I begin by paying a tribute to Dr.
Akila Al-Hashimi, a senior member of the Iraqi
Governing Council, who died earlier today.
I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Al-Hashimi
earlier this year in London and later in Baghdad, and I
was struck by her courage and her dedication to the
Iraqi people. Dr. Al-Hashimi was murdered by those
who would deny the Iraqi people the democratic,
prosperous future they so richly deserve. The best
service that we can render her memory is to defeat the
terrorists and to ensure that her vision of a peaceful,
free Iraq prevails.
Of course, we owe this service to all those who
have fallen in the cause of peace in Iraq. Sergio Vieira
de Mello and the United Nations personnel who were
killed or injured in the blast in Baghdad on 19 August
were committed to bringing the ideals of the United
Nations to the people of Iraq. They paid the ultimate
sacrifice for their dedication. We mourn their loss, but
we will not weaken in our resolve to help the Iraqi
people rebuild their country on the principles of justice
and security.
What, I think, makes Iraq so important was the
way in which it tested the role and purpose of this
institution over more than a dozen years. Throughout
that period, the international community remained in
agreement that the regime of Saddam Hussein posed a
Chapter VII threat to international peace and security
by its proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
programmes and its unparalleled defiance of the will of
the United Nations. Yet, earlier this year, sadly, we
divided on when and what action was necessary to deal
with the Iraqi threat.
Of course, I acknowledge the controversy over
the military action which the United Kingdom, the
United States and others took and the heavy
responsibilities we now bear, but I firmly believe that
the decisions we took were the right ones. The
authority of the United Nations was at stake. Having
given Saddam Hussein’s regime a final opportunity to
comply with the United Nations, what would have
happened if we had simply turned away? Would the
world be a safer place today? Would Iraq be a better
place today? Would the United Nations be a stronger
institution today? The answer to each of those
questions is no. Saddam Hussein would have been
emboldened by our failure to act; every dictator would
have been encouraged to follow his example; and the
authority of this United Nations would have been
gravely weakened.
Yet, whatever the arguments of the spring, we
have now to come together again for a common
purpose. As the Security Council has recognized in its
three resolutions 1472 (2003), 1483 (2003) and 1500
(2003), we have a shared interest in helping Iraqi
citizens to embrace the rights and freedoms which they
have been denied so long and for which this institution
was founded. Yes, the security situation does present
formidable challenges. Terrorists who despise freedom
are seeking to plunge Iraq into chaos. They have
inflicted terrible blows on the Iraqi people, coalition
soldiers and international aid workers, but ultimately
they will fail.
And let us also not lose sight of what has been
achieved and what is taking shape. Saddam Hussein’s
reign of terror is over. The apparatus of torture and
oppression which claimed hundreds of thousands of
31

lives is at an end. Instead, we have the beginnings of a
representative Government run by Iraqis for Iraqis;
new ministries providing daily services to the people; a
free press; the freedom for members of all religious
communities to worship as they wish; hospitals and
schools in operation; bustling traffic on the streets and
highways; and a start to real economic regeneration.
We shall stay in Iraq as long, but only as long, as
it is necessary to meet our clear responsibilities and to
restore sovereignty to the Iraqi people as quickly as we
can in an orderly manner. I hope very much that we can
agree a new Security Council resolution to strengthen
the United Nations role in Iraq. In managing this
transition, we should be guided by three central
principles: first, the transfer of powers must reflect
realities on the ground in Iraq, particularly the need to
ensure security; secondly, the Iraqi institutions must be
sufficiently robust to take on increasing responsibilities;
and thirdly, the exercise of executive powers and
responsibilities must be based on good governance,
involving representative Iraqi authorities and coherent
constitutional arrangements. In other words, the timetable
should be driven by the needs of the Iraqi people and their
capacity progressively to assume democratic control,
rather than by fixing arbitrary deadlines.
Iraq is, sadly, not the only territory in the Middle
East where the international community faces great
challenges. Three months ago, we all had high hopes
about the work of the Quartet of the United Nations,
the European Union, the Russian Federation and the
United States in Israel and the occupied territories. It is
tragic that these hopes were blown apart on 19 August
by the terrorist atrocity in Jerusalem, which came only
a few hours after the terrorist atrocity against the
United Nations in Baghdad, but the international
community has to stay united on both the means and
the ends in the Middle East. There are no alternatives
to the road map and there can be no alternatives to the
outcome the entire world wishes to see — two States,
Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and
security. This can be the only fitting memorial to the
thousands who have died on both sides since the
beginning of this appalling conflict.
The breadth of the issues being tackled by the
United Nations and its agencies demonstrates the
continued relevance of this institution. The Counter-
Terrorism Committee has given the United Nations a
focus for its work following  September two years
ago, but we must now build upon that work, giving the
Committee the expertise and the remit to reinforce the
capacity of Member States to tackle and to overcome
terrorism.
We also know that proliferation is one of the
greatest threats we face alongside terrorism. Much
good work on proliferation is being done by United
Nations agencies, particularly the International Atomic
Energy Agency, but it is extraordinary that the Security
Council itself has not addressed the issue of
proliferation for over 10 years. In our judgement, it is
time that it did.
Problems of internal conflict, on the other hand,
are regularly on the Security Council’s agenda. The
United Nations has unrivalled expertise and experience
in this area and has achieved great things in countries
as far apart as East Timor and Sierra Leone, but nation-
building is a collaborative effort, requiring the
resources and commitment of Member States if the
United Nations peace-building is to be effective. We
therefore need new mechanisms to help prevent
conflicts and then to help States before they collapse.
We must also make a real success of the
Millennium Declaration. We have to overcome the
setback of Cancún and secure a positive outcome to the
Doha Round.
These and other shared problems require
collective responses, as our Secretary-General so
eloquently said here in his speech on Tuesday. A key to
this is to ensure that the United Nations itself remains
an effective global forum capable of delivering results.
The Secretary-General posed some difficult questions
two days ago. I welcome his initiative to seek the
advice of a distinguished group to make proposals on
reform. I welcome, too, his parallel commitment to
modernizing the United Nations and its agencies.
For our part, the United Kingdom is committed to
making the Security Council more representative. The
issue is not whether but how to do this. A bigger and
more representative Council, however, will not of itself
make it easier to make the tough choices which it has
to face so often. The most important ingredient is the
political will and determination of the members of the
Council to take effective action.
The most important part of the Secretary-
General’s speech on Tuesday was about the choices
now confronting the United Nations. He was right
about those. We have indeed come to a fork in the road.
32

Down one route lies a world in which the United
Nations strengthens its role as the collective instrument
for protecting our peace and security; down the other
route lies a world in which collective action becomes a
synonym for “inaction”. We must not take this second
route. The Secretary-General’s speech was a challenge
to all of us. We all share a world in which international
terrorists strike down the innocent, regardless of faith
or nationality, and we are all less secure when weapons
of mass destruction are in reckless hands. We do not
have the luxury simply of rejecting unilateralism, while
proposing no multilateral means of confronting and
dealing with these threats.
The British Government is profoundly
committed, as it always has been, to the ideals of the
United Nations. To us, the importance of this
Organization has always been its ability to put those
high ideals into effect. We will work wholeheartedly
with the Secretary-General and the international
community to ensure that the United Nations retains
and strengthens both its idealism and its effectiveness.


The
serious events currently threatening international peace
and security   armed conflict, terrorism, poverty,
disease and unfair trading practices   call urgently
and firmly to mankind's conscience and, above all, to
that of the world's leaders. Guided by this
consideration, I come before this Assembly to share
our common concerns with the other leaders of the
world and to seek appropriate answers that will restore
confidence and hope to humankind.
Given the importance of this gathering, the
election of Mr. Hunte to the presidency of the General
Assembly at its fifty-eighth session in every way
represents a tribute and a symbol of the honour being
paid to a young and small nation, Saint Lucia. That
honour is ours as well   the honour of small States,
which see this consecration as a demonstration of the
United Nations awareness of the concept of the
sovereign equality of States.
We extend the same sentiments to Mr. Hunte's
predecessor, Mr. Jan Kavan.
We must recognize, however, that all of our
expectations of this session will be chimerical if we do
not fully support the activities of the Secretary-
General. I therefore wish solemnly to congratulate Mr.
Kofi Annan on his active commitment to the cause of
peace and justice and to reaffirm our complete trust in
him and our sincere encouragement. That is particularly
true this year because our Organization was brutally
tested and unfairly harmed by the heinous attack of 19
August on the United Nations office in Baghdad, which
took the lives of a number of staff members, including
that of the Special Representative of the Secretary-
General for Iraq, Mr. Sergio Vieira de Mello. Burkina
Faso once again pays tribute to their memory.
The convulsions of our times   reflected in the
increased hotbeds of crisis, the radicalization of
international terrorism and organized crime, growing
poverty and the proliferation of disease   convince us
fully that international solidarity must remain active if
we are to guarantee our world the stability and security it
so desires. Indeed, despite the undeniable involvement
and efforts of the United Nations; regional organizations,
such as the African Union; and subregional
organizations, such as the Economic Community of
West African States, the Southern Africa Development
Community, the Economic and Monetary Community
of Central Africa and the Community of Sahel and
Saharan States, to name but a few, in the management
and settlement of many conflicts; and despite a certain
number of success stories, such as the restoration of
peace in Angola, Sierra Leone and more generally in
the Great Lakes region, the rolling wave of armed
conflict, tension and instability threatens to become an
ongoing phenomenon.
In Iraq, given the tragic turn of events, we feel
that the Organization must once again be placed at the
heart of the key responsibilities both in order to define
a transitional political process free of any taint of
colonialism and to rebuild the country.
In the Middle East, where the escalation of
violence and the intransigence of the belligerents make
us fear the worst every day, we believe that the road
map offers an opportunity to emerge from this crisis.
However, without an international body on the ground

to follow up and monitor events, no agreement on this
major conflict can work.
We cannot fail to mention the situations in the
CÙte d'Ivoire, Burundi, Sudan and the Horn of Africa.
The very least that can be said about these conflicts is
that they remain of concern, despite all the efforts that
have been made to settle them. Clearly, given its
history and geography, the political crisis in the CÙte
d'Ivoire is a major source of anxiety to us, particularly
since the events of 19 September 2002. Above and
beyond its incalculable consequences in terms of
human lives lost, human rights violations and economic
and financial damage, that serious crisis has
demonstrated the extent to which we are so heavily
interdependent in our subregion. This is yet another
reason to hasten integration. We therefore deeply hope
that the CÙte d'Ivoire will return to lasting peace as
soon as possible through the implementation of the
Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.
Just as worrisome is the tenacity with which
terrorism harries and defies the international
community, while using its own protean manifestations
to evade the most impressive and sophisticated arsenals
set up to contain it. Given the complexity of the
phenomenon and the enormous obstacles to be
overcome, the only valid activity is to make a
collective response to what has become a threat to
everyone. In this titanic struggle, it goes without saying
that Burkina Faso is on the side of civilization against
barbarism. It is pledged to this position, subscribing
without hesitation to the anti-terror measures of the
United Nations, particularly the relevant resolutions of
the Security Council.
However, while anathematizing terrorists of all
stripes, we must recognize that one of the sources of
such tragedy is the despair of certain peoples, the
victims of intolerable frustration and injustice that are
not being addressed quickly enough. That is why we
must welcome the rejection by most countries in
Cancun of the unfair trading practices that subsidize
thousands of farmers of the North while preparing the
certain deaths of millions of peasants of the South. It is
also why our claims on behalf of African cotton
growers will intensify as the market becomes ever
more distorted. Considering that cotton production,
which represents a tiny fraction of the economic
activity of the industrialized countries, is a key element
of the poverty reduction policies and a basic factor of
the political and social stability of the States of
Western and Central Africa, it is easy to take the full
measure of the bias to which we are subject. What is
true for cotton is just as true for most of the
agricultural products of the developing countries. We
must therefore work to redress such injustices.
The duty of solidarity in favour of development is
a moral duty for the countries of the North. Such
solidarity is an urgently-needed response to the
destitution of our populations, especially since it
addresses peoples more than Governments. This
implies in no way that developing countries should be
taken in charge, but that they should be helped to
assume responsibility for their own futures. As for
Africa, it has come to see that its salvation lies in
endogenous development and has therefore decided to
take its own destiny in hand. That is the raison d''tre
of the New Partnership for Africa's Development, to
which the General Assembly is to devote a high-level
debate in the near future.
It will be noted that I have a personal stake in the
problems of development. I deeply believe that
development through expanded job opportunities and
the progressive elimination of poverty is a sine qua non
of peace and thus of the very survival of humankind.
This conviction led me to propose that, together with
the International Labour Organization, the
Organization of African Unity   and later the African
Union   begin considering the issue of employment
and the fight against poverty in Africa. A ministerial
meeting was held in Ouagadougou in April 2002 on the
issue in its many manifestations with respect to job
growth as a means of defeating poverty in Africa.
Convinced that such thinking must be carried out
at the highest level, the African Union at its Maputo
summit decided to convene in Ouagadougou next year
in 2004 a special summit of heads of State and
Government on that very theme. For African leaders
this will mean turning into specific and realistic
programmes and strategies their commitments to create
employment as a good way to combat poverty in
Africa.
That meeting will be preceded by a civil society
forum, through which employers and employees, non-
governmental organizations, the African diaspora,
institutions and development partners will make their
contributions to our collective thinking.
Progress, independence and peace are intrinsic
values of democracy. All nations and peoples are
12

working to meet that undeniable need. For more than a
decade, Burkina Faso has been firmly rooted in the rule
of law, oriented by political pluralism, good
governance and the strength of institutions that
guarantee human rights. We are pursuing this anchor of
democracy, convinced that there is nothing more
important at stake. This requirement should be true for
everyone   peoples, nations and international
organizations.
Thus, the long-sought reform of the United
Nations, with the democratization of the institution, its
structures and operations, the main goal, is becoming
an imperative. It must give greater and better
responsibilities to all nations, small and large, and
avoid exclusion, such as those that have been against
the Republic of China on Taiwan for 30 years. Nothing
justifies keeping that country of 23 million inhabitants
sidelined at the United Nations.
We are fully aware of the immensity and the
complexity of the trials that disturb international life,
but they are not insurmountable. Who could doubt that,
despite such trials and pitfalls, the world could renew
itself, if we were to agree to order our ambitions and
efforts under the auspices of the United Nations? In
that connection, Burkina Faso, a Sahelian country,
aware of the continuing deterioration of the world
ecological situation and its devastating affect on
development, supports the idea of creating a
specialized United Nations body for the environment
presented by President Jacques Chirac at the fifty-
eighth session of the General Assembly.
In conclusion, the clear awareness of what is at
stake for the international community and, above all,
the commitment we have undertaken to protect future
generations from the scourge of war, hunger and
illiteracy, are also factors that auger a more peaceful
and equitable society. We believe that, in that sign of
hope and perseverance, we should always and
everywhere direct our action.


In September of each year the Member States of the
United Nations politically rediscover the Organization
of which they are shareholders and beneficiaries.
The practice of business as usual should not mark
this session of the General Assembly. The Secretary-
General suggested that the heads of State and
Government come to New York to make their
contribution towards the strengthening of the United
Nations. Portugal, as a committed member of this
Organization, wishes to take part in this debate with a
clear objective: to recognise, as does Kofi Annan, that
the United Nations is an indispensable tool, and also to
recognise that we must re-examine our practices and
our working tools. Inactivity is not an option that this
Organization should contemplate.
Rethinking the United Nations means, first of all,
reaffirming and rethinking its Charter. Maintaining
peace and international security will continue to be our
main objective. But the reaffirmation of our faith in
fundamental rights, in the dignity and worth of human
beings, in equality between men and women and in
equality between nations, is also part of our vision for
the United Nations, as is the determination to promote,
together, social progress and better living conditions
for our peoples.
These objectives must not be overlooked when
the Organization faces crises of confidence from time
to time. The Secretary-General is correct in his
encouragement to us to persevere. But a positive
mental attitude is not enough. It is also essential that
we do not ask more of the Organization than it can
provide at any given moment. Otherwise, great
expectations will lead to great disappointments.
Realism and pragmatism are necessary, but we
must not lose sight of the ambitious objectives that this
Organization is intended to serve. It is time for us to
look at the United Nations as a reflection of what we
are collectively, and not as a convenient scapegoat to
mask the incapacity that the Member States sometimes
still reveal when we should, but are unable, to act
together.
24

We are also bound to understand, sooner or later,
that we are facing common threats that require
common responses. At the forefront of these threats is
terrorism. In fact, a new type of terrorism has emerged:
the terrorism of mass destruction that constitutes a
crime against humanity; the terrorism that kills blindly
and indiscriminately in New York, in Bali, in
Casablanca and in Nairobi, in the name of non-values
presented as values on ideological and religious
grounds; and the terrorism that did not spare the United
Nations itself, as we so tragically witnessed in
Baghdad.
The crime which claimed the lives of Sergio
Vieira de Mello and his collaborators was an attack on
all of the values which the United Nations represents. It
was an attack against us all. If there were still lingering
doubts or illusions when some thought that terrorism
was aimed essentially at some States, they disappeared
in Baghdad.
It was not the Iraqi people who murdered Sergio
Vieira de Mello and United Nations personnel.
Terrorists are responsible for that crime. It is not the
Iraqi people who are opposed to the United Nations
presence in their country. Again, it is the terrorists. The
United Nations must not bow to terrorism.
Portugal believes that the United Nations should
have a central role in the definition of a global strategy
for fighting terrorism, largely because maintaining
international peace and security depends on the
outcome of this fight. It is a fight we must undertake
without losing our souls, that is to say, the values on
which this Organization is built. It is for this reason
that more security is necessary, but also more
democracy, more dialogue between cultures and
civilizations, more development, more and better
environmental protection measures and a drastic
reduction in poverty.
It is also vital that this fight be undertaken in the
name of, and with respect for, our law — international
law. The concept of the rule of law should have real
global resonance. This is why we defend the
improvement of the laws in force, namely through the
negotiation of a global convention on international
terrorism. But we must also bear in mind that
international law will be irrelevant without the
imposition of its norms, by force if necessary.
New challenges and new threats require
innovative responses from the United Nations. It seems
blatantly obvious that the composition and decision-
making process of the Security Council are obsolete.
But changes are also needed in this Assembly, which
each year automatically re-adopts hundreds of
resolutions instead of adopting only those that are
strictly necessary. As for the Economic and Social
Council, the most that can be said is that the external
impact of its actions is not perceptible, while the
Trusteeship Council is nothing more than a relic devoid
of any relevant objective.
In his report on the implementation of the
Millennium Declaration (A/58/323), the Secretary-
General focused on this point with particular insight.
The proposals that he put forward should guide our
thinking and joint action. But there is a particularly
worrying aspect, on which we can, and indeed must,
act without delay.
I am referring to the need for the establishment of
a real preventive culture by the United Nations in
matters of armed conflict. In this context, we agree
with the relevance that the Secretary-General attributes
to preventive diplomacy, to disarmament and non-
proliferation measures, to peace-building, to respect for
human rights, to good governance and to the
development agenda.
In the final analysis, we must be fully aware that
the usefulness of the United Nations will always be
judged as a function of its capacity to avoid and handle
conflicts. In the implementation of that mission, the
fundamental role lies with the Security Council, which
has, over the years, authorized various peacekeeping
operations. The overall result has been positive.
Portugal has contributed significantly to those
operations and remains available to continue to
collaborate with the United Nations.
But conditions on the ground are not always
clear-cut, and it is not always possible to separate what
is and what is not a conflict, and what would justify or
not an intervention by the Security Council. There is an
immense grey area that can be perilous in pre-conflict
and post-conflict situations.
We must also create the tools for dealing with
countries and situations that do not need support in
terms of security, namely through a peacekeeping
operation. The intervention of the United Nations at the
critical phase of a conflict, followed by a premature
withdrawal, may well end in failure, which will
25

essentially lead to the waste of the investment made by
the international community up to that point.
This assessment recommends, for example, that
the United Nations continue to monitor closely the
situation in East Timor. It is a country whose
democratic institutions are still in the consolidation
phase. Without a tradition of self-government, it has
made uncommonly rapid progress in several areas but
is still in need of our help and attention. If we truly
want East Timor to be a real success story for the
United Nations, it is important to give the people of
East Timor time to consolidate their institutions.
However, in other cases in which a peace
operation is not yet justified and where State
institutions are fragile, where there is an enormous lack
of basic services and development has not taken off, it
is advisable to have a strong United Nations presence,
coordinated on the ground by the Secretary-General.
I would also like to take this opportunity to
mention Guinea-Bissau, which is frequently
overlooked and which once again requires our
attention. Having avoided falling into a destructive
spiral as has happened to so many countries in the
region, that country is still fighting to recover. It must
be helped, not ignored. They are a people who can and
should be helped by the international community —
and indeed deserve to be. For that reason, we support
the efforts of the Secretary-General on behalf of
democracy and development and applaud the original
contribution of the Economic and Social Council.
Under the present conditions, the Security
Council does not take into account all the factors
involved in prevention: security, nation building and
development. Each one follows a more or less
independent path.
There is one other factor to add: the Council is
fully absorbed with the management of the most
pressing matters on the international agenda and at
times demonstrates a notorious lack of attention to
some countries in pre- or post-conflict situations.
We believe there is a solid case for advocating the
creation of a new institutional mechanism: a new
commission with the mandate to routinely monitor
cases of conflict-prevention and the creation of
conditions for peace and development. In conjunction
with the Security Council and the Economic and Social
Council, which would both preserve their respective
areas of competence, this commission could identify
and deal with the most pressing needs. For each of the
countries in situations of risk, it would draw up
integrated strategies allying the objectives of security
and strengthening institutions and economic and social
development. While other decisions of great importance
are being prepared, we can — and should — begin here
to deal with pre- and post-conflict situations.
It is not enough for the United Nations to affirm
its relevance. It is absolutely indispensable that the
Organization is seen as relevant by the Member States
and that States act accordingly. The credibility of the
Organization must not be questioned. Otherwise its
functioning and effectiveness may be severely
compromised.
Iraq is undoubtedly the case that requires of us
all, in particular the members of the Security Council,
that we carefully evaluate the Organization’s capacity
for action. A collective turn of the page is necessary,
since there is no valid alternative to a policy that
enables the Iraqi people to freely define their system of
Government and political leadership and that maintains
the country’s political and territorial integrity. To build
a democratic society on the ruins of one of the most
violent dictatorships of the past century is a challenge
the international community must not shrink. It is a
task that demands much realism with respect to the
difficulties to be confronted.
For that very reason, Portugal has always been in
favour of the progressive involvement of the United
Nations in Iraq’s stabilization process, with a
corresponding gradual transfer of power to Iraqi
representatives. We also encourage the Security
Council to come to a rapid understanding on this
matter. For our part, we are already taking concrete
steps, including in the security field, to support all
those that are already locally assisting the Iraqi people
to live in freedom.
A larger commitment by the international
community is indispensable for resuming the Middle
East peace process. The road map cannot be shelved. It
is up to us to demand a proactive attitude from all
interested parties. Also, we should not be indifferent to
the Palestinian people’s legitimate desire for liberty
and self-determination. Israel and Palestine will have to
coexist in peace and in security, within recognized
borders. But here again, terrorism, which only benefits
26

the enemies of peace, must be condemned without
ambiguity.
Great challenges generate great opportunities. It
is up to us, the Members of the United Nations, to
create the conditions that will allow this Organization
to function in accordance with its potential and the
ideas that were an integral part of its creation. Those
ideas remain valid, and Portugal stands ready to give
its contribution.


Allow me at the outset to congratulate His Excellency
Mr. Julian Hunte on his well-deserved election to the
presidency of the General Assembly. We are convinced
that his well-known personal and professional qualities
will allow him to lead our work to full success.
We particularly welcome the fact that a fraternal
Caribbean country should hold so high a position. We
trust that your election will shed light on the role of the
smaller nations in this Organization and will allow us
to consider the challenges that small economies face.
Today, once again, the international community is
gathered at the United Nations to consider the most
serious problems afflicting mankind and to design
specific measures to resolve them. In so doing, we
must recall the essential purpose of this session
attaining peace, justice and well-being for each and
very individual on this planet. Indeed, the human right
to peace informs, nourishes and justifies all other basic
rights and constitutes the very essence of the purposes
and principles of the United Nations.
Basic individual freedoms, political, social and
economic rights and commitments to sustainable
development and disarmament all have a single
purpose   securing peace, freedom and happiness for
all. The first step towards peace therefore is full respect
for human rights.
Fundamental human rights constitute a minimal
framework of guarantees necessary to ensure the
integral development of the human person and the
construction of a harmonious society. For that reason,
respect for human rights at all levels of society and for
all peoples, without distinction, is indispensable.
Costa Rica advocates for the strengthening of the
international mechanisms for the promotion and
monitoring of human rights. We must overcome the
politicization of verification machinery by creating
31

objective criteria for the implementation of human
rights instruments in such a way that verification itself
encourages policies that promote human rights and that
consolidate their protection.
Similarly, it is necessary to achieve the
universality of international treaties that promote
respect for basic rights. In that context, we welcome
the fact that, in conjunction with the current general
debate, a special treaty event to promote the signature
and the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is being held.
That instrument constitutes an effective mechanism for
preventing those very serious violations of human
dignity.
We welcome the creation and the establishment of
the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague,
thanks to the successful election of its Judges last
February. Fortunately, mankind now possesses an
effective, independent and impartial institution with the
authority to prosecute the most serious crimes that
infringe upon human dignity.
We also deem it urgent to consider the
relationship between human rights and the
environment. We welcome the fact that the
Johannesburg Plan of Implementation recognized the
importance of studying, in an exhaustive and
transparent way, that relationship between human
rights and the environment, including the fundamental
right to development. We consider it indispensable that
this item be added to the agenda of the General
Assembly.
Full observance of human rights is being
threatened by some recent developments in the area of
biotechnology. Unquestionably, progress in the areas of
medical science and genetic research facilitate the
development and the discovery of new therapies and
medical techniques. However, those same technologies
pose new ethical challenges, because they can be used
to violate human rights and assault the intrinsic dignity
of the human person.
The use of human embryos in scientific
experiments, discarding them in the process, is
unacceptable. Cloning reduces the individual to a mere
object of industrial production and manipulation. That
is objectionable both morally and legally. Costa Rica
supports the prohibition of all forms of human cloning
and has proposed a draft resolution to this end, which
today has dozens of countries sponsoring it.
The second step in the path to peace is to make
democracy a form of life. True democracy is a
permanent process that demands daily efforts of
coordination and cooperation in order to respect the
will of the majority and the rights of the minorities.
True democracy also entails equal opportunities in the
areas of social and economic development.
A third step to peace is disarmament,
demilitarization and the reduction of military
expenditures. The reduction of military arsenals
decreases opportunities for violence and makes it
possible to devote greater resources to social
development programmes. In that context, we welcome
the progress made by the Central American nations
regarding the reduction of their armed forces and
military arsenals. Two States from the region have
already abolished their armies   Panama in 1990 and
Costa Rica since 1948. We support the proposal of
President Bolanos of Nicaragua, on the reasonable
balance of forces in the Central American region,
which will generate greater transparency and
confidence.
My Government supports the adoption of a
complete ban on arms transfers to all terrorist groups,
as well as to those groups and Governments that
commit gross or systematic violations of human rights
or international humanitarian law. The prompt adoption
of a legally binding convention to regulate the arms
trade is urgent.
We urge those States that possess nuclear
weapons to truly commit themselves to the nuclear
disarmament negotiations. We call upon all States to
renounce the development of new nuclear weapons and
to ratify the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty.
We welcome the fact that the member States of
the Organization of American States have recently
adopted a Costa Rican initiative on the non-
proliferation of chemical weapons in the Western
Hemisphere.
The pursuit of peace requires the peaceful
resolution of conflicts through the mechanisms
established pursuant to international law. The
International Court of Justice occupies a central
32

position as the principal judicial organ of the United
Nations that ensures the rule of law in international
relations. We urge all States to accept its obligatory
jurisdiction without conditions.
In order to make further progress towards peace
we must strengthen United Nations mechanisms
designed to prevent armed conflict and humanitarian
crises from occurring and to re-establish the peace once
such conflicts have broken out. The Security Council
must carry out its duties in a more effective, active and
fair way; no national interest should prevent it from
taking action. In this context, we must revitalize the
Security Council reform process, which, after 10 years
of work, still lacks results.
In order to attain peace and prevent civil wars, we
must devote sufficient financial, technical and human
resources to the peacekeeping operations carried out
under the auspices of this Organization. Such missions
should enjoy the resolute support and effective
participation of all nations, as was reaffirmed in the
Rio Group statement on the situation in Colombia,
adopted on 24 May in Cuzco. We urgently appeal for
this Organization to support the peace process in
Colombia and to urge the guerrilla movements to sign
an agreement to cease hostilities and enter into an
open-ended and transparent dialogue with a view to
reaching a peaceful and definitive resolution of the
Colombian conflict.
The United Nations must decisively address the
deep-rooted causes of armed conflict. It is necessary to
eliminate the sources of tension and violence. It is
essential to eradicate the economic, social and political
injustices that fuel conflict.
The change of regime in Iraq, which we welcome,
has given the United Nations and the international
community at large a unique opportunity to fully
integrate that nation into the international system. We
must not miss this opportunity. We therefore call upon
the occupying Powers, the rest of the international
community and the United Nations to work for the
reconstruction and normalization of that nation.
Furthermore, we must not allow Iraq to become a
source of regional instability or a breeding ground for
international terrorism. We must bear in mind the
sacrifice made by Sergio Vieira de Mello and all the
other United Nations personnel who gave their lives in
Baghdad for this Organization and for the people of
Iraq. Their sacrifice must guide us in our work. Their
martyrdom must lead us to devote every effort to the
protection of the fundamental right to peace.
Today, peace is threatened by the resurgence of
international terrorism. All necessary measures must
therefore be taken, in conformity with the rule of law,
to prevent acts of terrorism and punish those who
commit them. The fight against international terrorism,
however, should not become an excuse to violate
human rights or to adopt repressive measures against
an innocent population.
In 1971, the General Assembly approved the
entry of the People's Republic of China into the United
Nations. That decision was correct, inasmuch as it
promoted the universal character of this global
Organization. In accordance with that same principle,
my country has since that time been advocating that the
Republic of China on Taiwan also be represented in
this Organization.
We believe that the Republic of China on Taiwan
could greatly contribute to the work of this
Organization. For many years that nation was an active
Member of the United Nations. It participated
constructively in all of its activities and the work of its
bodies. Since then, the Republic of China on Taiwan
has been developing close and productive relations
with peoples and Governments throughout the world,
promoting programmes and projects for the sustainable
development of communities. In keeping with the
principle of universality that the United Nations itself
promotes, Costa Rica advocates that both Governments
be represented at this Organization.
I have set out a series of steps that are
indispensable if peace is to be fully enjoyed. Such steps
are the very least we need to take in order to fulfil our
commitment to peace   and that commitment must be
absolute.
May God bless us all as we work for the well-
being of humankind.


I would like at the outset,
on behalf of the delegation of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea, to congratulate Mr. Julian Hunte,
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Saint Lucia, on his
election to the presidency of the General Assembly at
its fifty-eighth session.
I would also like to express appreciation for the
efforts made by the Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi
Annan, to strengthen the functions and role of the
United Nations, as required under current
circumstances.
The political situation today is more unstable than
ever. We are confronted by new challenges as we try to
make this century one of peace and prosperity for
humankind. Countries have been designated, on the
basis of extreme national chauvinism and hostility, as
part of an axis of evil and as targets of pre-emptive
nuclear attacks. Unilateral military attacks are being
openly perpetrated against sovereign States under the
pretext of the war against terrorism and on the basis of
suspicions that they possess weapons of mass
destruction.
The principles of respect for sovereignty and
sovereign equality are being violated, and international
relations plunged into increasingly severe
confrontation and antagonism, because of neo-
imperialist practices that are based on the supremacy of
power.
26

As we are well aware, this situation is a product
of unilateralism, which is compelling countries to be
subservient to the high-handedness and unreasonable
demands of the super-Power. My delegation is of the
view that the pressing common task before States
Members of the United Nations is to reject
unilateralism and build a new world in which all
countries, large and small, coexist peacefully.
I would like to draw the attention of the
Assembly to the principled position and sincere efforts
of the Government of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea to ensure a fair solution to the
nuclear issue between the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea and the United States, which is now
the focus of attention of the international community. I
believe that it will be a positive contribution to the
work of the current General Assembly.
The nuclear issue is, in its essence, an outcome of
the hostile policy pursued by the United States to
isolate and stifle the Democratic People’s Republic of
Korea politically, economically and militarily. It
originated from this deep-rooted hostility, which denies
our system and refuses to co-exist with my country.
My country’s consistent position is to resolve the
nuclear issue peacefully through dialogue and
negotiations. Denuclearizing the Korean peninsula is
the ultimate goal, the initiative of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea and the earnest aspiration
of the entire Korean nation.
Accordingly, at both tripartite and six-party talks
on the nuclear issue, my country advanced proposals
aimed at achieving the denuclearization of the Korean
peninsula. The announcement of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea — United States Joint
Statement of 11 June 1993, the adoption of the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — United
States Agreed Framework on 21 October 1994 and the
subsequent process of their implementation have
clearly testified to our peace-loving stand and its
justness.
The Korean people as well as the entire world
welcomed the historic inter-Korean summit meeting in
June 2000 and its resultant adoption of the June 15
North-South Joint Declaration. They also sincerely
hoped that these developments would lead to peace and
stability in the region.
However, the welcome atmosphere and the
expectations for peace and stability, raised for a while,
suddenly disappeared, and one party has resumed acute
confrontation. My country has been singled out as part
of an axis of evil and the target of pre-emptive nuclear
attack. That was then adopted as a policy and put into
action. In particular, following the visit by the United
States presidential envoy to the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea in October 2002, the United States
reversed black and white, alleging that my country had
admitted to have a secret nuclear weapons programme.
It also proceeded to unilaterally halt the supply of
heavy fuel oil from November 2002 in violation of the
Agreed Framework, and eventually it nullified all the
bilateral agreements.
The United States even put pressure upon my
country to give up its nuclear programme and accept
nuclear inspection with the aim of disarming the
country, while openly attempting to overthrow the
Government by force. The peace now maintained on
the Korean peninsula is entirely thanks to the powerful
deterrence to war, which has been built up by our
policy of independence, the songun policy. Our
deterrence policy is not intended to attack anyone, but
to serve as a means of self-defence to safeguard our
sovereignty in all intents and purposes.
In order to resolve the nuclear issue peacefully
through dialogue, the hostile policy towards my
country should be changed fundamentally. That is the
key to the solution of the nuclear issue. At the six-party
talks in Beijing in late August, my country set as a goal
the abandonment by the United States of its hostile
policy towards us in exchange for renunciation of our
nuclear programme. To achieve that goal, we proposed
to take all necessary measures through a package deal
and to work towards the implementation of these
measures on a step-by-step basis, following the
principle of simultaneous action.
Our proposal contains a detailed account of the
package deal and the order of simultaneous action for a
comprehensive and fair solution of the nuclear issue,
including abandonment of the hostile policy towards
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the
conclusion of the non-aggression treaty between the
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the United
States, renunciation of the nuclear programme and
normalization of bilateral relations.
27

Simultaneous action is a realistic way to
denuclearize the Korean peninsula, and any opposition
to it is tantamount to rejecting denuclearization. Other
States participating in the Beijing talks also demanded
a package solution and simultaneous action, urging a
peaceful settlement to the nuclear issue. However, the
United States alone repeated its unilateral call for my
country’s abandonment of nuclear weapons programme
first, with no reference to the change of its hostile
policy which is the key to the solution of the nuclear
issue. The United States even behaved imprudently,
asserting that a non-aggression treaty is neither
appropriate nor necessary and that it is not interested in
such a treaty.
The United States went so far as to insist that if
bilateral relations are to be normalized even after my
country scraps its nuclear programme, a full range of
other issues such as missiles, conventional weapons
and human rights should be addressed. In a word, the
position of the United States is that it will discuss the
steps that it will take only after we have taken every
action. Under the present circumstances, in which my
country and the United States are levelling guns at each
other, asking the other party to put down their guns
first does not make any sense. This demand can only be
construed as having the ulterior motive of disarming
and eliminating my country.
The result of the six-party talks has convinced us
once again that the United States is seeking to disarm
us by means of pressure and that it is still pursuing the
hostile policy of stifling our country. Since it has been
proven that the United States is only interested in
turning the six-party talks into a ground for completely
disarming and eliminating my country by all means,
instead of co-existing peacefully with us, we have been
compelled not to maintain any interest in or
expectations for such talks.
As clearly stated, we have never made any
promises with regard to the next round of the six-party
talks. All developments concerning the nuclear issue
prove well that pressure can never be a means for
settlement of the nuclear issue and multiparty talks can
be fruitful only when there is commitment to the
abandonment of the hostile policy towards my country.
Our demand is modest and simple. We just want both
sides to drop their guns simultaneously and co-exist
peacefully.
Having reaffirmed the position of my
Government, which I believe is the most reasonable
and just in addressing the nuclear issue, I hope that the
President and the United Nations Member States have a
correct understanding of our position and actively
cooperate for a fair solution of the nuclear issue and for
peace on the Korean peninsula and in the region as a
whole.
The Government of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea remains steadfast in its policy and
determination to realize peace and the reunification of
Korea and thus contribute to peace and security in the
region and in the rest of the world. Thanks to the ideas
of national independence and great national unity of
the great leader General Kim Jong Il, the inter-Korean
summit meeting was held in Pyongyang for the first
time since the national division and the North-South
Joint Declaration was made public on 15 June 2000.
That marked a turning point in accelerating national
reunification through the concerted efforts of the entire
Korean nation. Despite ups and downs in recent years,
there are active efforts to realize independent and
peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula under
the banner of the June 15 North-South Joint
Declaration.
This year alone, a series of North-South
ministerial-level talks were held and a groundbreaking
ceremony to re-link interrupted railways and roads took
place. Reunions of separated families and relatives
took place, and various economic exchanges are now
under way.
On 15 August, independence day, a splendid
national meeting for peace and reunification was held
in Pyongyang that demonstrated once again the
aspirations and determination of all Korean nationals in
the North, the South and overseas for reunification.
The Government and people of the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea will achieve national
reconciliation, unity and reunification and contribute to
security in the region and the rest of the world by fully
implementing the 15 June North-South Joint
Declaration, upholding the great idea of the respected
General Secretary Kim Jong Il.
An important task before Member States at
present is to establish a just and equitable international
order and relations, in keeping with the aspirations and
desire of all humankind.
28

To that end, it is important, among others things,
to ensure that the principle of respect for sovereignty
and equality is fully observed in international relations.
Unilateralism and high-handedness should be totally
rejected and opposed, as they contravene the Charter
and principles of international law.
In order to establish just international relations,
the functions and the role of the United Nations must
be enhanced and democratized. Democratizing the
United Nations means decisively enhancing the
authority of the General Assembly and reforming the
Security Council.
The General Assembly should be empowered to
review resolutions of the Security Council on such
issues as sanctions and the use of force directly
affecting international peace and security and to submit
its relevant recommendations.
Regarding Security Council reform, we believe
that priority should be given to ensuring full
representation of the non-aligned and other developing
countries that constitute an overwhelming majority of
the United Nations membership.
Our people graciously celebrated the fifty-fifth
anniversary of the founding of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea on 9 September, thus demonstrating
the dignity and the might of the Kim Il Sung nation,
firmly united single-heartedly around the great leader
General Secretary Kim Jong Il.
The Government of the Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea will continue, on the basis of
independence, peace and friendship — the fundamental
ideals of its foreign policy — to contribute actively to
international efforts for a just, equitable and new world
order by further intensifying cooperation with all
Member States.


Allow me to
extend my congratulations to the President on his
unanimous and well-deserved election as President of
the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly. This
is a difficult period for any person to preside over the
General Assembly, and I wish him every success. I also
wish to thank Mr. Jan Kavan of the Czech Republic for
his exemplary work as the outgoing President.
Last year, while addressing the General
Assembly, I referred to the commencement of the peace
process in Sri Lanka and promised to report on its
progress. Progress in the peace process in Sri Lanka is
due to the fact that we stopped talking about talking to
each other and actually began to talk. We have been
lucky, because the international community did not
simply talk about helping us, it actually did so.
In moving from conflict to peace in Sri Lanka we
initiated fundamental change in policy and strategy. We
shifted from confrontation to negotiation, identifying
and recognizing the root causes of the conflict. The
success story that Sri Lanka is fast becoming also
demonstrates the value of the support of the
international community acting in concert. That the
global community, moving with a common purpose,
can succeed in re-establishing peace, democracy and
prosperity has been amply demonstrated in the Sri
Lankan experience. After 20 years of conflict, our people
are now enjoying the fruits of 20 months of peace.
The role of the international community in
enabling us to move from war to peace has been
outstanding. The facilitation provided by Norway has
had the result of bringing the Government and the
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) together in
several rounds of negotiation. President Chandrika
Kumaratunga's continuing declaration of commitment
to a political solution has been invaluable. The moral
and material support that our other frontline sponsors
  India, the European Union, Japan, Canada and the
United States, along with the multilateral institutions of
the United Nations and the rest of the international
community   have given, and continue to give to us,
has guaranteed that our efforts to consolidate and
maintain the peace will strengthen and develop.
Last November at Oslo, our international partners
endorsed and underwrote a paradigm shift in policy
when the Government and the LTTE accepted that the
13

future political order in Sri Lanka would include
moving towards a federal polity where the unity and
territorial integrity of the country would be ensured.
Again, in June of this year at Tokyo, 52 nations and 21
multilateral agencies, many of them of the United
Nations system, pledged their support to Sri Lanka's
peace efforts, rehabilitation and development
programmes. The massive and unparalleled financial
contributions alone totalled $4.5 billion over a four-year
period. Those are indeed landmark events underlining the
value and strength of international action.
I must, however, inform the Assembly that, like
in all negotiations in a peace process, we find ourselves
today at a temporary impasse in the talks. Within the
next few weeks we should know the results of a
comprehensive review undertaken by the LTTE in
response to our earlier proposals regarding an interim
administrative arrangement for the north and east of our
country. That they should take so much time and effort
can be seen as a positive sign. We in turn will look
positively at the proposals put forward by the LTTE, and
will do everything in our power to keep the peace
process moving forward to a successful conclusion.
Meanwhile, our collective efforts, which have
been handsomely supported by the international
community and multilateral agencies, at providing
relief, rehabilitation and development to the conflict-
affected areas of the country are proceeding apace.
Economic growth is marching ahead, from a growth
rate of -1 per cent in the year 2001 to possibly 6 per
cent this year. And tourism is booming.
That has thus far been the story of Sri Lanka. In the
recent past there have indeed also been some success
stories in the United Nations: in Haiti, Somalia, Angola,
Kosovo and East Timor. But they are not enough.
The United Nations represents a unique concept
for international order formulated by the Allied Powers
to address challenges to peace and security and to
development and democracy in the aftermath of the
Second World War. President Roosevelt, in his 1943
Christmas Eve radio talk, said that as long as Britain,
Russia, China and the United States stuck together in
determination to keep the peace, there was no
possibility of an aggressor nation arising to start
another world war.
But the world that the United Nations is called
upon to represent today is an immeasurably changed
world. Today's problems, as the Secretary-General has
reminded us, are problems that respect no borders and
no laws. The proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, environmental degradation, alienation and
exclusion, conflict, global terrorism, disease and endemic
poverty are foremost among those problems. Inescapably,
the United Nations remains the central, indispensable
forum in which we can collectively and democratically
respond to the challenges that we face in common.
But the United Nations is under enormous stress.
That strain comes from the structure of the Organization
itself. As a result, the adequacy and effectiveness of the
rules and instruments devised over 50 years ago to bring
order and reason to the post-Second-World-War
international scene are being questioned. The apparent
irrelevance of the current multilateral rules and
institutions to deal with the manifold problems of today
compel our urgent attention. In the words of the
Secretary-General, it challenges our ability to deal
with the least difficult issues and to do so effectively'.
Hence the rationale for reform   which is insistent,
compelling and radical   cannot be averted; for words
without action are meaningless, as we in Sri Lanka
have learned at a bitter cost.
Take for example the profound issues surrounding
Iraq. There are members in the Hall today who believe
passionately that the United States and its allies were
wrong to intervene in Iraq. Then there are those of us
who feel that the United States and its allies had no
choice but to intervene, that the failure of the United
Nations had created the need for a world policeman,
however reluctant it might be. But Iraq is more than a
divergence of views on a major issue. It shows the
inadequacies of the present collective security system,
a decision-making system which grappled with the
issue of Iraq for over a decade without a solution and
created a deadlock at a most critical time.
The United Nations has already paid a dreadful
price. The attack on United Nations headquarters in
Baghdad not only deprived the world community of
some of its most devoted and talented servants but
raised to the fore issues relating to the mandates
entrusted to the United Nations by its Member States.
It represents, undoubtedly, a direct challenge   a
challenge which must be met.
Any reform must be radical, so that in this
changed world   so different from the one it was
called upon to serve in 1945   the United Nations can
have the capacity to cope with war, poverty, human rights,
14

terrorism and a dramatically changed environment in
which weapons of mass destruction have become so
potent a symbol. We have to move beyond rhetoric and
from cosmetic change to major surgery if we are to
overcome the challenge ahead. Rhetoric is not a
substitute for decisive action. Frantic activity is not a
substitute for concerted action, and the adoption of
resolutions does not make a tangible difference in the
day-to-day lives of our peoples. Above all, let us recall
that inaction in itself is a deliberate and a considered
decision to do nothing. We should not rival the League
of Nations' impotence on Abyssinia.
The problems we are encountering at the present
time compel us courageously and resolutely to address
and overcome the fundamental inadequacies that afflict
our international institutions and processes.
This year has seen the propitious coming together of
three events which have framed thus far the political,
financial and economic ordering of our world. I refer to
this session of the General Assembly, the gathering of the
Finance Ministers at the Bretton Woods institutions,
and the discussions at Cancun on the reordering of the
world trade regime. At all three meetings, the call for
structural reform was insistent and compelling. All
three   the United Nations, the Bretton Woods Twins
and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT)   were born out of the trauma and dislocation
of the Second World War. For over 50 years they have
served our many causes in varying ways, at times with
limited success, at times with despair at their inability
to effectively deal with the fundamental problems of
the day. After the Asian crisis, the Bretton Wood
institutions came under close scrutiny, and today we
are discussing how the developing countries can have
greater say in their decision-making.
Recent experience under the Doha Round of the
World Trade Organization (WTO) process at Cancun
further illustrates the problems that face us. No one
expected an agreed formula to come out of Cancun. On
the other hand, it need not have ended in collapse.
The Secretary-General's report has identified
many of the defects of the system that need to be
addressed. Other speakers, too, have made proposals in
this regard. At this stage, I should like to mention that,
in our view, any expansion of the Security Council as a
result of reforms must involve a manageable number,
and Asia must be given its due. This was ignored in
1945.
While many have urged a radical reform of the
structure of the United Nations so as to make it able to
respond to the challenges that confront multilateralism
at the present time, most have been hesitant to suggest
ideas that are both practical and doable. I believe that
the time has come for all of us who accept in principle
the value of this institution, the United Nations, and the
objective it stands for to think out of the box   to
think creatively, imaginatively and unconventionally.
If I were to hazard an approach, it would be along
the lines of going back to our roots. The outline of the
United Nations prepared at Dumbarton Oaks in August
and September 1944 was agreed to at Yalta in February
1945 at the level of head of Government. The Charter
was signed at the final meeting in San Francisco, in
June 1945. All this was completed in just 10 months.
I, for one, would like to suggest that the Secretary-
General and a carefully selected group of political leaders
themselves come up with recommendations for United
Nations reform. Their recommendations could be placed
before a special session of the General Assembly, at
which heads of State or Government would be present.
I suggest that the time frame for this need not be
any longer than at the inception of the United Nations,
58 years ago.
In conclusion, let us remind ourselves that 11
September was a tragic wake-up call for all of us. The
19th of August was a tragic wake-up call for the United
Nations.
We have before us a historic opportunity to build
a United Nations worthy of the people whom we have
the honour to represent   a United Nations where
honesty is not clouded by diplomacy, where realism
replaces rhetoric, and where action supplants treaties.


At the outset, like
my colleague from Armenia, I would like to express
my highest tribute to the memory of the outstanding
individuals whose tragic loss is a blow to the international
community that is absolutely beyond repair.
The assassination of Anna Lindh, the Foreign
Minister of Sweden, has demonstrated once again the
risk involved in noble dedication to public service in a
world exposed to senseless acts of violence and has
filled people all over the world with the deepest sorrow.
The death of Sergio Vieira de Mello and his staff
members came as a shock to the international community.
The question is, why were they killed? That horrible act
of terror seems to be highly symbolic because, in the
words of the Secretary-General, it directly challenges
the vision of global solidarity and collective security
rooted in the Charter of the United Nations. Sadly, that
is the context in which we must address the concerns
on our domestic and international agendas.
Last year, when addressing the Assembly, I put
forward a proposal to prepare a new act for the United
Nations at the dawn of the twenty-first century. I was
persuaded then, as I am now, that such a document
could give fresh impetus to the principles and
mechanisms of the United Nations in a changing world.
It should entail the elaboration of a new catalogue of
norms of international conduct in the face of the
security threats and global challenges of today.
Developments on the international scene since I
put forward that initiative have strengthened my belief
that the United Nations would only benefit from a new,
strong political signal reconfirming its role as a beacon
of stability and a reliable instrument for managing
change.
I believe that the best way to create the proper
conditions for an unconstrained debate on the future of
the United Nations is to engage outstanding public
figures of international stature in an informal setting. I
suggested at the time that a group of eminent
personalities be charged with the task of producing an
outline of the document, which would then be submitted
for assessment by Member States. The composition of the
group should ensure its independence, appropriate
intellectual format and knowledge of international
affairs. In addition, such a group's excellent moral
standing and political weight would guarantee that the
document designed to serve as an inspiration to
Member States would be of the highest value. Thus, an
essentially intellectual exercise initiated outside the
institutional framework of the United Nations could be
transformed into a political process, culminating in the
adoption of the new act by the General Assembly.
I remain deeply convinced that despite the rapid
changes in the international environment precipitated
especially after 11 September 2001, the United Nations
today   almost 60 years after its foundation   should
retain a central role as a mechanism for resolving global
problems and as a guarantor of international legitimacy.
33

It is a great source of satisfaction for me that the
Polish initiative corresponds to the thinking of the
Secretary-General and his efforts to increase the
effectiveness of the United Nations and safeguard the
position of the Organization as the most important
institution of international security and cooperation. I
wholeheartedly support his views on the need for
review, and possibly a radical reform, of the
international security architecture, as reflected in his
latest report on the implementation of the United
Nations Millennium Declaration (A/58/323), as well as
his timely proposals voiced at the outset of our debate.
Indeed, we can no longer safely assume that our
current multilateral rules and institutions have the
capacity to confront the current array of old and new
threats to peace and security.
Since I presented my proposal last September, we
have consulted extensively with governmental
representatives from a number of countries. A rich
collection of suggestions and comments has been
compiled that will be invaluable in developing the
initiative. In the consultation process, we were
encouraged by the shared view of many countries as to
the need to adapt the United Nations to current
challenges.
Taking into account the initial outcome of the
consultations, the Government of the Republic of
Poland has produced a memorandum in which we have
sketched a proposed outline of the mandate of the
Group of Sages.
The initiative, as reflected in the memorandum, is
in effect an invitation to a conceptual and holistic
reflection on the nature of changes in the international
system and on the most desirable vision of a new, more
effective international order. It deals with the questions
posed by a whole spectrum of present-day challenges,
including security risks related to globalization and the
emergence of non-State actors, the development gap and
international solidarity, governance and subsidiarity.
The novel character of today's challenges calls
for new ways of thinking and an innovative approach.
It is true that protracted regional conflicts remain a
very serious source of instability. Yet, along with those
traditional threats, today's security environment has
been increasingly dominated by a combination of new
threats of a more diverse and unpredictable nature.
They originate mostly within State borders rather than
among States, notably in failing and failed States that
are unable to control their own territories, and they are
often posed by non-State actors.
To use the Secretary-General's terminology,
today's threats are both hard' and soft', and they
tend to reinforce one another. We are confronted with
terrorism that has a global reach, motivated by
extremist ideology and unconstrained in its readiness to
inflict massive casualties. We are facing a growing risk
of proliferation of deadly weapons and the spread of
organized crime that often accompanies State failure.
These hard' challenges are compounded by chronic
underdevelopment in many parts of the world.
Soft' threats, such as widespread poverty,
deprivation, hunger, malnutrition and rampant
infectious diseases, take their tragic toll on peoples
living in countries with poor economic growth. These
are usually found in regions where development is
often thwarted by bad governance and violent internal
conflicts that result in large-scale humanitarian crises,
massive abuses of human rights, political and social
disruption and, ultimately, the collapse of State systems.
In the face of the new realities confronting the
international community, we need to forge a consensus
on the conceptual and political framework for the
operation of the United Nations in upcoming decades.
In this context, let me stress that my initiative is not
intended to revise or change the United Nations
Charter, which should remain the basis of international
relations. Instead, the New Political Act should place
the Charter in the context of the ongoing transformations
taking place in the international environment. It should
provide a new conceptual framework for, and political
interpretation of, the Charter, adapting the United
Nations to present-day realities and regulating the
Organization's activities in those areas that are not
covered by the Charter. It should accomplish that goal
by redefining the objectives of the United Nations,
identifying new tasks and specifying operational
modalities for the Organization.
The Millennium Declaration was a clear
manifestation of the ability of the Organization to take
up new tasks and confront the most pressing
challenges. We must make every effort to increase the
capacity of the United Nations to achieve the goals set
out in that landmark document, and I believe that the
New Act could add a political impetus to the
continuous work under way to fully implement the
Declaration. Yet our experience in the post-cold-war
34

era made clear not just problems related to the capacity
of the United Nations, but also the lack of clarity and
consensus on certain principles essential for effective
action in the new security environment.
A source of serious concern is the fact that the
lack of an agreed and common interpretation of many
terms and principles which are fundamental in the
international domain could lead to chaos in
international relations. The New Act for the United
Nations   while taking into account the current
changes in the international order   should therefore
reflect the relations between numerous principles and
the international conditions dominated by non-
traditional threats. It should examine, for example,
questions related to issues such as respect for human
rights and the principle of State sovereignty, the right
of self-determination and territorial integrity, conflicts
and crisis management, and the principle of non-
interference in internal affairs. It should also address
the possibility of inscribing newly emerged concepts,
such as human security and the responsibility of States
to protect the vulnerable, into the conceptual basis of
the international system.
It is a painful reality that the United Nations is
deeply divided. This limits its effectiveness and
occasionally even calls into question its ability to act.
The basic question is, therefore, how can we restore to
the United Nations the sense of unity and cohesion
embodied in the very name of the Organization? How
can we prevent paralysis in management by the United
Nations of international security? And how can we
adjust the operating principles of the Organization so
as to enable those countries that are able and willing to
respond adequately to new threats to act within the
institutional framework of the United Nations?
In my view, this difficult goal is unattainable
without a reaffirmation of the United Nations as a
community of shared values and shared goals. Such a
reaffirmation could reintegrate the Organization and
infuse it with a new sense of purpose. Hence, at the
core of my initiative there is a need for a profound
reflection on the values and principles that bind the
international community together and define the
behaviour of States towards each other, towards other
actors on the international scene and towards their
citizens.
Let me reiterate once again that Poland strongly
supports the Secretary-General's intention to establish
a high-level panel of eminent personalities to examine
the role of collective action in countering current
security challenges and to review the operation of
major United Nations organs, with a view to
recommending necessary reforms. This idea is in
perfect conformity with my initiative. I believe that the
ideas which we collected in the course of last year,
reflected both in the memorandum of the Polish
Government and in the responses of leading experts
and scholars, could provide a good starting point and
make a useful contribution to the work of the panel.
I wish to affirm the strong commitment of my
country to ensure the successful outcome of the
Secretary-General's initiative. I intend to convey the
aforementioned collected comments of eminent
intellectuals on the future of the United Nations to the
Panel for its consideration.
The war against the murderous regime of Saddam
Hussain has exposed, in a painful way, the challenges
related to the principles and practice of multilateral
action and has revealed the unresolved dilemmas in
this domain, which   in my view   should be
addressed in the New Political Act for the United
Nations. For the time being, though, the international
community must focus its attention on the situation on
the ground. I believe that the United Nations should be
a key factor in post-war Iraq's transition to the rule of
law, democracy and independence. The tremendous
task of the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Iraq
should be shared by the entire international community.
We must work out arrangements which will help
Iraq assume, as soon as possible, its rightful, dignified
place among the nations of the world. For its part,
Poland remains committed to the stabilization effort in
Iraq. Our participation in that endeavour is guided by
the need to create the conditions for the Iraqi people to
determine freely their own future and to begin a new
chapter in the history of that great nation, leading it to
development and prosperity.
On Monday, 29 September, the United Nations
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
will enter into force. I am proud that the idea put
forward by Poland during the World Ministerial
Conference on Organized Transnational Crime, held at
Naples in November 1994, was transformed   with
the broad support of the international community
into a binding United Nations Convention.
35


On behalf of the
Philippine delegation I would like to extend warmest
congratulations to the President and the members of the
Bureau on his election to the leadership of the fifty-eighth
session of the United Nations General Assembly.
The past twelve months have been a most
difficult and challenging period for the United Nations.
A community of cynicism has formed regarding the
ability of the United Nations to rise above the morass
of disunity and disruptive competition among major
Powers to fulfil its catalytic role in promoting
international peace and security and development.
But, while it is undeniable that the United
Nations has struggled over the past twelve months, its
predicted decline is greatly exaggerated. Economic
linkages among nations have widened and deepened in
many sectors. The interconnectedness of the global
village continues to infringe upon traditional political
boundaries. For instance, the tentacles of international
terrorism have spread insidiously all over.
These and current developments have displayed that
without the centripetal pull provided by international
cooperation and partnership through the United Nations,
the world would tend to drift apart. The rich would
become richer and the poor poorer. Conflict and
disharmony would erupt along political, ethnic and
even religious fissures. We face the paradox of a world
contracting through advancing technology and, at the
same time, drifting apart along the seams of inequality.
Three years ago, 146 heads of State and
Government and 189 Member States blazed the trail to
the future by crafting the Millennium Declaration. In
the three years since the millennium started, in the
three years since the Millennium Summit, much has
been done, though much remains to be accomplished to
achieve the goals that the United Nations set for the
twenty-first century.
I am pleased to report that the vision of the
Millennium Summit and pursuit of the Millennium
Development Goals in my country have begun to bear
fruit, as they have been applied in our peace process
for the southern Philippines, in Mindanao.
The Philippine Government and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF), the Muslim separatist group
in the southern Philippines, realize that the prescription
of the United Nations is the only correct and viable
one: that peace is an indispensable condition for
9

economic development, just as development is an
essential component of peace. Nothing will do more to
lift the Philippines out of poverty than peace itself.
That is why we are negotiating peace with the MILF.
The Government of Malaysia has been a prime mover
in helping us negotiate peace, and I thank them.
To complement these efforts, the Philippines has
launched its bid for observer status in the Organization
of the Islamic Conference (OIC). I will be attending the
OIC conference next month in Malaysia and hope to
use that time to advance the peace process in Mindanao
and advance understanding among all faiths.
I wish to take this opportunity to thank the United
Nations community for its support for the Philippines
as a non-permanent member of the Security Council for
the term 2004-2005, and to ask for your continued
support during the elections to the Council.
We wish to contribute our long experience in the
United Nations system, as an original founding
Member of the Organization. We have actively
participated in the Council's initiatives towards the
preservation of global peace and security throughout
the past six decades, both as a past non-permanent
member and as a contributor to United Nations
peacekeeping operations and other Council activities.
The Philippines has actively contributed military
and police personnel to United Nations peacekeeping
operations in Africa, Asia, the Americas, the Middle
East and Europe over the past half-century. We are now
preparing to contribute a contingent to join the latest
United Nations operation, the deployment to Liberia
next month.
Our guiding principles for our Council participation
include the following. The principle of collective
security established under the Charter should be
observed. The Security Council should maintain and
pursue a multilateral approach towards the performance
of its primary role of maintaining international peace
and security. Observance of the rule of law is of
paramount importance in the maintenance of
international peace and security.
I believe that there is a strong role for the United
Nations to play in Iraq and welcome and encourage
United Nations involvement to share the burden with
other nations, like the Philippines, that are already
participating in the reconstruction of Iraq.
It is heartening that we adopted an important
resolution on conflict prevention at the last session of
the General Assembly. As long as conflicts occur, there
is a need to strengthen our capacities for peacekeeping,
peacemaking, and peace-building.
International security, which in recent experience
is mostly threatened by imploding and failed States,
must be animated by the need to protect individuals
and communities from violence. It has also been amply
demonstrated that democracy is the condition most
conducive to a flourishing rule of law.
Erecting mechanisms and infrastructure for the
rule of law should be included as a key part of any exit
strategy of United Nations peace operations. It is our
view that the Security Council should provide the
leadership in moving the United Nations to a stronger
commitment to the rule of law in areas where the
United Nations is conducting peace operations.
Meanwhile, the challenges posed by the global
threat of terrorism are being effectively addressed
through growing international coordination and
cooperation, particularly in the exchange of
information, best practices and lessons learned.
We are actively assisting the work of the Security
Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee in fighting the
spectre of global terrorism, and we are in the process of
ratifying the important international conventions on
terrorism. At the same time, I am working with other
heads of State to ensure continued cooperation in our
battle to rid South-East Asia of the threat of terrorism.
What is required of us today is to link up once
more with the vision that our leaders charted at the
Millennium Summit and other recent international
conferences, and we should do this under the banner of
the United Nations.
The United Nations was created 58 years ago to
serve as the multilateral forum of the international
community to join hands in confronting challenges. It
is sobering to remember that no country, big or small,
rich or poor, can feel safe or think that it can remain
unaffected by violent conflicts, environmental
degradation and human suffering. The United Nations
must continue to adapt to changing conditions to fulfil
its envisioned role, and we support the call of the
Secretary-General for reforms in the structure of the
United Nations.
10

The United Nations is a sui generis global
institution that can play a catalytic role to confront all
these challenges now and in the future. Therefore, it
behoves every Member of this Organization to make
the United Nations increasingly relevant and to invigorate
it to become a modern, nimble and determined agent for
change, which benefits mankind's condition.
We should instil the concept of strength and
greatness, not in terms of the ability to achieve or
maintain dominance over others, but in terms of the
ability of nations to work with others in the interest of
the international community as a whole.
We favour the strength of consensus in which the
future of world peace, security and prosperity lie.


I present the warm
wishes of the Government and people of Solomon
Islands on the election of Mr. Julian Hunte as President
of the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly. I
also offer gratitude to his predecessor for presiding
over the last session.
And we salute the Secretary-General for his bold
leadership of our Organization. Through him, Solomon
Islands wishes to pay tribute to the members of the
United Nations staff and others who lost their lives
during the senseless attack on the United Nations office
in Baghdad last August and the recent incident a few
days ago.
Fifty-eight years ago, the United Nations was
founded to, among others things, guarantee freedom,
peace and security and to promote economic and social
advancement to all people. Over the years, many
threats to international peace and security have receded
or been resolved. The cold war has ended. Security and
arms control regimes are in place. Institutions such as
the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and
others have been established to address the economic
and social dimension of humankind’s needs.
In spite of these significant achievements, peace,
security and our quest for sustained economic and
social development remain the main challenges of our
time. New and complex threats to international peace
and security have emerged at alarming and global
scales during the past decades.
International terrorism continues unabated in
different parts of the world, targeting and killing
mainly innocent and vulnerable civilians. There can be
no other option but for the international community to
redouble efforts to fight this evil menace on all fronts.
Solomon Islands remains committed to its obligations
under Security Council resolution 1373 (2001). Steps
are being taken to enact relevant legislation and to
accede to international conventions to counter terrorist
activities.
Solomon Islands believes that a lasting settlement
of the crisis in the Middle East will have positive
15

effects on global peace and security. We therefore
support the efforts to bring lasting peace and stability
to the region, especially to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict and the situation in Iraq. The United Nations
must play a crucial role in the Middle East peace
process.
The primary responsibility of addressing the
daunting challenges we face today lies with individual
countries. However, history proves that much more
could be effectively achieved through multilateralism.
We all agree that this era of globalization brings new
global challenges. And global challenges require
cooperative global solutions. The United Nations, as
the leading and legitimate multilateral institution, must
take equal responsibility in addressing the global
challenges we now face and must therefore be
strengthened.
This is why Solomon Islands supports the
Secretary-General’s ongoing reform of the United
Nations system as a process, not an event. Yes, the
reform process has achieved positive results and
greater transparency, but we need to do more if our
Organization is to remain effective and relevant to the
changing political environment.
A reformed and restructured Security Council is
also necessary. Japan, Germany and others deserve
permanent membership in the Council. They are
equally capable of contributing constructively to
achieving and maintaining international peace and
security. The use of veto power by the permanent
members should be restricted to the provisions of
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter.
Restoring law and order, economic recovery and
simply bringing normalcy to Solomon Islands have
been difficult challenges which my Government faced
when we took office in December 2001. But having
made the commitment to address these challenges
through the Government’s strategic plan and priorities,
we have engaged ourselves in a series of dialogues and
consultations with our development partners. Our
intentions are clear — we want outside assistance to
restore law and order and economic recovery.
Last July, with unanimous bipartisan support, the
Solomon Islands National Parliament adopted enabling
legislation that authorized outside assistance to restore
law and to help the economy to recover. Following an
explicit invitation by the Government, the Regional
Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI)
led by Australia, was assembled and deployed under
the auspices of the Pacific Islands Forum’s Biketawa
Declaration and in accordance with the provisions of
the United Nations Charter.
I am pleased to inform you that the immediate
impacts of RAMSI have been significant and positive.
Security in terms of law and order has been re-
established and the Government’s finances are
beginning to stabilize. The course of action through
RAMSI is the best option we took. It is a unique
regional cooperative and partnership arrangement that
is not merely limited to re-establishing and maintaining
peace and security. It accords Solomon Islanders the
best real opportunity to rebuild the country and address
the deep-rooted problems we have had for years,
including fighting corruption, restoring the principles
of democracy, good governance and respect for
fundamental human values and rejuvenating the social
cohesiveness of our people.
RAMSI’s work ahead will be challenging, but we
assure RAMSI of every support and cooperation. The
Government and the people of the Solomon Islands are
equally committed to achieving this common objective.
We deeply appreciate the overwhelming support
of the Pacific Islands Forum countries, expressed
through the Forum Declaration on the Solomon Islands,
the Forum Foreign Affairs Ministerial Statement and
their active contribution as Participating Countries in
the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon
Islands (RAMSI). These countries are committed in
their resolve to help a neighbour recover and rebuild.
For this, I say “Tagio tumas for helpem fren blong
iufala”.
We also appreciate the support RAMSI has
received from the wider international community, the
Commonwealth, the United Nations, the European
Union and other individual bilateral donor partners. We
look forward to more active support to complement the
important work RAMSI is doing in addressing the
immediate and long-term objectives and plans.
The Government’s National Economic Recovery
and Development Plan of 2003 to 2005 will be
formally presented to our development partners in
November. Our immediate objectives are to restore and
maintain law and order, to bring about macroeconomic
Note: Solomon Islands pidgin for: “Thank you for helping your
friend”.
16

stability and income growth, to restore full services in
health and education and to re-establish the foundation
for sustained economic growth and human
development.
While the immediate security situation and
economic situation of the country are being addressed
by RAMSI, the planned November meeting will
provide the opportunity for the rest of our development
partners to define their respective roles and assistance
towards achieving these key objectives.
As a least developed and island State, our
economic, social and environmental vulnerabilities are
major constraints to achieving sustainable economic
growth and livelihoods. But we place our hope on
greater international support and partnership to address
these constraints in order to meaningfully and
successfully implement our national development plans
and such key policy outcomes as the 2000 Millennium
Development Goals, the World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) Johannesburg Plan of
Implementation and other programmes within the
development agenda of the United Nations.
Implementation of the 2000 Millennium
Development Goals has been slow. We have, however,
now incorporated those objectives into the
Government’s Economic Recovery and Development
Plan of 2003 to 2005, as priorities for national
implementation.
The Solomon Islands looks forward to
participating fully in the review process of the
Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable
Development of Small Island Developing States. We
envisage the outcome of the 2004 international meeting
in Mauritius to be one that will focus on real
commitments and practical implementations of the
Programme at the national and regional levels.
The Brussels Programme of Action for the Least
Developed Countries (LDCs) provides yet another
opportunity and dimension for addressing the pressing
problems facing poor countries. Implementation of this
Programme at the national level has been slow. Real
commitments from the international community to
address our constraints, including capacity and
indebtedness, have, however, not been forthcoming
either.
We commend the work of the High
Representative of the Office for the Least Developed
Countries in seeking international support and
commitment to implement the Programme. We further
call on the international community to seriously
consider more resolute measures, such as cancellation
of debts to highly indebted poor countries.
As a member of the World Trade Organization
(WTO), the Solomon Islands is equally concerned that
the Cancún meeting failed to yield positive results.
Like other least developed countries, we have a key
interest in the development dimension of the Doha
Round, and we wish to re-echo what we stated in
Cancún, namely that a new, equitable and fair trading
system must take into account issues such as the
difference in income, economic size, technological
development and private sector capacities of countries.
The Solomon Islands attaches great importance to
regional cooperation. The communiqué of the leaders
of the Pacific Islands Forum last August, which has
been made available as an official document of the
fifty-eighth session of the United Nations General
Assembly, reflects the range of issues that directly
concern us in the Pacific region. Those issues include
climate change and sea-level rise, fisheries and the
protection of our marine environment, trade,
sustainable development and security-related issues. As
small States with inherent geographical and structural
disadvantages, our strength lies in pooling our
resources to address these issues collectively. We call
upon the United Nations to take more active part in
regional initiatives.
Allow me at this juncture to express once more
our strong support for Taiwan to be admitted as a full
member of the United Nations. It is an undeniable fact
that under international law, Taiwan is a sovereign
state. It has a transparent and democratic political
system, a vibrant and progressive economy and a
highly efficient social system, all of which are
completely independent with no control whatsoever
exercised by the People’s Republic of China.
Taiwan is a willing partner, able to meet its
international obligations under the Charter. Its
contribution to the international community and the
global economy are well known. Yet only a fortnight
ago, this body once again denied the wishes of the
people of Taiwan to be considered for membership in
the United Nations. Over the years the international
community has discriminated against its 23 million
people. The delayed World Health Organization
17

assistance to Taiwan during the outbreak of severe
acute respiratory syndrome early this year is an
example of how reasons of power politics prevail over
timely humanitarian assistance.
I have made the assertion that the United Nations
must remain relevant to the changing political
environment. It must live up to the fundamental values
and principles enshrined in its Charter. It must remain a
universal and all-inclusive Organization, capable of
serving all its Members, however big or small, however
powerful or weak and of whatever creed, religion or
political belief. Every country must be treated with
equal respect and attention. The United Nations must
also live up to its principle of equality of all nations in
this new millennium.