In this
Hall today are representatives of wealthy countries and also
representatives of poor countries, who constitute the
majority. There are ministers and ambassadors from
countries whose per capita gross domestic product is
$25,000 dollars, and others who represent countries where
that figure is a mere $300 dollars. Moreover, that difference
grows year by year.
There are representatives of countries that appear to
have a promising future. These are the countries with only
20 per cent of the world's population, but 86 per cent of its
gross domestic product, 82 per cent of world export
markets, 68 per cent of direct foreign investment, and 74
per cent of all of the telephone lines on the planet.
What can we say about the future of those whom we
represent here who account for 80 per cent of the world's
population, living in countries that were colonized and
plundered for centuries to increase the wealth of the former
metropolises? It is true that time has passed, and that our
history is what it is and not what we might have wished it
to be. But must we simply resign ourselves to a future that
is essentially the same?
Can we feel reassured knowing that the wealth of the
three richest people in the world is greater than the
combined gross domestic product of the 48 least developed
countries, with their population of 600 million, whose
representatives are present in this hall today demanding
justice?
In this hall today we have representatives of countries
where most of the population — which is hardly growing
at all — are guaranteed decent living standards and where
some live in opulence. These populations spend $12 billion
on perfume and $17 billion on pet food every year.
But there is a majority represented in this hall that has
no reason to feel optimistic. This majority comprises 900
million people who go hungry and 1.3 billion who live in
poverty. My brothers and sisters here today representing
Africa have no reason to feel reassured. They know that
today there are 23 million people on their continent who are
HIV-positive. They also know that it costs $12,000 to treat
just one person infected with the virus, which means that it
would take almost $300 billion a year for all the AIDS
patients in Africa to receive the same treatment currently
provided to AIDS sufferers in wealthy countries.
Could my colleagues representing 6 billion of the
planet's inhabitants — to which a further 80 million are
added every year, almost all of them in the Third
World — really think that a situation like this could
continue unchanged into the next century?
How can any of us prevent the continued growth in
the number of emigrants from poor nations who flock to
the wealthy countries in pursuit of a dream, while the
current world order does not allow them to find the
conditions for a decent life in their own countries?
A small number of representatives in this hall
represent countries that have no need to fear a military
threat in the coming century. Some even have nuclear
weapons, belong to a powerful alliance or build up their
armies every year with better, more sophisticated
weapons. They are the ones who view the rest of the
world as merely the Euro-Atlantic periphery of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, and therefore they will
never have to endure the devastation of massive bombings
by invisible attackers acting under what has come to be
known as a new strategic concept of that aggressive
military organization.
But the vast majority of those of us gathered here
today do not enjoy such security. We are troubled to see
that in a world dominated by a single military and
technological Power, we are today less safe than during
the difficult years of the cold war.
If one day we wished to call upon the Security
Council to discuss a situation that we viewed as a threat
to one of our poor countries, does the Assembly think
that we would be heard? I fear that recent examples have
proved otherwise.
Why is there no discussion in the Assembly about
general and complete disarmament, including nuclear
disarmament? Why is the issue limited to controlling
small arms, which are necessary in a case such as that of
Cuba — a country attacked and under blockade for 40
years? Why is there no mention of the deadly laser-
guided bombs, the depleted uranium missiles, or the
cluster or graphite bombs used indiscriminately by the
United States in bombing the civilian populations in
Kosovo?
Could anyone claim that our children will inherit a
just and secure world if we do not change the unfair and
unequal standards that are currently used to measure
issues of such key importance to our collective security?
14

Must we also accept the imposition of free market
rules and the sacred law of supply and demand in the brutal
commerce of death? What is stopping the international
community from attempting, in a rational and coordinated
manner, to redirect a large part of the $780 billion currently
used for military expenditures to promoting development in
the Third World countries?
That is why we so passionately defend respect for the
principles of international law, which have guided relations
among all of the world's countries for more than half a
century. What would we have left to defend ourselves in
the future if we poor countries were no longer able to rely
on such principles as respect for sovereignty and self-
determination, the sovereign equality of all States and non-
interference in the internal affairs of other nations? How
could we call on the international community to protest a
threat against one of our countries if those principles, which
are today systematically and flagrantly violated, were to be
struck from the Charter of the United Nations?
In a unipolar world, attempts to impose notions such
as the limitation of sovereignty, and humanitarian
intervention, do not advance international security: they
pose a threat to the countries of the Third World, which
have neither powerful armies nor nuclear weapons. Such
attempts must therefore be brought to an end: they violate
the letter and the spirit of the Charter.
At the same time, we believe it is necessary to defend
the United Nations, now more than ever. We defend the
need for its existence as much as we do the need to
democratize it. The challenge facing us is that of reforming
the United Nations so that it serves the interests of all
nations equally. We defend both the need for the existence
of the Security Council and the need to make it more
inclusive, democratic and transparent. Why not expand the
number of permanent members? Why could not the Council
include at least two or three new permanent members from
Latin America, Africa and Asia? The membership now is
three times the number of countries which founded the
United Nations in San Francisco in 1945, and the vast
majority of them — the Third World countries — do not
have a single permanent member to represent them.
However, we do not defend the right of veto. We do
not believe that anyone should have it. But if it is not
possible to eliminate it, we should at least attempt to ensure
that this prerogative is more evenly shared, and provide that
all new permanent members have the right of veto. Why,
if the right of veto cannot be eliminated now, is it not
restricted to votes on proposed measures under Chapter VII
of the Charter? As things stand at present, a single
country can override the will of all the other United
Nations Members. And there is one country that has
exercised its unlimited right to veto an infinite number of
times: the United States. This is untenable.
At the United Nations, we must curb the attempt to
impose a single way of thinking on us by trying to make
us believe that it is our way, or that it is superior to our
rich diversity of cultures and models, or that it is more
advanced and modern than our multiplicity of identities.
To survive, we must resist being treated as merely the
Euro-Atlantic periphery and oppose having labelled as
global threats the problems that we face as consequences
of colonialism: underdevelopment; the consumerism of
the wealthy countries; and even the results of their recent
or current policies.
Here in this Hall are the representatives of the Group
of 7, whose countries have 685 million inhabitants and
economies with a combined gross domestic product of
$20 trillion. Also present are the rest of us, who represent
the remaining 181 countries, with more than 5 billion
inhabitants and economies with a combined gross
domestic product of barely $10 trillion. Yes, we are all
equal under the Charter of the United Nations, but not in
real life.
While rich countries have the transnational
corporations that control over one third of all of the
world's exports, we poor countries have the asphyxiating
burden of external debt, which has risen to the level of $2
trillion and continues to grow, devouring almost 25 per
cent of our export earnings just to service our debt. How
can development be possible under these conditions?
While we speak insistently in this Hall of the need for a
new international financial architecture, our countries are
being buffeted by the scourge of a system that allows the
daily occurrence of speculative transactions worth $3
trillion. That structure cannot be fixed; it is not a matter
of remodelling it, but rather of demolishing it and
rebuilding it anew.
Can anyone explain the logic of this phantom
economy that produces nothing and is sustained by
buying and selling things that do not exist? Should we or
should we not demolish this chaotic financial system and
build upon its ruins a system that favours production,
takes differences into account and stops forcing our
battered economies to endlessly pursue the impossible
illusion of increasing financial reserves? Sooner or later,
those reserves evaporate in the course of the desperate
15

and unfair battle to defend our currencies from the strong
and highly favoured currency of the anachronistic Bretton
Woods accord, the sacrosanct dollar.
When the history of these years is written, it will be
very difficult to explain how a single country was able to
accumulate so many privileges and such absolute power.
What will the economists of the next century say when they
realize that the United States was able to live with a current
account deficit that is already about $300 billion without
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) having imposed
even one of the severe adjustment programmes that are
impoverishing the countries of the third world?
Who will explain the fact that, thanks to the privilege
of having the world's reserve currency, the Americans, save
less and spend more than anyone else in the world? Will
anyone tell them that in 1998 they were able to import
$124 billion worth of cars and spend $8 billion in
cosmetics, thanks in good measure to the fact that they
controlled 17.8 per cent of the votes of the International
Monetary Fund, which gives them a virtual right of veto?
How can we explain to the people of Tanzania, for
example, that while all of this was happening they had to
spend nine times as much on servicing the foreign debt
than on primary health care, and four times as much as on
primary education?
The current international economic system is not only
profoundly unjust, but also absolutely unsustainable. An
economic system that destroys the environment cannot be
sustained. The world's supply of drinking water today is 60
per cent of what it was in 1970; and today there are 2.3
billion more human beings on the planet than there were
back then. The same is happening with our forests. Could
anyone in this Hall defend the proposition that such a pace
of destruction can go on indefinitely?
An economic system based on the irrational
consumption patterns of the rich countries, which are later
exported to our own countries through the mass media,
cannot be sustained. Why not accept that it is possible to
provide a decent life to all the people of the planet with the
resources that are within our reach and the degree of
technological development we have achieved, through a
rational and solidarity-based exploitation of all this
potential?
How will they explain that the member countries of
the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development, whose representatives I now address with all
due respect, have fallen so far behind as to provide less
than one third of their 1970 commitment to dedicate a
minimum of 0.7 per cent of their gross national product
to official development assistance?
I asked a member of our delegation, a Deputy in our
National Assembly and a professed Christian, what the
Bible would say about such an unjust economic order. He
responded quickly with the words of a Prophet from the
Holy Book:
“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous
decrees, and that write grievousness which they have
prescribed;
To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take
away the right from the poor of my people, that
widows may be their prey, and that they may rob
the fatherless!
And what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in
the desolation which shall come from afar? to whom
will ye flee for help? and where will ye leave your
glory?” (The Holy Bible, Isaiah 10: 1-3)
I know that many people in this Hall share these
concerns, and I also know that almost all of us are asking
ourselves the same question. Can the World Trade
Organization (WTO) be spared from becoming a fiefdom
of the United States and its allies, as the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank are today? Will we
truly succeed in making the World Trade Organization the
democratic and transparent forum we need, or will the
powerful interests of a minority be imposed to the
detriment of the silent majority, which is too divided,
confused and unsuspecting to understand the dangers of
a cold and dogmatic liberalization of world trade? Will
they remember that the vast majority of third world
countries, dependent on the export of a single agricultural
product or a few spices, will be wiped out of world trade
and crushed by the fierce competition of a few
transnational corporations? Should we or should we not
take these realities into account and accept the need to
protect the interests of the underdeveloped countries, if
only to guarantee their very survival?
How will we poor countries be able to compete if
our professionals leave for the wealthy nations in pursuit
of better opportunities; if we are not even allowed to keep
our athletes and we must watch with sorrow as they
compete under another country's flag? How will we poor
nations be able to compete economically if the 10 most
16

developed countries control 95 per cent of the patents
issued in the last 20 years, and intellectual property, far
from being liberalized, is ever more closely protected?
Talking to us poor countries about trade through the
Internet is almost a joke, when we know that 91 per cent of
Internet users live in the member countries of the
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Will we ever see a change in the current situation, in which
there are over 600 telephone lines for every 1,000 people
in the United States, Sweden and Switzerland, yet only 1
telephone per 1,000 people in Cambodia, Chad and
Afghanistan?
As part of this tragic depiction of the situation facing
the vast majority of countries in the world, I feel bound to
talk about my own country. The situation in Cuba is an
eloquent example, if ever there was one, of what should not
be done in terms of relations between powerful and small
nations.
For more than 40 years, my people have been
subjected to a brutal policy of hostility and all kinds of
aggression imposed by the United States. High-level
authorities in that country have openly admitted that this
policy is aimed at destroying the political and economic
system built by the Cuban people of their own free will and
at restoring the neo-colonial power that the United States
held over Cuba and definitively lost on 1 January 1959,
with the triumph of the Cuban revolution.
As has been made clear by events, public statements
by American spokespersons and by declassified secret
United States documents, this policy of aggression has been
carried out through means that have ranged from political
and diplomatic measures, propaganda campaigns, espionage
and subversion, and fostering defection and illegal
emigration, to acts of terrorism, sabotage and biological
warfare. This policy has also included the organization and
support of armed groups; air and naval raids against our
territory; the hatching of over 600 plots to assassinate the
leader of our revolution; a military invasion by a mercenary
army; the most serious threat ever of a global nuclear
conflict, in October 1962; and finally, a brutal commercial
and financial blockade and a ferocious economic war
against my country that have now lasted 40 years.
Let me set aside the economic aspects of this
aggression against Cuba and deal solely with the physical
aggression and acts of war carried out by the United States
Government. Recently Cuban social organizations, on
behalf of the entire population of Cuba, filed a civil lawsuit
against the United States Administration claiming
reparation and compensation for loss and damages
resulting from the deaths of 3,478 Cuban citizens and for
a further 2,099 survivors who have been left disabled as
a consequence of the covert plots and the “dirty war”
waged by the United States. The suit demands that the
United States Government, which is responsible for these
human losses and injuries, be sentenced to pay a total of
$181.1 billion in reparation as a minimum symbolic
compensation for the loss of something that is clearly
irreplaceable and priceless: the lives and physical well-
being of the more than 5,500 Cuban citizens who have
been victims of the United States' obsessive policy against
Cuba.
At the open and public trial, televised nationwide, at
which this claim was considered, it was clearly proved
that the United States Government was directly
responsible for this continued aggression, and that the
undeclared war against Cuba had constituted an official
State policy enforced by no fewer than nine successive
United States Administrations over the last 40 years.
What will they tell their grandchildren, these leaders,
officials and agents of the United States Government
whose consciences are weighed down by the guilt of
planning and carrying out this “dirty war” against Cuba
and by the moral burden of responsibility for the death of
thousands of Cubans?
Can we possibly allow an international system to
continue into the next century that accords total impunity
for monstrous actions such as these, which have been
systematically and flagrantly perpetrated by a major
Power?
The ferocious economic blockade that extends to
every facet of our country's foreign trade and financial
relations merits particular attention. This blockade, which
has lasted over 40 years, began to develop before the
triumph of the revolution. A secret United States
document, declassified in 1991, reveals that on 23
December 1958, at a National Security Council meeting
attended by President Dwight Eisenhower at which the
situation in Cuba was discussed, the then-Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Allen Dulles,
categorically stated: “We must prevent a Castro victory”.
Three days later, on 26 December, President
Eisenhower instructed the CIA that he did not wish the
specifics of covert operations against Cuba to be
17

presented to the National Security Council. Everything had
to be kept strictly secret.
The sudden and overwhelming triumph of the
revolutionary forces six days later did not give them time
to prevent a Castro victory. The first United States assault
on the national economy took place on 1 January 1959,
when those who had looted the public treasury fled for the
United States, together with the perpetrators of the worst
massacres and abuses against the Cuban people.
Five weeks after the triumph of the revolution,
economist Felipe Pazos, a professional man — well known
and respected in United States Government circles — who
had been appointed by the revolutionary Government to
take over the management of the Cuban National Bank,
announced on 6 February that the former regime had
embezzled or seized $424 million from the gold and dollar
reserves that backed the Cuban peso. The New York Times
subsequently corroborated the report's claim concerning the
theft of the funds, which constituted the country's only
reserves.
The spoils of this colossal theft ended up in United
States banks. Not a dime was returned to Cuba. The
National Bank immediately requested a modest quantity of
funds to deal with this highly critical situation. That request
was turned down.
The Agrarian Reform Act, enacted on 17 May 1959,
was aimed at providing food for the vast majority of our
undernourished people and direct or indirect employment
for the large percentage of the population that was then
unemployed. It was enacted when the word socialism had
not yet been spoken in Cuba; however, it provoked an
extreme reaction in the United States, whose companies
owned much of the best and most fertile land in Cuba.
Cuba's willingness, stipulated in the Act itself, to provide
the owners with deferred compensation paid out in
reasonable and workable instalments was met with an
immediate demand from the United States Government for
prompt, effective and full cash compensation. There was
nothing in the public coffers with which to meet this
demand.
A month later, on 24 June, at a meeting called by the
State Department to consider options for action against
Cuba, the view was put forth that the United States should
take a very strong stance forthwith against the Act and its
implementation, and that the best way to achieve the
necessary results was through economic pressure. The
elimination of the Cuban sugar cane quota from the United
States market was proposed. According to a declassified
document, this would cause the sugar industry to suffer
an abrupt and immediate decline, causing widespread
higher unemployment; the large numbers of people
thereby forced out of work would begin to go hungry. At
that same meeting, Secretary of State Herter explicitly
described these proposals as measures of economic
warfare.
In a memorandum dated 6 April 1960, Mr. L. D.
Mallory, a senior State Department official, stated that:
“The only foreseeable means of alienating internal
support is through disenchantment and disaffection
based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship ...
every possible means should be undertaken promptly
to weaken the economic life of Cuba”.
He suggested taking:
“... a line of action which ... makes the greatest
inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to
decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about
hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the
Government.”
On 6 July of that same year, the United States
adopted one of the measures proposed: the elimination of
the Cuban sugar quota. Never again would the United
States buy a single pound of sugar from Cuba. A market
that was established over the course of more than 100
years between the United States and Cuba, with Cuba
guaranteeing the supply of this essential food product to
the United States and its allies during the first half of the
century, including during the two World Wars from which
the United States emerged as the wealthiest, most
powerful nation in the world, was wiped out in a second,
dealing a cruel blow to the country's major source of
employment and wealth and depriving it of essential
funds for the food, medicine, fuel and raw materials
needed to ensure the material survival of our people.
From that time on, successive economic measures
against the Cuban people continued to accumulate until
they formed a absolute and total blockade, which went so
far as to prevent Cuba from importing even an aspirin
produced in the United States, or from exporting to that
country a single flower grown in Cuba.
This complete blockade, cynically referred to in
official terminology with the euphemistic and apparently
innocuous word “embargo”, has continued to intensify
18

over the past 40 years. At the most critical and difficult
time in our history, when the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and the socialist bloc collapsed, and with them
the basic markets and sources of supply that the country
could count on to withstand the ferocious economic warfare
waged against an island only 90 miles from the United
States coast, they decided to be yet more unyielding in their
approach to Cuba: with truly vulgar and repugnant
opportunism, the blockade was intensified to the maximum.
The so-called Torricelli Act of 1992, among other
restrictive measures that greatly affected the maritime
transport of food and other commodities between Cuba and
the rest of the world, prohibited United States subsidiaries
based in third countries from trading with Cuba. This put
an end to commercial operations that amounted to over
$700 million in imports of foodstuffs and medicines from
those countries. This genocidal policy reached even more
infamous heights with the Helms-Burton Act, which
codified all previous administrative restrictions, expanded
and tightened the blockade and established it in perpetuity.
Subsequent to the passage of that law, and with the
aim of tightening even further the blockade against the
Cuban people, numerous amendments, introduced into bills
of such urgency and length that many United States
lawmakers did not even have time to read them, were
adopted by show of hands in the United States Congress.
The Cuban-American terrorist mafia, which is closely
linked to the extreme right wing, has achieved its goal of
changing the blockade from an order from the executive
into rigorous and inflexible legislation. The genocide
thereby became institutionalized.
Following a 1997 study of the consequences of the
blockade for health, the American Association for World
Health concluded that it violates the most basic
international agreements and conventions governing human
rights standards, including the United Nations Charter, the
Charter of the Organization of American States and the
Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian
Persons in time of War. The Geneva Conventions, to which
some 165 countries, including the United States, are parties,
require the free passage of all medical supplies and
foodstuffs intended for civilian use in time of war. The
United States and Cuba are not at war. Indeed, their
Governments have even maintain diplomatic representation
in Havana and Washington. However, the American
Association for World Health has determined that the
embargo's restrictions are a deliberate blockade of the
Cuban population's access to food and medicine in
peacetime.
In the same report, the American Association for
World Health expresses its belief that the United States
embargo against Cuba has dramatically harmed the health
and nutrition of a large number of ordinary Cuban
citizens and concludes that the embargo has significantly
increased suffering in Cuba, to the point of causing death.
For seven consecutive years, the Assembly has
consistently adopted a resolution on the need to end the
economic blockade imposed by the Government of the
United States of America on the Cuban people. The
condemnation of that genocidal policy has visibly grown
from year to year: year on year between 1992 and 1998,
the Cuban resolution against the blockade received 59, 88,
101, 117, 137, 143 and 157 votes in favour, while the
United States obtained only 3, 4, 2, 3, 3, 3 and 2 votes,
including its own. Given the absolute contempt
demonstrated by the United States with regard to these
General Assembly resolutions, the people of Cuba have
decided, independently of the battle taking place in this
Assembly, to resort to the legal procedures to which they
are entitled in order to demand the appropriate sanctions
against those responsible for such acts of genocide.
Cuba's initiative is based on a solid and irrefutable
legal foundation. The Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the
Assembly on 9 December 1948 and signed by the
Government of the United States of America on 11
December 1948 and by the Republic of Cuba on 28
December 1949. It entered into force on 12 January 1951
and has been signed and ratified by 124 States. Article II
of that Convention reads:
“In the present Convention, genocide means any of
the following acts committed with intent to destroy,
in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group”.
In subparagraph (c), it immediately goes on to
include, among these acts,
“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions
of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part”.
Article III stipulates that the following acts, among
others, shall be punishable: “(a) Genocide; ... (d) Attempt
to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide”. It
explicitly states in article IV that
19

“Persons committing genocide or any of the other
acts enumerated in article III shall be punished,
whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers,
public officials or private individuals”.
The Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War was signed on 12 August
1949, and was ratified by the Governments of the United
States and Cuba; it entered into force on 21 October 1950.
A total of 188 States are currently parties to the
Convention. Article 23 decrees that
“Each High Contracting Party shall allow the free
passage of all consignments of medical and hospital
stores and objects necessary for religious worship
intended only for civilians of another High
Contracting Party, even if the latter is its adversary. It
shall likewise permit the free passage of all
consignments of essential foodstuffs, clothing and
tonics intended for children under fifteen, expectant
mothers and maternity cases”.
The first Protocol Additional to that Convention
specifically, precisely and categorically stipulates, in its
article 54, entitled “Protection of objects indispensable to
the survival of the civilian population”, that
“1. Starvation of civilians as a method of warfare
is prohibited.
“2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or
render useless objects indispensable to the survival of
the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural
areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock,
drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation
works, for the specific purpose of denying them for
their sustenance value to the civilian population or to
the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in
order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move
away, or for any other motive”.
Article VII of the 1948 Convention on genocide states,
without room for the slightest doubt, that
“Persons charged with genocide or any of the
other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a
competent tribunal of the State in the territory of
which the act was committed”.
Subparagraph (e) of article III of that Convention
stipulates with the same precision that accomplices to
genocide shall also be punished.
As a consequence, the National Assembly of
People's Power of the Republic of Cuba declared on 13
September 1999: first, that the economic blockade
imposed on Cuba by the Government of the United States
constitutes an international crime of genocide in
accordance with the definition stipulated in the
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly on
9 December 1948; second, that, on the basis of the
arguments put forward and of the foregoing statement, it
proclaims Cuba's right to demand that such acts be
punished; third, that as a result of the grave, systematic
and ongoing genocide carried out over the course of 40
years against the people of Cuba, and in accordance with
international standards, principles, agreements and laws,
Cuban courts have the right to try and punish the guilty
parties, whether they be present or absent; fourth, that
acts of genocide and other war crimes are not subject to
any statute of limitations; fifth, that the guilty parties can
be punished even with a sentence of life imprisonment;
sixth, that criminal responsibility does not exempt the
aggressor State from providing material compensation for
the human and economic damage it may have caused; and
seventh, that it calls on the international community for
support in this struggle to defend the most elementary
principles of justice, the right to life, peace and the
freedom of all peoples.
Here in this Hall today, as members of the Cuban
delegation to the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth
session, there are three young Cubans representing our
country's university students, secondary-school students,
and children and adolescents. They are here on behalf of
the social organizations that went before the relevant
courts to file the claim against the United States
Government, demanding reparations and compensation for
the damages and injuries suffered by thousands of people.
Those same organizations also took the legal initiative of
proposing to the National Assembly of People's Power the
proclamation I have just cited.
Here with us as well are three outstanding
personalities in Cuban medicine, Deputies in the National
Assembly, who have testified before that body on the
tragic harm that has resulted from the blockade on
medicines imposed against our country. There are also
three Christian deputies, whose profound ethical, religious
and human convictions led them to support the
proclamation made in our National Assembly demanding
the trial and punishment of the guilty parties.
20

These individuals are prepared to respond, here in the
United States, to any questions posed to them, or to meet
with the press, academic institutions, non-governmental
organizations, legislators, senators or even any committee
of the United States Congress. We are prepared not only to
make accusations, but also to engage in debate and prove
the facts that support them.


I wish to
express my pleasure at your recent election, Mr. President.
I also wish to acknowledge the work of your illustrious
predecessor, Mr. Didier Opertti. The Secretary-General, Mr.
Kofi Annan, also deserves acknowledgement for his
untiring efforts to ensure that peace and security govern
international relations in this turbulent world in which we
live, always showing sensitivity and a very special concern
for those who suffer the most, have the least, and therefore
need the greatest care.
Almost a year ago, Central America was tragically
struck by one of the most terrible hurricanes of the century.
Our country, Honduras, was the most severely damaged,
with billions of dollars in losses resulting from the
destruction of more than 70 per cent of its infrastructure
and economy. More than 15,000 people were killed,
injured or went missing and more than 1.5 million
suffered losses, either directly or indirectly, a high
percentage of whom lost their homes, belongings and
businesses in their entirety.
Those unfortunate circumstances through which we
had to live, the consequences of which we have only just
begun to recover from, have been aggravated in recent
weeks by the severity of the winter and high levels of
precipitation. Once again, the banks of our country’s main
rivers have overflowed, as it was not possible to dredge
them because of lack of time and resources. This is again
jeopardizing the safety of numerous population centres
and cities, causing more flooding and mudslides and
blocking the country’s main transportation arteries. This
has brought further insecurity and anguish to our
population, adding new losses and difficulties to the
already grave state of affairs we have faced since last
October.
Hurricane Mitch and other natural phenomena of
uncommon violence lay bare the physical vulnerability of
our countries and highlight the absolute necessity of early
and organized preventive measures. Such preventive
measures can be achieved at the national, regional,
continental and, indeed, global levels only through
combined, joint efforts and resources. No country, much
less a country that is poor in material resources, is up to
the task of bearing the massive destructive power of these

phenomena alone. This is a huge new challenge for the
United Nations, whose diligent attention to this matter we
take this opportunity to request, knowing that it stands to
save thousands upon thousands of lives, spare us enormous
damage, and deflect immense ills.
We, the Honduran people, have always valued the
world’s solidarity, for which we are most grateful, and have
also learned that brotherhood among men and among
nations is a value that we must not lose. On the contrary,
we must revitalize, strengthen and disseminate it, especially
now that globalization and high-speed communications are
drawing States and continents closer together, making it
possible for one nation instantly to feel the pain that afflicts
another as if it affected us all directly.
More than neighbours, we must be brethren. Beyond
cooperation, we must sow the seeds of brotherhood.
Solidarity is a fine thing, but brotherhood is stronger and
more human, because it breathes from the depth of our
hearts that divine, universal breath of life with which God
endows each and every one of his creatures so that we
should be equal and enjoy the planet’s wealth as equals.
Since its founding in 1945, the United Nations has
played a preeminent role in the life of our planet. The 50
nations that met at San Francisco, California, among which
the Honduran people were honoured to count ourselves, and
that signed the United Nations Charter, have increased in
number over the years. Some have changed, while others
have disappeared as multinational or federated structures.
Therefore, the challenges that the next century will place
before the United Nations are new, even greater challenges,
and most likely will be even more difficult and will arise
ever more frequently.
The growing victories of human rights; the accelerated
expansion of democracy as a system of governance and
coexistence among peoples; the rights of women and
children, and the imperative to protect both against abuse,
discrimination and violence: these are matters that challenge
the creative imagination of the world’s peoples and
Governments. They are paradigms for a new millennium,
whose portals we approach with a watchful mind and a
hopeful heart.
Peace; the environment; population growth; the
abandonment of the fields and the forced, chaotic
urbanization of our cities — which have thus become
ruralized; issues of food; the vast differences between a
small cluster of rich nations and an immense universe of
nations that are in a permanent process of pauperization;
and the eradication of weapons of mass destruction: these
are but a few of the topics that transcend the boundaries
of the centuries. These issues demand new approaches
and solutions formulated in the light of the experiences
that this waning century leaves us.
Now, when the end of the twentieth century enables
us to be exceptionally privileged witnesses to a change of
millennium, is a time for reflection, so that we may
harvest the century’s finest fruits and bear them across the
bridge between the centuries. However, we must not carry
to the other frontier of time those things that in this
century have produced the great disasters of war and
agonizing tensions on the international scene; nor must
we hold on to those that have segregated peoples and
dismembered entire States or that have spawned the
marginalization and exclusion that still torment a large
part of humanity.
It is of the utmost necessity, then, that fraternity
should return to its rightful place in the triangle of liberal
principles, the very ideals that gave birth to the rule of
law and the concept of constitutionality, to harmony and
equality among individuals and among nations, thus
shaping democratic States and the paradigm of human
freedom as the basis of the existence of humankind, its
very raison d’être on this planet.
We say that the elder siblings among the community
of nations must adopt the concept of fraternity as a
principle and a guiding ethic for international coexistence
with their brethren, so that together — without exclusion,
without the yawning chasms that separate the great from
the small, the wealthy from the impoverished — we may
all cross to the other side of the millennium with a new
outlook of justice, opportunity and hope, for the sake of
all that we are as the human race, and for the sake of all
the efforts, sacrifices and suffering expended in our
attempts to dodge the blows of economic disparity and
unjust treatment in finance and markets. Yet we have
remained steadfast, and continue to do so through titanic
efforts and countless sacrifices, to avoid being left behind
by development, cultural trends and the scientific and
technological benefits of transportation and
communications. We have struggled for all of this while
giving our heroes and martyrs to the cause of freedom;
we stretch as far as we can to develop democratic rule in
our States. We struggle each and every day to make
democratic rule able to govern, credible, hope-inspiring
and trustworthy in the eyes and hearts of the many who
do not always have the patience to wait until the benefits
2

of the system materialize, who despair and grow weary of
dreaming dreams that are difficult to attain.
For democracy to survive the times and to justify the
high price that we have paid for it, it must respond to the
concerns and aspirations of peoples. Protecting against
regression in what so many have paid dearly to achieve;
preserving the advances we have made; and finding a way
to ensure that there will respond in a positive way for the
benefit of peoples: these are the greatest challenges that we
carry with us as we meet the coming millennium.
Central Americans have learned, through bitter
experience and a painful toll of blood and sacrifice, that
fraternity is a higher value than mere neighbourliness, that
cooperation and understanding yield better fruit for us than
past rivalries and local nationalisms and that there is no
difference, however serious it may appear, that we cannot
resolve in a peaceful, harmonious and civilized manner.
A few days ago the presidents of El Salvador and
Honduras set a beautiful example for the continent and the
world when they ratified the Convention on Nationality and
Acquired Rights which covers the inhabitants of the areas
delimited by the Judgment of 11 September 1992 of the
International Court of Justice in the land, island and
maritime frontier dispute between El Salvador and
Honduras. With this action, we have resolved, definitively
and in perpetuity, the frontier dispute which for many years
cast a pall over our fraternal relations.
The Central American bloc is today working towards
access to the United States market under conditions as
advantageous as those already enjoyed by other partners to
our north; also, as a region we are seeking to open up the
field for ourselves in trade throughout the continent through
agreements with other existing blocs and with individual
nations, including Mexico and countries of South America.
Central America is preparing to cross the bridge
between the millennia with all its republics more integrated
with each other than ever before, identifying with each
other in the common ideal of keeping ourselves united so
that we are stronger, of playing a stellar role in the
American continent, of turning the isthmus into a point of
strategic convergence for world trade, and of writing
ourselves into a success story that will serve as an example
and touchstone to the world community.
The globalization process, which has accelerated over
the last decade, will continue to expand, creating challenges
and chances, problems and opportunities. The dizzying
flows of capital which in a single day can wreak
catastrophic collapse on the economies of entire countries
and regions must surely merit special attention from this
Organization. Our peoples fail to understand why they
should be affected by breakdowns in the financial system
arising out of risk-taking and speculative flows in regions
of the world that are remote, alien and even unknown to
them. We are affected by them although we play no part
in them and are not to blame for them, yet they raise the
prices of our staples, rob us of development opportunities,
impoverish us even further and make life harder for us.
Globalization ought to be an experience that generates
broader possibilities and greater opportunities for all
countries and for all people, not greater imbalances and
inequalities.
In stark contrast to the elimination of customs and
border posts and to equal access to markets stands the
need to reinforce the identity of ethnic groups, nations,
countries and regions. Cultural diversity is a source of
legitimate pride, and of wealth, creativity and global
complementarity. Automation of mass production cannot
and should not make human behaviour, the most precious
resource on our planet, automatic. Homogenizing the
world’s cultural diversity, by whatever means, would be
as serious and unthinkable as eliminating the planet’s
biodiversity.
The world’s age-old desire for a new world order
based on peace, cooperation and fraternity between all
countries rather than on a balance of arms between
powerful and hegemonic States has already come to pass.
Although there are still some local problems, and
although some old nationalisms are once again raising the
flag, the world is generally a much more peaceful and
stable place than it was 100 years ago. Although small
groups of terrorists are still rattling various countries in
the old world and the new, the truth is that, broadly
speaking, we live in a world which is more peaceful —
thank God — than the one our forebears knew. That is
why we must indeed acknowledge that, despite all its
imperfections, the world has brought in a new world
order at the end of this century and the dawn of the new,
an order led by the United Nations.
In this new world order which we are seeing at the
end of the second millennium, there is no more room for
the struggle left us by the Cold War, much less for
Europe’s various hegemonies of the past three centuries.
Nor is there any possibility that one State alone can
dominate the rest, as neither the human capacity nor the
material resources exist to do so. Rather than the balance
3

of compulsion upon which the politics of coexistence
between the world’s strongest States was based, what
predominates now is multiple independence,
complementarity between States and international
cooperation and, of course, teamwork as much in the quest
for peace as in coping with civilian crises and natural
disasters.
Even a superficial look at events north and south, east
and west gives us an inkling that peace, international trade
and the fact that States now have no choice but to
cooperate with each other have levelled the playing field in
international relations: on the world stage, it is now not so
much a State’s economic clout or military capability that
determine whether its voice is heard in the debate but rather
its moral force, and especially its democratic values and its
ideals in terms of protecting human rights. In our specific
context here, there are no more big States and small States,
just members of the world community whether committed
or not to the common task of making Planet Earth a real
and effective place for human happiness for everyone
without exception.
With this in mind Honduras, together with the other
representatives of this great community, the United Nations,
celebrates the new world order in which all of us are
needed and are even indispensable to maintaining and
developing it. A crisis between one State and another, or
any internal difficulties arising out of conflicts rooted in
inequity or because of nationalist, racial or religious
demands, are no longer matters to be shrugged off.
On the contrary, today, with the globalized view of the
Earth, each State assumes responsibility for its own
protection, not merely for its own sake, but because in that
way it guarantees the life and happiness of humankind for
centuries to come.
Difficulties such as those in East Timor, the crisis in
Kosovo, the increasing nuclearization of the Indian
subcontinent or the rise in terrorism in Colombia and
Russia are issues that concern us all. Although not all
countries participate in each peacekeeping and humanitarian
mission, there is a disposition and openness in each and
every one of their inhabitants to respond to the calls for
international solidarity, whose strongest voice is that of the
United Nations, and especially that of its Secretary-General.
In the Sahara, for several years now Honduran soldiers
have participated in peacekeeping missions under United
Nations command. We are sure that, like us, no other
country skimps when it comes to offering cooperation and
making sacrifices.
Both the intervention of the Security Council in the
Kosovo conflict just recently and the organization of an
international peacekeeping force for East Timor illustrate
the efficacy of this system, which makes all of us
brethren, neighbours, friends and partners.
It is undeniable that, even as the world has changed
and with obvious respect among all States, the United
Nations still operates using the mechanisms that were
established at its founding in 1945. The limited number
of Member States on the Security Council leaves out
other States that, because of their contribution to the
development of the world, should participate in the high-
level decisions of that important organism of our
Organization.
Likewise, we believe it is time to provide
alternatives so that the veto power enjoyed by certain
States is limited to certain matters and certain
circumstances, and so that the mere protection of private
interests does not have excessive influence or provide
justification for aggressions directed at the rest of the
world community. To end the practice whereby the veto
serves as the Organization's last word should be a goal to
which all of the States represented here dedicate ample
time and consideration.
The incorporation of three new Members into this
Organization fills us with joy and hope, while inspiring
confidence that the Organization will treat the Republic of
China in the same manner — that, as Taiwan expects, the
new world order will be reflected in greater respect for
the rights and values of Taiwan's inhabitants, including
renewed respect for its aspirations to participate fully in
the greatest human organization on Earth. I do not wish
to miss this opportunity to express the solidarity of the
people of Honduras and of all Central America with the
people of Taiwan as they suffer the terrible misfortune
that is afflicting that sister region of the world.
To summarize, with regard to the new world order,
which we hope will prevail in this global forum,
Honduras supports broader representation of the peoples
and the nations of the world, and a more just and
balanced representation in the discussions and decisions
of the United Nations.
Almost a year ago, my country was lashed by the
most fearsome and destructive hurricane in history. Along
with causing suffering among a noble and stoical people,
the tragedy made evident the sensitivity and diligence of
international cooperation and fraternity. Marked by
4

authentic sincerity and dedication to the highest values of
brotherhood, in which we profoundly believe, messages of
concern poured in from all over the world, along with
assistance, which continues to flow, enabling the people and
Government to reconstruct what the hurricane wrecked.
Thanks to that fraternity, we have moved forward in
the process of rehabilitation and reconstruction and created
a foundation for the transformation of Honduras — and the
same applies to Central America. I hereby declare that we,
the people of Honduras — with the tears from this recent
and painful event still fresh, and while facing a new round
of anguish — are back on our feet, brimming with the
vibrant spirit of utmost hope, ready to become a success
story in this world, to convert tragedy into opportunity.
Regarding the cooperation that most of the countries
present here have offered and continue to offer us, we take
this occasion, on behalf of the Honduran people and the
Government over which I preside by the sovereign will of
its citizens, to extend our most heartfelt gratitude to all, and
likewise to confirm before the Assembly Honduras's desire
to reciprocate — in a way that is commensurate with the
greatness of its heart and the legitimacy of its democratic
institutions — for all that the world has with such deep
affection provided us in our time of trouble.
All I would add is our most respectful request that
cooperating institutions and nations expedite the resources
and projects that they have committed to Honduras's
reconstruction, which we urgently require now more than
ever.
On this occasion our country, never forgetting that it
is a founding Member of the United Nations, calls for a
reform of our Organization so that a new order, based on
worldwide cooperation and fraternity, can guarantee for all
of us that the Earth was created not for the strongest and
the most powerful, but for all human beings.
May God bless all nations. May God illuminate us all.


Allow me first of all to congratulate
Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab, Minister for Foreign Affairs of
the Republic of Namibia, for having been elected
President of the General Assembly at its fifty-fourth
session. At the same time, I would like to express my
appreciation of and respect for the President of the
General Assembly at its fifty-third session, Mr. Didier
Opertti, for the results achieved during his presidency.
Let me also express my deep respect for Secretary-
General Kofi Annan, for his excellent leadership of the
Organization. I wish to assure him that the Republic of
Macedonia is ready to continue to closely cooperate with
him.
The Republic of Macedonia welcomes the admission
of the new Members — the Republic of Kiribati, the
Republic of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga — and
wishes them success in their contribution to United
Nations activities, and at the same time expresses its
41

readiness to establish diplomatic relations with them. Also,
I hope that we shall continue the process of establishing
diplomatic relations between the Republic of Macedonia —
of course, using the constitutional name — and Member
States with which we have not yet done so.
On this occasion, I would like to express my deepest
condolences to the people of Taiwan on the earthquake that
hit the Republic of China on Taiwan, with which the
Republic of Macedonia has recently established diplomatic
relations.
It is with regret that we have to note that one of the
main characteristics of the past year was flagrant and highly
risky disrespect for the fundamental values of democratic
society. In addition to the major tragedies the world was
faced with, we witnessed a growing trend of armed
conflicts and internal and external tensions. Concerning the
area surrounding the Republic of Macedonia, I would focus
on the huge humanitarian crisis that took place in South-
Eastern Europe and the heavy consequences which
jeopardized the stability and security of the Balkans and
beyond in Europe.
The Kosovo crisis had particularly adverse effects on
my country. We had to cope with an enormous influx of
refugees, numbering more than 360,000, or 18 per cent of
the total population. The Republic of Macedonia entered a
rather difficult economic, social and political situation that
tended to destabilize it, particularly against the background
that the international community reacted with insufficient
speed and agility. The damage which the Macedonian
economy suffered is enormous, amounting to approximately
$660 million. A large number of workers were dismissed as
a result of lost markets and increased transportation costs.
The unemployment rate reached 40 per cent. All of this has
negatively affected the already poor economic and social
situation. In these circumstances, the citizens of the
Republic of Macedonia have demonstrated great
humaneness towards the refugees, tolerance and solidarity,
but also restraint in the conditions of enormous social,
political and economic pressure they were exposed to and
whose consequences could have been more dramatic.
Finally, we should not forget that there are still 30,000
refugees in the Republic of Macedonia. I urge the
Assembly to continue the joint efforts for their safe return
to their homes.
At the same time, the peace forces of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for Kosovo were
deployed in the Republic of Macedonia in support of the
international efforts for a political resolution of the crisis,
as were a large number of international governmental and
non-governmental organizations.
Macedonia has managed to overcome these
hardships, but the consequences are still being felt in the
national economy. Financial assistance and support from
the international community are indispensable for the
recovery of the national economy. It is beyond doubt that
compensation for the damage we suffered by making our
national capacities available for the resolution of the
Kosovo crisis should be an obligation of the international
community.
The Macedonian Government highly appreciates the
assistance provided by the international community thus
far through certain financial institutions or on a bilateral
basis. The assistance should continue, which is to say, we
expect States to fully carry out the commitments they
have undertaken. This is the right moment to write off
parts of our external debts as a recognition of the efforts
we are making to overcome the crisis. Today, the only
thing that the Republic of Macedonia requests is the
fulfilment of the promises made by the international
community during the crisis.
Even prior to the outbreak of the crisis and the
adoption of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), my
country had consistently supported a peaceful and
political solution to the Kosovo crisis that would include
substantial autonomy within the framework of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia; respect for the human rights of
all living in Kosovo; respect for the inviolability of
existing borders; the cessation of hostilities and of
repression; the deployment of peace forces; the safe and
free return of refugees; the demilitarization of the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) and other paramilitary forces;
and the economic reconstruction of Kosovo and the
region.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the
efforts made fully to implement Security Council
resolution 1244 (1999). The Republic of Macedonia, in
this respect, will continue to support the United Nations
Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the
European Union, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe, the Council of Europe and all
other international governmental and non-governmental
organizations. In this context, I would like to recall that
on many occasions the Macedonian Government has
demonstrated its readiness closely to cooperate with the
Secretary-General, Mr. Kofi Annan, with his Special
42

Representative, Mr. Kouchner, and with UNMIK, and that
it has offered its good offices.
The Republic of Macedonia strongly supports the
Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe as one of the most
important adopted documents for the wider region and for
Europe. Furthermore, it is prepared to take an active part in
its implementation and to contribute to the reconstruction
and stabilization of the region and its speedy integration
into European structures. The Stability Pact, through its
three pillars, or “working tables”, and through the relevant
international global and regional institutions, is expected to
contribute to a lasting stabilization of the region and to its
final integration into European and Euro-Atlantic structures.
To this effect, I would like to call upon all of the parties to
this extremely important document to mutually reinforce
their activities and to enhance their coordination.
I would here like to underscore the strong interest of
the Republic of Macedonia in the prompt implementation
of the second pillar for economic development and
reconstruction. The most important issue linked with its
unimpeded functioning and the realization of the desired
results — greater inclusion of the Balkans in European
economic, political and democratic trends — is the setting
up of lasting mechanisms for the necessary fund-raising and
the securing of funds to this end. Many United Nations
programmes and activities could be used for this purpose.
The Republic of Macedonia is interested in seeing the
United Nations play a role in this sphere.
The Republic of Macedonia will propose a pertinent
draft resolution at this session of the General Assembly that
stresses the importance of the prompt consolidation and
development of South-Eastern Europe, the importance of
the Stability Pact and the need for the full implementation
of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999). We are
convinced that the draft will be supported by all States
Members of the United Nations.
Let us hope that this will be the last crisis in the
Balkans or South-Eastern Europe. But to prevent any
recurrence of this kind of situation, we will have to defend
more successfully democratic principles and values and
develop long-term preventive strategies.
I am convinced that the beginning of the next
millennium will mark a new era in the history of this area,
which has been overburdened with conflicts and therefore
needs to focus primarily on its own development and
prosperity. In the long run, regional stability can be
provided by economic development, democracy, respect of
human rights and the rights of national minorities, and
bilateral and regional cooperation. However, the best way
to guarantee the security of the region and transform it
into an area of democracy, development, stability and
cooperation is for the countries of the region to join the
European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and become fully fledged members.
The Republic of Macedonia is among the countries
most affected by the crisis — economically, socially and
politically. This has hampered our efforts to build a
society that meets the expectations of our people.
Despite the major challenges it has confronted in the
past, my country has managed to implement and advance
the strategic commitments set out in its foreign policy:
integration in the European Union, inclusion in
Euro-Atlantic security structures and development of
good-neighbourliness.
The success of that policy is reflected in the fact that
the Republic of Macedonia was able to stay out of the
four armed conflicts which have taken place in the last
decade on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. For the
first time in the history of the Republic of Macedonia as
an independent country, we have been faced with a war
on our borders. In such circumstances, the contribution of
the peaceful and constructive Macedonian policy to
conflict resolution is highly significant. The Republic of
Macedonia is fully committed to carrying out the reforms
that have been initiated, based on European standards, in
the political, economic and democracy fields, with
maximum respect for human rights, including minority
rights.
That commitment by the Macedonian Government
and the results of the reforms have been commended by
the international community. That is precisely why the
European Union has decided that the Republic of
Macedonia should be the first partner in the
commencement of negotiations for the conclusion of the
Stability and Association Agreement.
The Republic of Macedonia has a long-term
commitment to the continuing improvement of its
relations with all of its neighbours. The advancement and
development of these relations, as well as of bilateral
cooperation with all of its neighbours, is evidenced by
intensive cooperation in the framework of a number of
regional initiatives. Two trilateral meetings have taken
place among the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of
Macedonia, Albania, Bulgaria and Greece, the aim of
43

which was to coordinate and promote activities aimed at a
more successful implementation of the Stability Pact.
I would like to emphasize that the policy of the
Government of the Republic of Macedonia, elected less
than a year ago, is aimed in particular at improving, as
soon as possible, the situation in the region. To this effect,
many practical steps have been taken, which to our mutual
satisfaction are yielding results.
As we approach the new millennium, the last session
of the General Assembly for this century is undoubtedly the
forum best suited to evaluating what has been achieved in
the area of the promotion and protection of human rights
and freedoms. Over the last 50 years, impressive progress
has been made in international humanitarian law. Today, we
are proud to note that the United Nations, having adopted
the fundamental Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
has managed to affirm the international consensus on the
basic postulates of human dignity and to promote them as
a basic standard and objective to be attained by all
individuals and nations.
Of no less importance is the promotion and
strengthening of all United Nations human rights bodies
engaged in the protection and promotion of human rights,
including minority rights. In this regard, the Republic of
Macedonia supports the reform of the mechanisms and
functioning of the United Nations bodies in this area.
This year we mark the tenth anniversary of the
adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Although this Convention has been ratified by almost all
States, its genuine implementation is still a desired aim. A
large number of children are still victims of disrespect for
their fundamental rights. We therefore fully and firmly
support the efforts made at this year's session of the
Commission on Human Rights to undertake concrete
measures for the protection of the rights of the child, the
aim of which is to promote the next century as the century
of the universal protection of the rights of the child.
The role and efforts of the international community in
the full implementation of currently accepted standards and
principles are important, but the primary role and
responsibility lies with the States themselves. As is evident
from the democratic development of my country, the
Republic of Macedonia completely associates itself with the
endeavours of the international community for the
observance and promotion of human rights.
In the twenty-first century the maintenance of
international peace and security all over the world should
be the priority aim of our Organization. As the Secretary-
General stated in his report, the world, and our
Organization in particular, will be faced with the need to
be fully involved in the prevention and peaceful
resolution of conflicts and with the development of the
affected States. The elimination of poverty and reducing
the gap between the developed and developing countries
should be our priorities, as my colleagues have already
said. In the next century the Republic of Macedonia
would like to see an improvement in economic
development and international economic cooperation, as
well as an enhancement of efforts being made within the
disarmament process and greater support for them.
We may note that the global community has
achieved significant improvements with regard to living
standards and the reduction of poverty. The global
economy is showing modest but constant growth of 2 per
cent annually, while the volume of trade is continuing to
increase. However, it seems that, irrespective of the
important accomplishments, the world community is
confronted with a series of alarming problems that must
be resolved.
Increased world poverty and unemployment are key
problems, which should be the main preoccupation of the
international community, the aim being to eliminate them.
Half the population of the world lives on less than $3 per
capita per day, while the unemployment rate is increasing
continuously; the international community has to face the
challenge of overcoming that situation. Decisions of the
international community regarding international economic
policies are most frequently made in the United Nations
framework. The Governments of the developed countries
have a leading role to play and the primary responsibility
in this domain.
The indebtedness of the developing countries and
countries in transition is mainly a result of inappropriate
political circumstances, in the form of armed conflicts;
different types of embargoes and factors make it
impossible for them to market their goods; and natural
disasters. Writing off the debts, or part of the debts, of
the countries affected by objective external factors would
have a very positive impact on diminishing global poverty
and unemployment and on economic development. Only
the economically developed and independent State can be
truly politically independent and sovereign and have a
role to play in the international community.
44

Globalization of the world economy and liberalization
of world trade are necessary preconditions for the
improvement of living standards and the reduction of
existing differences in countries' development relative to
global development. The role of the United Nations in this
area is of great importance. The increased globalization and
liberalization of the world economy should be accompanied
by a lowering of existing barriers and by facilitating the
free transfer of goods and services and of the work force.
This would create a unified world economy in its true
meaning.
In the next century more attention will be placed on
the observance of the United Nations Charter. In the
interests of the maintenance of international peace and
collective security, it is extremely important that Security
Council decisions be made on behalf of all the Member
States of our Organization, without its being possible for
them to abuse the right of veto. The contribution of the
Republic of Macedonia to the promotion of peace and
security is well known, and this was confirmed by the
deployment on its territory of the United Nations Preventive
Deployment Force (UNPREDEP), which was unfortunately
terminated at the moment when the region may have been
most in need of it.
The importance of the leading role played by this
single universal Organization is reflected in its skill in
adapting to real situations and practical problems. I am
deeply convinced that the new challenges are already
reflected in the manner of operation of our Organization
and in its structure. I would like to salute the firm
determination to continue to implement United Nations
reforms, which have already produced results, as stated in
the Secretary-General's report. The Republic of Macedonia
is of the opinion that the reform of the United Nations
system will be successful only if reform of the Security
Council is followed by reform of the General Assembly and
the Economic and Social Council.
We expect the fifty-fourth session of the General
Assembly to successfully conclude preparations for the
organization of the Millennium Assembly in the year 2000.
In this context, we are anticipating with great interest the
Secretary-General's report. At the same time, we join the
appeal for all Member States to be represented by heads of
State or Government at that event.
United Nations Member States must constantly
contribute to the strengthening of the basic democratic
values of peace, security, stability, social and economic
development, respect for international law and respect for
human and minority rights. The United Nations is the true
place for the improvement of these basic values. The
resolution of each country to persist in that way is of
crucial importance in determining whether we will jointly
manage to fully implement these commitments and enjoy
the fruits of development.
I would like to assure the Assembly that the
Republic of Macedonia has already embarked on that road
and will continue to make its contribution to the full
implementation of those values.


I wish to
convey to my friend Mr. Theo-Ben Gurirab how proud and
happy I am to see a son of Africa leading the General
Assembly into the new millennium. I congratulate him
warmly. I am certain that his experience, gained as the
representative of the South-West Africa People’s
Organization to the United Nations and in the course of a
long diplomatic career, will help him resolve the complex
issues facing the Assembly at this session. This is an
honour for him and for the African continent. I wish also
to convey my congratulations to the other officers of the
General Assembly. The President may rest assured that my
delegation is ready to work with him for the success of the
work of the Assembly at this session.
I wish also to convey to the President of the
Assembly at its fifty-third session, His Excellency Mr.
Didier Opertti of Uruguay, our thanks for the quality of
the work carried out under his presidency.
I pay heartfelt tribute to the Secretary-General, Mr.
Kofi Annan, and reaffirm the appreciation of Côte
d’Ivoire for the unflagging and able way in which he is
fulfilling the mandate entrusted to him.
My delegation welcomes the three new Members of
the Organization: the Republic of Kiribati, the Republic
of Nauru and the Kingdom of Tonga.
On the eve of the new millennium, the Organization
must adapt to the new shape of international relations in
order to increase its effectiveness in all areas, including
that of the maintenance of international peace and
security. Every passing day reveals the dysfunction of
international society. Nearly 10 years after the euphoria
born of the end of ideological confrontation, we have yet
to put in place machinery for political, economic and
financial controls that could lead to the peaceful world
evoked by the 1945 Charter.
On the threshold of the twenty-first century, we are
obliged to say that might continues to prevail over right,
that hotbeds of war continue to proliferate, that individual
rights are often flouted, and that a large part of mankind
has only a remote idea of social progress.
Yet the 1945 Charter remains timely; all that is
lacking is the full implementation of the great principles
it articulates. The faith of peoples in the United Nations
remains intact. This obliges us to make a sustained effort
to increase its credibility and strengthen its capacity to
meet the challenges it faces.
For a number of years the Organization has been
engaged in renewal. Working groups have been
established to reform the main structures of the United
Nations and adapt them better to the new international
context. The Secretary-General himself is involved in this
effort, in part by initiating reforms within his areas of
responsibility. It is now up to us, the Member States, to
work together to complete the process in the months to
come.
We hope that the Millennium Summit planned for
September 2000 will launch the United Nations into the
twenty-first century. It is therefore of great urgency that
the plan to enlarge the Security Council be completed.
30

There can be no doubt that by increasing the number of
both permanent and non-permanent members, among which
Africa will have to have its rightful place, we will also be
remedying the lack of political visibility from which the
Council has been suffering. The Kosovo crisis revealed the
necessity of reaffirming the primacy of the Security Council
and hence that of the United Nations.
Confirming the authority of the Security Council must
by no means imply a reduced role for the General
Assembly. This body, whose representative nature lends it
great legitimacy, must be at the heart of the system, with
all that this implies for its ability to set the overall course
of the United Nations. But such institutional reform can be
effective only if all States meet their financial obligations.
By reiterating the validity of the principles of the Charter
at the dawn of a new millennium, we commit ourselves to
guaranteeing international peace and security for succeeding
generations.
For the past two years the Organization has been
paying particular attention to the conflicts besetting Africa.
In his report to the Security Council of 13 April 1998
(S/1998/318), the Secretary-General identified the many
causes of these conflicts. He reviewed the ways to promote
peace, the most important of which is a development policy
that can eradicate the seeds of violence. For their part,
African States are making every effort to acquire machinery
enabling them to avert conflict situations or, if necessary,
to act.
Convinced that war is not inevitable and that the keys
to peace are at hand so long as the political will exists, the
Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the
Organization of African Unity (OAU) has unanimously
declared the restoration of peace on the continent to be its
priority activity for the years to come.
But let us not delude ourselves: that goal will be met
only if the international community, as embodied by the
United Nations, is mobilized and if it firmly supports
Africa’s efforts. It is not my intention to disregard all that
has been done by friendly countries — the United States,
France, the United Kingdom, Japan and Canada, to name
but a few — to explore new ways to promote peace and
security in Africa and to strengthen Africa’s capacity in that
regard. Let me recall the establishment in my own country,
at Zambakro, of a military training centre specializing in
peacekeeping techniques, which is open to all African
States.
Nor can I fail to mention the initiatives taken by the
United Nations where the scourge of war is at its horrific
worst, such as in Sierra Leone, or where it wantonly flays
its victims, such as in Guinea-Bissau or in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The Ceasefire Agreement for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, signed at Lusaka on
10 July 1999, to which all the factions of the Congolese
Rally for Democracy have now subscribed, owes a great
deal to the perseverance of the Secretary-General and to
the persuasive labours of his Special Envoy.
To help our continent escape the spiral of violence,
the United Nations has acted at every stage of crises,
combining its efforts with those of the OAU and of other
regional and subregional organizations.
Based on its success in the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, the United Nations has
experimented in the Central African Republic with a
preventive peacekeeping mission, which has thus far been
achieving its objectives. The Organization has thus
prevented that country from beginning a descent into the
hell that the repeated mutinies of 1996 and 1997 seemed
to prefigure and the political and social tension that
followed. I am particularly pleased to say this because my
country has sent a 235-member contingent consisting of
a medical unit, an armoured squadron and members of the
general staff.
Even though it is more complex in terms of the
many issues in its subregion, the work of the United
Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara
(MINURSO) is also praiseworthy. It has made it possible
to build a momentum for dialogue that will ultimately
prevail over the passions and divisiveness that have long
been a source of conflict: this is no mean achievement.
Côte d’Ivoire welcomes developments in the
situation in the Middle East, including recent steps taken
by the Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Ehud Barak, and by
President Yasser Arafat with a view to implementing a
just and fair peace that would protect the inalienable
rights of the Palestinian people and Israel’s right to
existence within secure and recognized boundaries.
I would be remiss if I did not mention all that has
been done to strengthen cooperation in peacekeeping with
the OAU, as well as with the Economic Community of
West African States and the Southern African
Development Community. We must welcome the fact that
the United Nations seems gradually to be overcoming the
Somalia syndrome that led it to reduce its commitments.
31

The prospect of the Organization’s soon deploying a
peacekeeping force of 20,000 for the implementation of the
Lusaka agreement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
is certainly a harbinger of an increased effort of the
international community to restore peace and security in
Africa. But we should take care that this hope not be
dashed, thereby strengthening the feeling, widely held in
African public opinion, that our continent is subject to
discriminatory treatment as compared with other regions of
the world. What was possible in Kosovo should also be
possible in Angola, Congo and Sierra Leone. The reference
to the values of democracy and human rights that served as
a catalyst for the large-scale action in Kosovo is equally
applicable to African populations.
I am fully aware of the reluctance of the great Powers
to become involved in complex conflicts whose local
protagonists are often difficult to identify and tend to
compete with one another, at very great humanitarian cost.
Certainly, political prerequisites, especially in the form of
ceasefire agreements, are necessary for the deployment of
peacekeeping forces, but they are not insurmountable when
the Security Council makes use of all the resources offered
by the Charter.
The breathing of new life into the principle of
peacekeeping operations through the provision of credible
deterrent elements and resources should not absolve us of
reviewing or of clarifying Chapter VIII on cooperation
between the United Nations and regional arrangements. Too
many uncertainties remain on the scope and modalities of
such cooperation and the role that falls to the Security
Council in this regard.
The Kosovo crisis and military intervention under the
auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have
only increased our doubts and questions in this connection.
The promotion of the regional approach to collective
security should in no way serve as a pretext for the
Security Council’s lack of involvement. By reiterating the
validity of the principles of the Charter at the dawn of a
new millennium, we commit ourselves to establishing better
living conditions for future generations, including all the
children of Africa.
Africa, of course, has little weight in world economic
statistics, but it does have a potential on which the future
of humankind will largely depend. It must participate fully
in efforts to build a new world financial architecture. It is
also important that, on the eve of major trade negotiations
under the aegis of the World Trade Organization, the
interests of the developing countries not be sacrificed on
the altar of globalization.
I welcome the efforts of the Secretariat to strengthen
the resources available for development and to harmonize
the activities of various United Nations agencies. It was
to that end that a development group was established to
bring together the various operational bodies, including
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the
United Nations Children’s Fund and the United Nations
Population Fund. The result has been improved
streamlining of activities, more consistent management of
aid and simplified procedures for funding projects. This
represents progress that we can only welcome by paying
a heartfelt tribute to the coordination of the assistance
provided by UNDP, particularly by its resident
representatives.
But this satisfaction cannot calm the anxiety
provoked by the continued decline of official development
assistance, which the statistics of the past decade show to
be precipitous. Official development assistance has now
fallen to below 0.2 per cent of gross national product.
We welcome the initiatives taken last June in
Cologne at the summit of the G-8. These attest to a desire
to increase assistance to developing countries, especially
through significant debt alleviation. The cancellation of
part of the debt of the developing countries, against the
prospect of the opportunity for these countries to relaunch
their investment policies, should allow for harmonization
and coordination of the activities of the major
international financial institutions. The multilateral
framework will also offer the advantage of avoiding direct
dealings between a given country and aid providers,
which experience has often shown to be a source of
misunderstandings that may hamper the smooth
functioning of national economies. However, decisions
taken by the richest countries for reducing debt are likely
to create disparities among the countries concerned,
depending on what category they belong to. The
definition of these categories may rely on economic
criteria that, by definition, are extremely inflexible.
The question of debt is of grave concern to African
countries, which, at the Fourth Extraordinary Summit of
the OAU in Syrte, instructed the current OAU Chairman,
Mr. Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, and President Thabo
Mbeki of South Africa to negotiate with creditors with a
view to achieving a total cancellation of African debt. We
hope that this mission, led by a head of State, will soon
achieve success.
32

At the dawn of the new millennium, it is urgent that
we define a global development assistance strategy and
guarantee its financing. We therefore support the convening
of a world conference on development financing to set
precise objectives and emphasize support for education and
social projects without, however, neglecting the industrial
and agricultural sectors. I would make a solemn appeal to
all donor countries to reverse the current trend and to
increase their contributions to the United Nations system in
general, and to UNDP in particular, so as to enable them to
pursue their activities on behalf of our countries. I would
ask these donors to base their actions not on short-term
economic interests, but on solidarity.
By reiterating the validity of the principles of the
Charter at the dawn of the new millennium, we commit
ourselves to restoring dignity to every human being,
because nothing is lasting if it is not based on mankind.
I wish here to express my Government’s satisfaction
with the activities of the United Nations and its two
specialized Programmes, the Joint United Nations
Programme on HIV/AIDS and the United Nations
International Drug Control Programme, in our countries.
The campaigns against these pandemics, especially that of
HIV/AIDS, and endemic diseases, as well as the struggle
against narcotics and drugs, are designed to end these two
scourges, which directly threaten the individual and upset
social stability. At the International Conference on
HIV-AIDS and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, held in
Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, from 7 to 11 December 1997, Côte
d’Ivoire and France proposed the establishment of a
solidarity fund to mobilize the international community. At
the suggestion of Côte d’Ivoire, this proposal was taken up
by the OAU last June in Ouagadougou.
The actions undertaken by President Henri Konan
Bédié, especially to protect and manage forests, develop
and manage coastal areas, improve the water supply and
adopt a water code demonstrate our concern to preserve
human health and to protect the environment.
For several years now and in the context of more
sustained economic growth, most African States have opted
for political pluralism and the consolidation of the rule of
law. These are the counterparts of improved economic and
financial management through internationally recognized
criteria of good governance. Much remains to be done and
the situation varies from one region to another and even
from one country to another. But the progress that has been
achieved should be taken into account in major international
negotiations. In particular, we must never lose sight of the
fact that violence is born of poverty. Anything that can
help to eradicate the latter is a source of hope to millions
of men and women.
An Africa in peace and committed to the path of
development is the best guarantee of a better world. This
Africa must be united and free of small arms, trafficking
and rivalry. It must be united.
An Africa at peace and on the road of development,
is the best guarantee for a better world. Such an Africa
must be united and free from arms — particularly small
arms — trafficking and greed. Above all, it must be
united.
During the OAU summit in Algiers, Heads of State
and Government proclaimed their faith in the integration
of the continent enshrined in instruments such as the
Lagos Plan of Action for the Implementation of the
Monrovian Strategy for the Economic Development of
Africa, the Final Act of Lagos and the Abuja Treaty
established by the African Economic Community.
Africa now realizes that time is not on its side; it is
faced with rapid globalization, whose effects do not
always seem to be in Africa's favour. With this
awareness, the fourth special Summit of OAU Heads of
State and Government, meeting on 9 September 1999 in
Sirte, Libya, decided to create an African Union and a
Pan-African Parliament. Next year, another special session
will be held, also in Sirte, to adopt the text establishing
the Union. For Africa can continue to exist only if the
African Union becomes a true Power.
Côte d'Ivoire, keeping faith with this commitment,
has started taking action to strengthen the existing
subregional integration machinery, within the West
African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) and
the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS). Within WAEMU we have already
established policies to harmonize tax rates, price statistics,
with a regional stock market and transferable securities.
All these actions by Côte d'Ivoire, instigated by
President Henri Konan Bédié, have no other purpose than
to contribute to internal peace, peace in Africa and peace
between Africa and the rest of the world. They are
designed to buttress greater solidarity and to seek a more
just world, with progress and happiness for each and
every one of us.
33

The millennium summit will afford world leaders an
opportunity to reiterate their commitment to the
fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter,
which urges us to unite our strength to maintain
international peace and security and to employ international
machinery for the promotion of the economic and social
advancement of all peoples, because the principles set forth
in the Charter — dignity, the value of the individual,
equality including gender equality and equality between
nations — are immutable. They cannot be changed. They
are absolute. It is up to us to act, and we must do so, for
action is the very essence of politics.
Let us therefore work together to make real these
noble objectives of a better future for us all.