement has
taken place between the Croat and Muslim communities,
which has led to the agreements reached on federation. I
am pleased to underscore the important role that the
European Union is playing in the town of Mostar as a
contribution to this process. Spain is actively
participating in this effort; this is the area in which the
Spanish contingent in the United Nations Protection Force
(UNPROFOR) is carrying out its mission.
We welcome the establishment of the International
Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for
Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law
Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia.
We trust that the experience gained by this ad hoc
tribunal will serve as an incentive to the General
Assembly to give favourable consideration to the
proposed statute of an international criminal court, a
permanent body with universal jurisdiction, which was
drafted by the International Law Commission, and that
this idea - which is not new - will come to fruition very
soon.
Spain welcomes the process of political and
economic transition in which the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe are currently involved. Their future
accession to the European Union and their progressive
integration in the security mechanisms of the continent
will contribute to the stability of Europe.
We are also witnessing important moves towards
democracy and a free-market economy in the Russian
Federation and in the other States that emerged from the
former Soviet Union. Spain supports these changes, as
their success will contribute not only to strengthening
security in Europe but to world peace as well.
The community of Ibero-American nations has
endowed itself with a political forum of considerable
importance; this year, in Cartagena, Colombia, it once
again voiced satisfaction at the progress made on the path
to democracy and economic modernization.
Wherever internal armed conflicts are still active, as
in Guatemala, we are witnessing a negotiation process
promoted by and under the auspices of the United
Nations, with the assistance of the "Group of Friends".
Both the Government of Guatemala and the Unidad
revolucionaria nacional Guatemalteca (URNG) are fully
engaged in this process, with the ultimate goal of
achieving national reconciliation and full respect for
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The delicate situation in Cuba calls for an additional
effort to promote dialogue and cooperation to make
possible the final incorporation of both the Government
and the people of Cuba into the democratic current that is
14

flowing through the continent at the present time. Dialogue
is essential. Inventive solutions among Cubans, without
excluding anyone, should be encouraged, with a view to
opening up new democratic possibilities leading to a
peaceful transition, with due respect for human rights,
national sovereignty and fundamental freedoms. The
Government of Spain, which remains opposed to the
embargo that has been imposed, notes with satisfaction the
talks taking place between Washington and Havana, where
these issues can be addressed.
The Government of Spain is attentively following the
situation in Haiti, with a view to the full implementation of
Security Council resolutions 917 (1994) and 940 (1994),
which will involve the return of the President legitimately
elected by the Haitian people. The international community
will have to concentrate its efforts on the reconstruction of
the country, so that democracy may rest on solid
foundations guaranteeing constitutional rule of law and
respect for human rights.
Spain attaches particular importance to the
establishment of a new process of dialogue and cooperation
in the Mediterranean that will make it possible to tackle the
economic, demographic and cultural differences existing in
the region, and to bring peace and prosperity to the
Mediterranean area.
My country has special ties of friendship and
cooperation with the Maghreb countries and is striving to
make a practical contribution to overcoming the problems
existing in this area, to which Spain attaches great priority.
The Spanish Government considers that the solution to
the problem of the Western Sahara lies in the holding of a
referendum on self-determination with all appropriate
international guarantees. My Government again expresses
its support for the Secretary-General and his Special
Representative in their efforts to ensure progress in
implementing the settlement plan accepted by the parties
and, in accordance with the relevant Security Council
resolutions, creating the necessary conditions for the
forthcoming holding of the referendum to which I have
referred.
The Spanish Government has expressed on many
occasions, its profound satisfaction at the progress achieved
in the Middle East peace process, which started at the
Madrid Conference. Thanks to the determination and
courage of the interested parties, 1994 has been a year of
significant achievements on the path to peace and
understanding. Spain has always supported the need for a
lasting and comprehensive peace, in conformity with
Security Council resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
Spain urges the parties and all the States in the region, on
the basis of their clear and unanimous rejection of
violence and the use of force, to coordinate all efforts
necessary to attain the desired goals of peace and
development.
This year, we have witnessed events of remarkable
importance in sub-Saharan Africa. Some have struck a
markedly hopeful note, whereas others - such as the
tragedy of Rwanda and the difficulties in the peace
process in Somalia - have demonstrated the fragility of
the continent’s structures.
Rwanda has appalled us. We have witnessed the
horrors of civil war with a feeling of bitterness and even
of impotence. Despite the efforts of the international
community, in which my country is actively participating,
no solution is yet in sight to this crisis or to the problem
posed by the millions of displaced people and refugees -
a problem which, moreover, is having serious
repercussions on the stability of the neighbouring
countries.
Those responsible for the atrocities, including
genocide, committed in Rwanda must be brought to
justice individually. Hence, Spain supports the work of
the Commission of Experts established under Security
Council resolution 935 (1994), which we actively
promoted and co-sponsored, as well as the work of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special
Rapporteur for Rwanda. These events are extremely
serious and we must make an urgent legal response to
them through the establishment of an ad hoc jurisdiction
for Rwanda, following the model already provided by the
Tribunal established to deal with the former Yugoslavia.
South Africa has been the other side of the coin.
We are gratified at its return to the General Assembly as
a full-fledged Member of the United Nations, now that
the apartheid system has been abolished and a democratic
and non-racial Government has been installed.
In southern Africa, likewise, we are following with
the greatest interest, because of their importance, the
processes aimed at peace in Angola and Mozambique.
We hope that the Angolan Government and UNITA will
shortly conclude a lasting peace agreement that will put
an end to decades of suffering. We hope that in
Mozambique the coming elections will consolidate
national reconciliation. Spain will contribute to the
15

peaceful and democratic holding of these elections by
sending observers.
The decolonization of Gibraltar is a priority goal of
the Spanish Government. The General Assembly has
clearly established the doctrine that the decolonization of
Gibraltar is a case not of self-determination but of the
restoration of Spain’s territorial integrity. I wish here to
reiterate the Spanish Government’s firm resolve to continue
the process of negotiation with the Government of the
United Kingdom, in a constructive spirit and on the bases
of the Declaration of Brussels of 27 November 1984, taking
duly into account the legitimate interests of the population.
The Government of Spain expresses its profound hope that
these negotiations will put an end to this colonial
anachronism.
Disarmament and arms control are fundamental factors
in the maintenance of international peace and security.
Accordingly, during this year Spain has adopted a unilateral
moratorium on the export of anti-personnel land-mines, has
ratified the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions
on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May
Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have
Indiscriminate Effects and was among the first States to
ratify the chemical weapons Convention. We also support
the unconditional and indefinite extension of the non-
proliferation Treaty and the early conclusion of a nuclear
test-ban treaty.
Moreover, Spain hopes that a final decision on the
enlargement of the membership of the Conference on
Disarmament will be adopted shortly, thereby allowing for
the full participation of countries which, like Spain, have
demonstrated for many years their full commitment to the
work of the Conference.
The close relationship between peace and development
is especially well reflected in the report on agenda for
development submitted last May by the Secretary-General.
I wish to state my satisfaction at the publication of this
report. We share the approach presented by the
Secretary-General, which is based on the principle that
development is a fundamental right and the strongest
foundation for peace. We welcome the idea of defining the
five principal dimensions of development that are set forth
in the agenda - that is, peace as the basic foundation, the
economy as the engine of progress, the environment as a
basis for sustainability, justice as a pillar of society, and
democracy as a guarantor of good governance.
We must now determine what actions are required in
order to implement the agenda and formulate specific
recommendations on the assumption that development
cannot be reduced to a simple economic dimension, but
must, rather, be considered from its political, cultural,
environmental, social and humanitarian angles. Only by
means of this comprehensive approach will we be able to
tackle the deep inequalities and serious problems affecting
developing countries.
Furthermore, the financial resources devoted to this
end should be used in a more rational and efficient way.
To achieve this, we must continue to restructure the
economic and social sectors of the Organization and of
the United Nations system, particularly by strengthening
even further the coordinating role of the Economic and
Social Council.
In activities to promote development the protection
of the environment should always be taken into account.
Starting next year, Spain will participate in the work of
the Commission on Sustainable Development, which at its
last session dealt for the first time with the
implementation of "Agenda 21" and of other agreements
reached at the Rio Summit.
The global conferences convened by the United
Nations play an outstanding role in the search for
universal consensus on development. The Programme of
Action adopted in Cairo by the International Conference
on Population and Development will pave the way for a
new demographic policy, and places women at the axis of
every population policy. The key role played by women
in development will also be highlighted during the Fourth
World Conference on Women, to be held in Beijing in
September 1995.
The World Summit for Social Development, which
will be convened in Copenhagen in March 1995, must,
likewise, direct us to a new way of facing social problems
in the world, based on the principle that human beings
should be the core and ultimate goal of development.
Nobody can doubt the importance of the protection,
promotion and defence of human rights as fundamental
tasks of both Member States and the United Nations.
Intolerance, inequalities of all kinds and violations of
fundamental rights still endanger the lives, the freedom
and the safety of millions of human beings. In order to
eradicate these evils, we must honour the commitments
undertaken during the Vienna World Conference on
Human Rights and redouble our efforts to put into
16

practice principles that, although universally acknowledged,
are not universally observed.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights, the office which was created by this Assembly last
year, and whose first incumbent is Ambassador Ayala
Lasso, must be able to perform his duties properly. To this
end, it is essential to ensure that he has the adequate
budgetary means and sufficient personnel, as well as the
support and cooperation of all Member States. Such
personnel and additional means should also be made
available to the Centre for Human Rights.
In 1995 we shall commemorate the fiftieth anniversary
of the United Nations. This will be an opportunity to
reflect both on the Organization’s accomplishments - which
are not negligible - and on the challenges it will face. We
live in an increasingly complex and dynamic international
society, in which it is no longer possible totally to separate
national issues from international ones, nor to divide the
tasks of the Organization into watertight compartments.
Mankind’s full development will be achieved only when its
multiple aspects, which are complementary and
interdependent, are taken into account. The path to a better
world, in which the United Nations continues to play a
fundamental role, must be taken together by all the peoples
of the world, as we are reminded by the motto of the
fiftieth-anniversary commemoration. That is also the firm
conviction of the Government and the people of Spain.


First of all, I should like to extend to you, Sir,
on behalf of my delegation, my warmest congratulations
on your well-deserved election to the presidency of the
forty-ninth session of the General Assembly.
We are convinced that your outstanding skills and
your vast experience will guarantee the success of this
session. Your country, the sister republic of Côte
d’Ivoire, has always played an effective and moderating
role in the search for peace in Africa and throughout the
world.
I should like also to express my most sincere
congratulations to your predecessor, Ambassador Samuel
Insanally of Guyana, for the competence and skill with
which he led the work of the previous session.
I should like also to express, on behalf of the
Islamic Republic of Mauritania, our admiration of and
support for the unremitting efforts of Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations,
aimed at enabling our Organization to achieve its goals.
Our current session takes place at a time when the
international community is faced with numerous
challenges. These include a constant deterioration in the
terms of trade, the growing disparity between rich and
poor countries, and an increase in hotbeds of tension. In
addition, many people in the poor countries are being
crushed under a debt burden that is constantly getting
heavier, with, as a consequence, gloomy prospects for the
socio-economic development of the peoples of those
countries.
Instead of the hoped-for prosperity, what we are
witnessing today are bloody conflicts which are ravaging
29

entire countries with all their attendant miseries and forms
of destruction. Such nefarious developments not only
undermine all the hard-won achievements of the people of
those countries, but also afflict them with new types of
suffering and make them lose any hope they may have had
in enjoying a life of dignity, stability and progress.
The international economic situation continues to be
cause for concern for a large number of developing
countries that feel the negative impacts of structural
adjustment programmes, which focus on macroeconomic
equilibriums and display a marked degree of such
indifference to the social cost of such adjustments.
It should be emphasized that of the 55 countries which
have implemented those programmes during the 1980-1989
period, only 7 have been able to improve their economic
situation. During that same decade, a downward trend in
per capita income was noted in 29 countries, while in 13
other countries there has been a real deterioration of social
conditions.
These crisis elements have been compounded by
stagnation and the reduction in public development
assistance, despite the fact that the .7 per cent objective was
supposed to contribute to the creation of better conditions.
It is regrettable to note that the deterioration in the
economic situation is of such a nature that it may well have
a negative effect on the implementation of international
conventions and programmes, notably those which relate to
the environment, the programme of action for children, and
the programme of action for the advancement and
protection of human rights. Furthermore such deterioration
will have an adverse effect on the chances for the success
of other ongoing negotiations which aim at finding
solutions to problems that threaten the prosperity of
humankind as a whole.
As a matter of fact, the negative effects of the
economic crisis are too numerous to enumerate and
unfortunately, it is the most vulnerable sectors of society,
such as women, children and the poor that bear the full
brunt of the situation. If in our time unemployment and a
high crime rate are widespread phenomena, countries with
limited resources are apt to be more exposed to their effects
than others. The need to devise a preventive approach
which would make it possible to face up to these social ills
is thus becoming all the more urgent.
In this regard, we welcome the forthcoming World
Summit for Social Development, in Copenhagen, and hope
the summit will result in initiatives that will enable
developing countries to make significant advances in their
development.
It has become quite clear that development is the
real guarantor of world peace and that the miserable
living conditions of the overwhelming majority of the
inhabitants of our planet make it impossible to achieve
peace and stability in our world.
Thus we place a great deal of hope in the Secretary-
General’s proposed Agenda for Development. Such a
document would deserve our appreciation and should
obtain widespread support in order for it to become a true
tool in promoting economic and social development
everywhere.
The fragility of the world economic situation should
not obscure the successes achieved in several areas of
international relations.
In this context, we welcome the success of the
Secretary-General’s consultations which aimed at
resolving the problems posed to certain countries by
Chapter XI of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea, whose coming into force as of 16
November 1994, will mark the beginning of a decisive
phase in its evolution.
Our country considers that the United Nations
Conference on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly
Migratory Fish Stocks should lead to strict and global
resolutions that would put an end to the plundering of
fishing resources as well as to the anarchy that currently
prevails in the seas.
The Islamic Republic of Mauritania has, along with
countries threatened by the phenomenon of desertification,
made major efforts to conclude a world convention to
fight drought and desertification, especially in Africa.
While we welcome the positive outcome of those
negotiations, we do express the hope that the convention
will be the start of positive action on the part of the
international community in favour of those countries
which have suffered the most.
All the results achieved thanks to the efforts of the
United Nations highlight the focal and vital role with
which our Organization is entrusted and attest to its
universality.
30

There is no doubt, however, that a reform of the
structures and procedures of the Organization is now
necessary. The decisions already taken to revitalize the
Economic and Social Council will be no more than a dead
letter so long as they are not accompanied by the allocation
of resources that would make it possible to implement the
development programmes.
We should always bear in mind the fact that all
conflicts and all the resultant peace-keeping operations,
which mobilize such vast financial resources, have as their
main cause the deterioration of the economic and social
conditions of the countries concerned.
A rapid overview of our globe and the areas of tension
is enough to prove that underdevelopment and the problems
it causes only fuel such tensions.
Advances in the area of democracy and human rights
are, to be sure, the most important achievements the
international community has seen in recent times.
While we commend the progress achieved in these two
areas, we must not lose sight of the fact that democracy
cannot be confined to the national frameworks of individual
States, but should embrace also international relations
among nations.
This is the reason why we support efforts to expand
representation within the Security Council by increasing its
membership. We hope that such reform will take place in
line with the tenets of democratic transparency.
Whatever the final formula adopted for the new
configuration of the Security Council might be, we believe
it will be necessary to respect the principle of the co-
equality of Member States, and the fact that, according to
Article 24 of the Charter, the Security Council acts on
behalf of those Member States, and must, therefore, reflect
the views and aspirations of the international community in
its entirety.
The democratic process which was launched in 1986
in the Islamic Republic of Mauritania through the
establishment of democratic institutions and the
organization of presidential and parliamentary elections in
1992, has been consolidated further with the organization
of elections for municipal councils and for one third of the
senate seats. Those elections, which have elicited extensive
participation on the part of voters, have been covered
extensively by the independent national press, following
electoral campaigns by several political parties which
represent various trends of opinion.
Thus the Mauritanian people are daily consolidating
the foundations of their young democracy, which in the
words of the President of the Republic, His Excellency
Mr. Maaouya Ould Sid’Ahmed Taya, is the mainspring
"of all sovereignty and legality".
It is in this democratic environment that the
Mauritanian people are waging a determined struggle
against various aspects of economic and social
underdevelopment.
We should highlight the important gains made by
our country through the implementation, in 1984, of a
series of economic reforms, as well as the political
stability, freedom, justice and equality now enjoyed by all
Mauritanian citizens.
We should also voice the pride of the Islamic
Republic of Mauritania at being one of the few
developing countries where there have been no political
prisoners, and where freedom of the press, a multi-party
system, and freedom of trade unions have become
realities similar to those which States that value the rule
of law, such as the countries with longstanding
democratic traditions, pride themselves on.
The quest for peace will continue to be our main
concern so that we may rise to the challenges of the end
of this century. The end of the cold war has opened up
new vistas for the emergence of a better world where
justice and peace may prevail. Yet the increasing number
of hotbeds of tension which require the organization of
peace-keeping operations leads us to believe that a new
style of diplomacy is becoming a must if we are to
prevent the recurrence of human tragedies similar to those
which were witnessed in the past or those which we now
experience and are unable to stop or to resolve.
Our country hopes that the recent developments
which have been taking place in the Middle East will
constitute the beginnings of a solution to the tragedy of
the Palestinian people and that, at last, they will be able
to exercise their legitimate right to establish an
independent State. We believe that the Declaration of
Principles of 13 September 1993, giving autonomy to
Gaza - which was followed up by the Cairo agreement of
4 May 1994 and most recently, on 25 July 1994, the
meeting between His Majesty King Hussein of Jordan and
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin - will usher in a
31

new era. The Islamic Republic of Mauritania hopes this
initial success will lead to a just, comprehensive and lasting
peace based on the implementation of Security Council
resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973).
The United Nations should continue to support peace
efforts in the Middle East until such time as a final
settlement of the problems still pending in the region is
reached. In this connection, we hope the commitment
undertaken by donors at their meeting on 1 October 1993
will be translated into concrete action that would revitalize
the economy of Palestine and help solve its economic and
social problems.
In that sensitive region, the after-effects of the Gulf
war continue to make themselves felt. The Islamic
Republic of Mauritania, which has always affirmed its
unswerving support for international legality, has made
clear its total rejection of any violation of fraternal
Kuwait’s independence or territorial integrity or of the
rights of its citizens, just as it stands against anything that
might undermine Iraq’s unity or territorial integrity. The
time has come to put an end to the suffering of the Iraqi
people.
In the same sensitive region, my country wishes to
renew its unflagging and total support for the recovery by
the fraternal State of the United Arab Emirates of its
legitimate rights over the islands of Lesser Tumb, Greater
Tumb and Abu Moussa.
With regard to the Arab Maghreb, we still hope the
United Nations will be able to eliminate the obstacles which
continue to impede the resolution to the Sahara problem.
My country will spare no effort in helping the Organization
in the implementation of resolutions relevant to this issue.
Our determination stems from our desire to reach a just and
lasting solution and to strengthen the process of building a
united Arab Maghreb.
We also hope the embargo imposed on the Libyan
people will be lifted. We are aware that the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya has shown tangible proof of its readiness to
cooperate with the United Nations and other groups and
that the embargo is affecting the interests of all other
peoples in the Maghreb.
With regard to Africa, I should like to express my
country’s satisfaction with the peace-keeping operations
approved by the United Nations with the aim of putting an
end to the bloody confrontations in parts of that continent.
The Rwandan tragedy, marked by the death of half a
million people in the space of a few weeks, is one of the
most horrible ordeals of our era. In this connection, I
must commend the excellent organization of Operation
Turquoise, which has been led and meticulously executed
by France within the allotted time-frames. The operation
was a model of proper and disinterested humanitarian
intervention. My country took part in that noble
humanitarian action that saved tens of thousands of
human lives and provided our Rwandan brethren with an
opportunity to work together to find a solution to their
problem. We hope such international efforts will enable
those brethren to heal their wounds and work towards the
establishment of national unity and the rebuilding of their
country.
Unfortunately, Rwanda is not the only place in
Africa where an armed conflict is causing fratricidal
strife. In Somalia, Liberia and Angola, civil wars
continues to rage, despite the tireless efforts of the United
Nations and the Organization of African Unity to restore
peace and concord in place of hatred and war between
brothers. We hope the citizens of those countries will
heed the voice of reason and will agree to safeguard their
interests and the right of their peoples to enjoy peace and
security. This objective can be achieved only through
responsible and constructive dialogue. Experience has
shown that the language of arms cannot lead to valid
solutions.
In Mozambique we are following with special
interest the various steps expected to lead to the holding
of elections on the 27th and 28th of October 1994. We
hope those elections will embody the spirit of the peace
agreement concluded in October 1992 and that they will
be conducted under proper conditions of peace and
concord.
The human tragedies that have beset the African
continent should not blind us to the positive events that
have taken place, such as the triumph of democracy in
South Africa under the presidency of Nelson Mandela and
the settlement of the conflict between Libya and Chad.
We welcome the representatives of South Africa. Their
presence here among us, representing as it does the
culmination of a decades-long struggle by all African
peoples, is a source of pride and happiness.
On the European continent, which appears to all as
the most fertile ground for democracy and respect for
human rights, the outright aggression by the Serbs against
the Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina is a clear affront
to the human conscience. The efforts of the international
32

community over two long years have failed to put an end
to the Serbian aggression, which has clearly taken the form
of "ethnic cleansing" vis-à-vis the Muslims. No serious
military effort has been made yet to put an end to the
suffering of the inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
who continue to suffer under the embargo that denies them
the arms needed for self-defence. Indeed, it is high time
the United Nations discharged its full responsibilities under
the Charter and used all necessary means, including armed
force, to put an end to that terrible tragedy in line with the
principles of the Charter and the Organization’s
responsibility to maintain peace.
In 1995 we will be celebrating the fiftieth anniversary
of our Organization. That commemoration should make it
possible for us to take stock of the progress made over half
a century and to devise better plans and programmes to
deal with future problems. Two other events of major
importance will take place in the same year and will have
to do with the search for solutions to major problems which
are still pending: the World Summit for Social
Development and the Fourth World Conference on Women
in Beijing. We hope the results of those two meetings will
coalesce with the outcome of the negotiations which aim at
reforming the Security Council so that the Organization will
be equipped with the necessary structures that would enable
it to deal with the challenges of the twenty-first century.
Today more than ever, the peoples of the world are
making the United Nations the repository of all their hopes,
and the Organization must ensure the maintenance of peace
and promote cooperation for development at one and the
same time. By so doing our Organization would crystallize
humanity’s aspirations to a world of peace and stability and
would then become a true crucible where all nations joined
their efforts to bring forth an era of freedom, democracy
and respect for human rights.


I should like to join others in
congratulating the President on his election to preside over
the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly. The
wealth of his political and professional experience and his
personal qualities will undoubtedly benefit the work of the
Assembly in the coming months.
He takes over his new responsibilities from His
Excellency Mr. Insanally who, as President during the
forty-eighth session, continued to give the presidency that
forward-looking spirit which is so important as the United
Nations system and, at its very centre, the General
Assembly increasingly become the effective focal point of
international life.
Five years after the end of the Cold War, the
international community continues to witness painful
situations of political, economic and social strife.
Daily the media bombard us with images of misery:
victims of wars fleeing combat zones, abandoning all they
had worked for and accumulated in a life-time; refugees
crossing deserts or oceans in superhuman efforts to
distance themselves from situations where human dignity
is trampled upon, where the essence of human rights has
long been lost; the poor and the needy nurturing hopes of
escaping from communities where development is absent
or denied.
The list of anguish is endless. Most of us are
disturbed and angered at the apparent impotence of the
international community to attack the root causes of such
misery.
We tend to link many of these situations to the end
of the Cold War and its aftermath, aware that the
transition in international power relations has had an
effect which goes far beyond its immediate political
impact. It has influenced in different ways the economic
and social dynamic not only of those States undergoing
the process of transition, but even others - a spill-over
effect which is as difficult to contain as it is difficult to
identify and map out.
We have entered a historical phase marked and
chequered by regional conflicts - wars which sow death
and destruction and erase social and economic
achievements in a matter of weeks if not days.
There is the temptation to develop an immunity to
the tragic consequences of these ills by giving up on our
collective responsibility to alleviate suffering. Every time
the international community gives in to this temptation it
is rudely awakened by degenerating situations which we
cannot but find shocking.
Antagonisms with roots which go back in time have
exploded into situations of conflict and civil strife,
exposing a heritage of ethnic, religious and tribal
animosities. Massacres on an unprecedented scale have
devastated our collective conscience.
The transition has created a vacuum. In attempting
to fill this vacuum, the new and frail forces of democratic
political leadership often have to encounter antagonistic
economic, political and social forces interested in carving
a niche for themselves through the perpetuation of
10

instability. Illegal drug and arms traffickers, money
launderers and unscrupulous economic operators stand to
profit from an unregulated fiscal, political and social
environment. They often join forces in efforts to
undermine the consolidation of democracy and the rule of
law. The international community has long realized that
such ills cannot be tackled in isolation. Cooperation has
been strengthened in areas where borders fail to stop the
spread of criminality.
The ills of the present age also require enhanced
bilateral and regional cooperation. Regions may learn
lessons from each other as different illicit trade routes
ranging from drugs to plutonium, appear to spread their
tentacles to encompass the globe. The heart of the matter
lies, however, in rehabilitating those social environments
which the illicit trade invades, thrives upon and exploits.
Safeguarding the dignity of every human being,
through the full respect for the right to life, liberty and
security of person must remain the basis of our collective
action.
We all declare ourselves committed to the principles
enshrined 46 years ago in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. This commitment, however, has oft fallen
victim to that pragmatic approach which demands looking
the other way - a philosophy that justifies living with the
lesser evil, supposedly to avoid the greater evil. The
fallacy of this approach has been seen in many and varied
instances, ranging from corruption within the body politic,
to totalitarianism at the national level, to trans-boundary
crime and terrorism at the international level.
For five years we have been speaking of the creation
of a new international order. The words and setting were
praiseworthy, as was the commitment to do good. In our
euphoria, we assumed that our desire for a new world
community where law, order and development should
prevail was universally shared.
Crude realities have proved that in making this
assumption we failed to note that our desire for good could
be matched, indeed challenged, by the evil intentions of
others. It was thought that this challenge could come only
from existing regimes which we rightfully tried to treat as
outcasts - little realizing that the roots of the issue were
more widespread and lay in the lack of balance and
harmonious development of economic and socio-political
systems.
The conclusion of the Uruguay Round this year and
the setting up of the World Trade Organization could
provide us with a channel where trade practices become
more transparent and fair. Trade is the driving force
behind economic growth and social stability. Lack of
viable economic activity erodes the basis of democratic
societies, rendering them fragile and subject to instability.
One cannot but praise the efforts of the peoples and
Governments of many States in striving to build stable
economic infrastructures. Their enterprise cannot be
achieved without the constant support of developed States
with long-established free-market economies.
A new approach requires that we gird ourselves
properly to face the challenges ahead. On the national
level, political and socio-economic structures must ensure
dignity for one and all.
On 21 September, Malta celebrated the thirtieth
anniversary of its independence. During these three
decades, many were the challenges faced and the lessons
learnt. Democracy based on the dignity of each citizen is
a task that requires an ever-renewing commitment by all
social forces to the right to freedom of opinion.
Pluralism is an essential catalyst in the democratic
process and requires that we honour its full meaning in
the different areas where it manifests itself. However
much this impetus is strengthened when fired by
Governments, it is handicapped each time an authoritarian
Government assumes that it can rule by diktat. During
the past seven years my Government has committed itself
to strengthening pluralism in such vital areas as
broadcasting, education and trade. Pluralism is a vote of
confidence in the people, and a democratically elected
Government cannot but reciprocate the trust bestowed by
the electorate.
The consolidation of democracy was not the only
challenge we had to face. During these 30 years we
radically transformed an economy entirely dependent on
the presence of foreign military bases into one benefiting
from thriving financial, industrial and tourism sectors.
This transition has given Malta the economic buoyancy
required of it as a prospective member of the European
Union. We note with satisfaction the decision, taken last
June at the Corfu Summit, that Malta will be included in
the next phase of the enlargement of the European Union.
This state of economic well-being has enabled the
Government to consolidate a social policy inspired by the
concept of solidarity. Over three decades we have
11

introduced schemes ensuring equal access for men and
women by providing appropriate formal educational and
social structures.
In enacting this policy, the Government has not
ignored its responsibility to ensure a dignified life for all
through programmes that range from free medical aid for
all citizens to care of the elderly and integration of the
handicapped.
Today, Malta can rightfully claim to be a nation at
peace with itself and with others. Though conscious of our
limitations, we have never let size inhibit our mature
involvement in the international arena. On the occasion of
the recent signing of the Agreement on the implementation
of part XI of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, many representatives acknowledged Malta’s role in
launching the concept of common heritage - a concept that
today is the guiding principle in a number of conventions.
Malta stands committed to the creation of a global society
based on the principles of dignity and solidarity.
Throughout the centuries, Malta has had its existence
marked by the contradiction between its size and its
strategic importance. This has necessitated an
understanding of the importance of regional stability
through cooperation. Since independence, we have
cultivated an awareness of the importance of stability in the
Mediterranean. The progress registered in the Middle East
peace process following the signing of the Declaration of
Principles and the Washington Accords of 13 September
1993 makes it easier to understand the importance of the
interdependence of European security and Mediterranean
security.
Malta has been the first in international forums - and
has sometimes been alone - to advocate the need for a
Mediterranean dialogue, and it has been consistent in
advancing proposals to this end. Over the years since the
Helsinki Summit Declaration we have promoted the link
between security in Europe and security in the
Mediterranean.
Today, the Mediterranean dimension is high on the
international agenda. From both sides of this sea of destiny
the need for a Mediterranean forum has been underlined -
not for the sake of creating another international body but
as an aspect of the logic of existence in the light of the
many problems in the region. These problems range from
unemployment to overpopulation, terrorism and ethnic strife
- all in a narrow highway that affects stability in the region
and beyond, thus threatening the future of millions.
We cannot, therefore, but identify ourselves with
Foreign Minister Alain Juppé, who, in his address to this
Assembly at its 8th plenary meeting, stated that France
would like to see Europe organizing a forum for
cooperation involving all the Mediterranean States, and
would be making this one of the main goals of the
forthcoming French presidency of the European Union.
We also welcome the statement made at the 6th plenary
meeting by the President of the Council of Ministers of
the European Union - Foreign Minister Klaus Kinkel -
that Europe attaches great importance to security in the
Mediterranean.
Principled cooperation reflects a fundamental and
essential Maltese social reality. It was through the
extension of this matured concept to the broader European
and international level that, within the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), Malta
launched the initiative for the Conference to declare itself
a regional arrangement for the maintenance of peace and
security in the terms of Chapter VIII of the United
Nations Charter - a declaration adopted by CSCE Heads
of State and Government at the Helsinki II Summit.
In calling for a new approach at the regional level,
we cannot but renew our support for, and our
commitment to, the CSCE process. The CSCE was the
first body to give tangible form to the connection between
the political, economic and human dimensions. The
CSCE need not be copied in its detail by other regions,
but it provides a model of confidence-building to which
other regions can aspire.
The need for a new approach has long been felt at
the United Nations. Initiatives taken by Malta when it
occupied the presidency of the General Assembly at its
forty-fifth session, four years ago, are slowly bearing
fruit. However, it is only legitimate to ask whether the
results are proportionate to the efforts made. My
Government welcomes as a step in the right direction the
recently adopted resolution on revitalization of the
General Assembly. Important as it is, this step cannot but
lead to others meant to enhance the role of this forum.
We have to maintain the central role of the General
Assembly in the framework of the United Nations. This
is the only forum where all members are permanent
members. We believe that the General Assembly has to
develop and define the fact-finding mechanism that
pertains to it. We also have to ensure what former
Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar referred to as
"a balanced constitutional relationship". The maintenance
12

of this relationship with and between the principal organs
of the Organization, including the General Assembly, the
Security Council and the Secretariat, is important not as an
issue of the internal working of the Organization but
because "it bears on the guardianship of peace exercised by
the United Nations ".
In his report "An Agenda for Peace", Secretary-
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali underlines the relevance of
the General Assembly as a universal forum by calling for
recognition of its capacity to consider and recommend
appropriate action in the maintenance of international peace
and security. He says:
"To that end it is essential to promote its utilization by
all Member States so as to bring greater influence to
bear in pre-empting or containing situations which are
likely to threaten peace and security." (A/47/277,
para. 36)
In this respect, the reforms related to the restructuring
of the Security Council, which we hope will be negotiated
by next year, have a bearing because of the qualitative
change they would generate. My Government is studying
the proposals already submitted, including the Italian
proposal presented yesterday by Foreign Minister Martino.
Next year we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of
the United Nations system. The international community
is becoming more aware of the vast extent of common
concerns which bond our fate as a global community. A
number of international conventions today make specific
reference to the common heritage of mankind.
The universal acceptance of this principle is to our
collective credit. It is proof of the sense of responsibility
and equity that inspires Member States in their obligations
towards present and future generations. Only an underlying
solidarity can ensure the survival of the planet. This sense
of inter-generation solidarity truly dignifies humanity.
Malta has underlined the need for a unit to coordinate
and monitor areas related to the common heritage. A
convergence of all efforts becomes instrumental to the
efficiency with which such initiatives, born of conventions,
may work and bear fruit.
A scenario marked by institutional fragmentation can
be avoided only by establishing institutional oversight in the
interest of the areas we hold in trust for future generations.
Rather than reinventing the wheel, we are proposing a
transition and evolution in the role of Trusteeship Council,
for we are convinced that the Trusteeship Council could
be such a point of convergence.
We have taken note of the part of the report of the
Secretary-General on the work of the Organization which
deals with the Trusteeship Council and, in particular, the
recommendation that the General Assembly proceed with
steps to eliminate that organ in accordance with Article
108 of the Charter. We agree with the Secretary- General
that with the end of the Trusteeship Agreement on Palau
the Council, as conceived, has concluded its task.
The concept of trust - a concept of English Common
Law which is fundamental in its fiduciary nature - is one
that reflects the mission of the League of Nations and
later the United Nations in so far as certain Territories
were concerned. We have to apply the concept of trust
to new realities. We believe that the United Nations
holds in trust for humanity its common heritage and its
common concerns: the environment; the resources of the
sea and of the seabed; the climate; the rights of future
generations; and the safeguarding of the rights of peoples
in situations of complete breakdown of the organs of the
State. We believe that we hold these in trust for
humanity, and an enhanced and redefined Trusteeship
Council can be the right organ for this purpose.
The challenges of the present times demand that we
look at the United Nations system with innovative eyes.
We cannot aspire to a new world order and yet persist in
viewing the institutional mechanisms of the United
Nations through the same cold-war lenses, which are ill
focused for our times and now shattered by the course of
history. We need to view the United Nations as a
complex adaptive system, a system which, without
renouncing its original ideals and basic principles,
responds adequately and promptly to contemporary needs,
a proactive United Nations rather than a reactive one, a
United Nations which moulds a new mentality apart from
ironing creases and mending tears in the fabric of
international relations.
The challenge today is not a physical dividing wall.
This generation can one day look back with pride at what
it has achieved. The recent ceremonies marking the
departure of foreign troops stationed in Germany is a
reminder of how significantly different political realities
are today from the days when the Berlin Wall cut across
a city, a nation and a continent with the same callousness
with which it cut across the soul and spirit of Europe.
13

Equally breathtaking was the transition from a South
Africa built on the bastion of apartheid to a democratic
South Africa which cherishes the dignity of all of its
citizens.
The walls of division are also being dismantled in the
Middle East, where political determination and goodwill
can and should ensure the full enjoyment of sovereignty
and political rights for all peoples living in the region.
However, there are many other situations at which we
shall some day look back in anger. The challenge to our
political will today is the tragedy of the children in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, the rotting, butchered bodies floating in
the rivers of Rwanda, the millions of refugees with their
lives wasted in never-ending waiting, the other millions of
depressed and oppressed living an existence without
dignity.
1995 is a year of challenge. It is the year of the
World Summit for Social Development and of the Fourth
World Conference on Women, the next two links in the
triad begun with the recent International Conference on
Population and Development at Cairo. Three Conferences
which, with Habitat II, require a global approach focused
on development rather than on the promotion of hidden
agendas which are irrelevant in the resolution of essential
issues - essential issues which represent a billion people
living in abject poverty, half of whom go to bed hungry
every day.
There is a poverty curtain which continues to create a
great divide and which becomes more impenetrable when
we wilfully shut our eyes to the concept of solidarity.
Empowerment becomes a mere cliché if it fails to ensure a
life in dignity for this ocean of humanity denied of its most
basic right to life, liberty and security of person.
In issuing declarations we do well to underline our
commitment to eradicating the root causes that generate so
much misery, anguish and pain. We do even better when
we make firm commitments on assistance to States which
require our solidarity, States in need that require us to
match our words with deeds.
Solidarity means reaching out rather than holding out.
Solidarity is the building block of greater security to ensure
the livelihood and dignity of millions. Solidarity is a key
factor in the promotion of development in the lives and
minds of men, and hence in the complex relations that
guide the international community.
Our legacy to future generations would be a poor
one if development and solidarity were not matched by
compliance with international standards of human rights.
The importance of the rule of law and democracy requires
that the international community safeguard human rights.
Denial of liberty is the refusal of that oxygen that enables
a developed community to live in harmony with itself and
others. The challenge of the twenty-first century is not
liberty in the abstract: it is the responsibility of the
United Nations to be an instrument in forging principles
into concrete action.
A second-generation United Nations facing the
challenge of solidarity must serve as a guidepost to
humanity in its long walk towards peace in freedom.


 I
should like to convey to Mr. Essy of Côte d’Ivoire our
sincere congratulations on his election to the presidency
of the General Assembly at its forty-ninth session. I am
certain that his experience will be a positive factor in
ensuring the success of the session’s deliberations.
Iraq is one of the founding Members of the United
Nations. Over the past five decades it has taken an active
part in all the Organization’s activities, has cooperated
effectively with its various organs and has contributed
generously when it was able to do so. Iraq has also
adhered to the decisions of the Organization in
accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter.
At the international level, Iraq has participated
actively and responsibly in the Movement of Non-aligned
Countries, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and
the League of Arab States. During the 1970s it provided
assistance and soft loans amounting to about $10 billion
to developing countries in Africa, Asia and Latin and
15
General Assembly 22nd meeting

Central America. Iraq has called for justice in political and
economic relations and has affirmed the need to respect
international law. These positions of Iraq are known to all.
What now concerns my country is the nature of the
current stage of the relationship between Iraq and the
Security Council, which is based on the Council’s
resolution 687 (1991), adopted in April of that year. That
resolution, which imposed a number of obligations on Iraq,
has no precedent among United Nations resolutions
throughout the history of the Organization. This is how it
is seen today in international circles, both legal and
political. However, despite its cruel and extraordinary
nature, Iraq informed the Security Council that it was ready
to comply with it within the requirements laid down by the
Charter’s provisions regarding resolutions adopted under
Chapter VII.
Since that date, despite the harsh conditions obtaining
in our country as a result of the total war waged by the
most powerful States of the world — a war in which more
than 100,000 tons of explosives were dumped on civilian
utilities throughout the country — and despite the effects of
the comprehensive and harsh embargo, Iraq has striven to
implement the resolution.
In March 1992 — less than a year after the adoption
of the resolution — and in November of the same year we
came to the Security Council to explain the substantial and
serious steps that had been taken by Iraq in the process of
implementing its provisions. On both occasions, we
requested that positive and fair consideration be given to
what had been achieved and that steps be taken towards
easing the comprehensive blockade imposed upon Iraq in
accordance with the terms of the resolution and,
specifically, the unbearable suffering of the 20 million
people of Iraq. However, our requests were not heeded.
In the middle of 1993 Iraq’s relationship with the
Special Commission and with the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) saw a breakthrough in the field of
positive and constructive cooperation with a view to
completing the implementation of part C of Security
Council resolution 687 (1991) — the provisions relating to
proscribed weapons, which the resolution legally ties to the
lifting of the embargo on oil exports.
In the process of this cooperation — on
26 November 1993 — we presented our official letter
concerning compliance with Security Council resolution 715
(l991). The letter dealt with the monitoring of weapons.
This was done after we had been assured that Iraq’s official
acknowledgment of compliance represented the most
expeditious means of securing the application of
paragraph 22 of resolution 687 (1991). This clear and
categorical assurance is referred to in the report issued as
document S/26571 on 12 October 1993. However, what
we were told would be done has not been done.
During the past 11 months we have witnessed
transparent tactics to delay and obstruct. These have
taken various forms. Their purpose is to delay
indefinitely the lifting of the embargo. In spite of the
official acknowledgment by the Special Commission and
the IAEA of the relevant Iraqi authorities’ continuing
cooperation, as well as the notable achievements of
completion of the work required by those bodies over a
period of more than a year, we still confront deliberate
ambiguity with regard to the Security Council’s discharge
its obligations under paragraph 22, which permits the
export of Iraqi products and commodities, including oil.
The blockade imposed on Iraq represents the most
comprehensive regime ever imposed by the Security
Council in all its history. With the exception of food and
medicine, it includes everything and affects all aspects of
life. As a result of the freezing of Iraqi assets in foreign
banks, Iraq is denied all the financial resources that would
enable it to pay for the food and medicines its people
need. This has rendered practically redundant the
exceptions relating to food and medicines.
In addition, the Sanctions Committee, which the
Security Council entrusted with the task of authorizing the
importation of material to Iraq, agreed on the consensus
method of making decisions. However, the reality is
exactly the opposite: decisions are required to be
unanimous.
It is sufficient for the objection of one member to
frustrate any request for imports. It is worth noting that
only three of the members of the Committee have been
the source of constant objections on the vast majority of
the import requests relating to the provision of
humanitarian civilian needs. What has made the situation
in the Sanctions Committee even worse is that it proceeds
on the basis of procedures which do not recognize
precedents and deals with each case individually. This
has led to confusion, disorder and ambiguity in the work
of the Committee in regard to what is permitted, both in
relation to quantity and quality. It is not difficult to see,
therefore, the harmful negative consequences of this
method of work by the Committee on the flow of
16
General Assembly 22nd meeting

humanitarian goods, which are of a limited quantity
anyway.
Let me refer to some glaring examples. The Sanctions
Committee refused on numerous occasions to permit the
importation of shrouds, pencils, cloth of all kinds including
the type used for hospital bed sheets, threads of all kinds,
paper for printing school books, leather, car tires including
used tires, nails; the list is long and it is well documented
in the records of the Committee.
This situation makes it incumbent upon the
international community to reflect upon the philosophy of
the sanctions regime of within the Charter of the United
Nations. Is that regime a means to an end or is it an end
in itself? Further, what is the nature of that regime? Is it
punitive, or is it a series of procedures designed to achieve
the purposes of the Charter irrespective of the unilateral
goals and whims of foreign policies of Member States? It
is well known to all that the sanctions regime under the
Charter is nothing but a series of procedures adopted to
achieve certain results that lead in turn to the achievement
of the purposes and principles of the United Nations, and
that such procedures should end with the cessation of their
causes. What then is the state of correct application of
these procedures following all the cooperation and progress
achieved in complying with the resolutions of the Security
Council by Iraq? What is clear to us is that the application
of sanctions and the embargo in the manner described
against Iraq is a process of vengeance, a process aimed at
depriving the people of Iraq, a nation of with great history,
a nation which has contributed immensely to human
civilization, depriving it of the simplest requirements of
human life.
The reports of the relevant specialized agencies
indicate the continuing deterioration of living conditions of
the Iraqi citizens. The Iraqi Government makes available
to every citizen a limited rations of flour, rice, tea, cooking
oil, soap, baby formula and whatever other items might be
available. This share is however to meet the basic
nutritional needs of human beings. Of late, we have been
forced to reduce this ration due to the lack of financial
resources and as well as poor agricultural output resulting
from the embargo. Consequently, the largest number of
citizens cannot buy what they lack of these and other items
because of the high prices, especially for protein items, and
they are therefore suffering from malnutrition. This
situation has affected the physical wellbeing of the
individual citizen in Iraq.
Despite the efforts of the Government to support and
develop the agricultural sector, great difficulties continue
to be faced due to the embargo. For example, the lack of
pesticides, insecticides, agricultural machinery and
equipment, water pumps and fertilizers. We do not have
the financial means to offset these shortages; and when
we do have some financial resources, the Sanctions
Committee promptly obstructs their importation.
The Joint Mission of the Food and Agricultural
Organization and the World Food Programme, which
visited Iraq in June 1993, did indicate in its Special Alert
No. 237 (1993) the magnitude of the danger resulting
from the blockade on the agricultural capabilities of Iraq,
which caused the loss of food-security and generated
persistent deprivation, chronic hunger and endemic
malnutrition among the vast majority of the population.
The third FAO Special Report of May 1994 dealt with the
grave problems of providing food and crops in Iraq due
to the shortages of agricultural requirements. The same
Report noted that these problems cannot be solved by the
provision of food aid and that the permanent solution to
the present food crisis lies in reviving the Iraqi economy
which cannot be achieved without resuming the activity
of international trade. It is also indicated that the
rationing system used by the Iraqi Government, though
very successful, provides only about one-half of the
average caloric intake which used to be available to the
citizens of Iraq before the imposition of the sanctions.
In the public health sector, health services have
deteriorated, after they had been amongst the relatively
advanced in the world. Due to shortages of medicine and
the deterioration of medical equipment, cases of death
have reached 384,022 cases from August 1990 to March
1994. The cases of death among infants have also
increased and now reach 126 cases per l00,000 live births
whereas it had been only 32 per thousand in the period
1985 to 1990.
There are those who claim that the Government of
Iraq is the party responsible for not making available
food, medicine and essential civilian needs to the people
because it has refused to accept Security Council
resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991). Such allegations
are mere falsifications.
Fair and objective consideration of the full picture of
the arrangements adopted in these two resolutions would
lead one to the conclusion that they do represent
17
General Assembly 22nd meeting

a political programme aimed at violating the sovereignty of
Iraq, interfering in its internal affairs and dividing its people
along ethnic and sectarian lines, rather than ensuring the
satisfying of humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq.
Through five rounds of talks with the Secretariat in Vienna
and New York in 1992 and 1993 we have sought to reach
acceptable modalities through sound arrangements in order
to ensure the satisfaction of the humanitarian civilian needs
of our people. However, despite the sustained efforts that
have been made, such efforts have failed to reach an
appropriate solution, a solution free of the objectives of the
biased political programme through the pressures brought
to bear by the United States. One of the major ironies
during those talks was that the oil and banking experts who
were part of the United Nations delegation did acknowledge
that the arrangements adopted in the two said resolutions
were not at all customary in the oil and banking fields.
Could it be deemed reasonable by anyone involved in
the oil industry that the signing of an oil-export contract
should require no less than 30 procedural steps? Do
Members realize that the banking arrangements stipulated
by the two resolutions totally ignore the existence of a
developed banking sector in Iraq? Do Members realize that
a simple contract for the importation of food or medicine
requires no fewer than 20 bureaucratic steps in order for
those goods to reach Iraq, and that even after their arrival
they are subject to monitoring by hundreds of United
Nations monitors from the time they leave the Iraqi border
until they reach the consumer? This is the true story of
resolutions 706 (1991) and 712 (1991). Those two
resolutions were never intended to meet the humanitarian
needs of the people of Iraq.
In the course of the Security Council’s periodic
reviews, which take place every 60 days and the latest of
which took place on 14 September last, the United States
falsely accused Iraq on various counts in order to justify its
position of delaying the lifting of sanctions indefinitely.
We find it useful to refer to some examples of these
accusations so that the General Assembly may see the
picture clearly.
The United States charges that Iraq’s cooperation with
the Security Council has been sporadic, selective and
opportunistic. This is a baseless accusation. It is well
known that Iraq agreed to comply with the relevant
resolutions of the Security Council and sought persistently
to implement their provisions correctly and legally. We
believe that the majority of the members of the Security
Council do not join the United States in its accusation.
The United States also charges that Iraq’s record
with respect to the implementation of its obligations in
the area of proscribed weapons was a partial and grudging
acquiescence to United Nations demands. The facts,
however, prove otherwise. This is made clear in the
reports of the Special Commission and the International
Atomic Energy Agency, especially those issued since July
1993. The latest of those reports, circulated in document
S/1994/860, states,
“The Special Commission and the IAEA noted
with appreciation the constructive cooperation
received from Iraq and the efforts made by the
competent Iraqi authorities in the conduct of their
tasks.” (S/1994/860, para. 6)
Another accusation is that the Government of Iraq cut off
electricity from certain areas in the northern Iraqi
Governorates. Those who make this accusation ignore the
fact that the comprehensive embargo imposed upon Iraq
does not make sufficient financial resources available to
the Government to import spare parts and equipment for
ensuring the maintenance of electrical service in the
country. Moreover, the accusers are the very ones who
constantly object in the sanctions Committee to Iraqi
requests for importing material with which to maintain the
electricity grid, in the event we have some resources
available to that end.
The United States also accuses the Government of
Iraq of draining the marshes in the southern part of the
country in pursuit of a political programme aimed against
the population of the area. According to the allegation,
this action destroys their cultural heritage and causes
harm to the environment. I say that this accusation, like
the others, is baseless. It is utterly at odds with the sense
of objectivity expected of a permanent member of the
Security Council.
The truth is that the Government of Iraq carried out
extensive irrigation projects in the southern part of the
country, including the area of the marshes, in order to
reduce salinity in the water and soil, which is a problem
in central and southern Iraq, thereby increasing the
amount of arable land. The planning for these projects
goes back to the days of the Rehabilitation Board in the
fifties. American, British, French, German, Dutch,
Russian and Canadian companies and consultants
participated in drawing up and revising the plans and, in
part, in their implementation.
18
General Assembly 22nd meeting

After the imposition of the comprehensive blockade
the competent Iraqi authorities completed the projects by
themselves. One of the ironies of the situation is that the
principal proponent of draining the marshes of southern
Iraq in the fifties was an American expert working for the
Iraqi Board. It is also ironic that one of the rivers in the
area is still called the Dutch River because a Dutch
company carried out a project there.
I have been prompted to mention some of the
accusations levelled at Iraq in order to shed light on the
real situation and the fabrications and falsifications used as
pretexts to prolong the iniquitous blockade against us. But
it is even more important to refer to some glaring examples
of the conduct of those who accuse us, to wit, the United
States of America.
The United States, the State that is so concerned with
respect for Security Council resolutions, imposes two no-fly
zones in the north and the south of Iraq without any
authorization from the Security Council or any legitimate
justification under international law. The United States
Administration, which pretends to be so concerned over the
rights of the Kurds in Iraq, was the very party that
prevented the leaders of the Kurds from honouring an
agreement that, after four months of dialogue, was freely
entered into with the Government of Iraq in 1991. The
United States Administration stated openly that that
agreement would have strengthened the authority of the
present national Government in Iraq, which was contrary to
the United States objective of changing that Government.
Is this attitude in harmony with the Security Council
resolutions that provide for respect of sovereignty and the
achievement of international peace and security and stability
in the region? Is it acceptable, under the resolutions of the
Security Council, for that Administration to obstruct the
operation of flights transporting pilgrims from a friendly
Muslim State to Iraq’s sacred religious shrines under the
pretext that a number of politicians from that State were
among the pilgrims? That very Administration also
obstructed, under flimsy pretexts, the aerial shipment of
meat from the Sudan to Iraq.
Lastly in this connection, I should like to affirm that
Iraq expressed, in the words of its leader, President Saddam
Hussein, its sincere desire to turn a new leaf with its
neighbouring Arab countries in order to establish relations
based on the Charter of the League of Arab States, the
Charter of the United Nations and on the basis of mutual
respect for one another’s sovereignty and regard for each
other’s interests. However, it is well known to all that the
United States Administration is the party that obstructs
those efforts and brings pressure to bear on the States of
the region to prevent dialogue with Iraq. The article by
United States Secretary of State Warren Christopher
published in The New York Times last April is, we
believe, the most telling evidence in that respect.
Despite the harshness of the Security Council’s
resolutions concerning Iraq, we have implemented many
of their provisions fully. We are legally and correctly
continuing with the implementation of whatever
provisions remain in the relevant resolutions. Within this
process, we are also prepared to satisfy and allay the
concerns of the members of the Security Council of
which we have become aware in our contacts, although
some of them have been introduced in legally irrelevant
contexts.
In the meantime, however, we wonder: is it the duty
of the State in question under the Charter to implement
the provisions of the Security Council resolutions adopted
under Chapter VII, without expecting any counter-
obligations from the Council to implement the same
provisions? The just, legal view is that resolutions of the
Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter are
binding upon the State in question and all other States,
particularly the members of the Security Council, and
even more particularly the Permanent Members of the
Security Council. This, undoubtedly, is the rule of the
Charter. It is therefore a foregone conclusion that the
members of the Security Council, and especially its
Permanent Members, should be keener than any other to
abide by the resolutions they themselves adopt. However,
the facts of the situation now are that one Permanent
Member, namely the United States of America, is
persistently obstructing any steps towards the correct legal
application of the resolutions of the Council, particularly
those provisions relating to the lifting of sanctions from
Iraq, and is conducting itself on the basis of biased
political motives that bear no relation to either the
resolutions of the Council or the Charter.
The General Assembly is the general organ entrusted
with deliberating on the world Organization as a whole
under the Charter. Under the Charter, Member States
have conferred on the Security Council the primary
responsibility for the maintenance of international peace
and security, and have agreed that in carrying out its
duties under this responsibility, the Security Council acts
on their behalf, in accordance with the Purposes and
Principles of the United Nations Charter. Consequently,
under the Charter, the members of the Security Council,
19
General Assembly 22nd meeting

both individually and collectively, bear the joint
responsibility of the membership of the Organization. The
collectivity of membership, as represented by the General
Assembly, does not, on the basis of the delegation of
power, lose the right to seek, through all available means,
the correction of any failure that might arise in performing
that responsibility.
Proceeding from this, we request that the members of
the Security Council, the General Assembly and the
international community as a whole look into the iniquitous
and illegitimate situation in which one or two Permanent
Members obstruct the correct legal application of the
resolutions of the Security Council and consequently
continue to impose upon the Iraqi people, a nation of
ancient history, cruel suffering afflicting all aspects of
human life.
It is within Iraq’s right to demand strongly that this
iniquitous and illegitimate situation be changed as soon as
possible and to seek full clarification of the position of the
Security Council on its just demands.