Mr. President, I wish to join
others who have spoken before me in congratulating you on
your election to guide the deliberations of the forty-ninth
session of the United Nations General Assembly. As you
undertake this solemn and challenging responsibility we
assure you of the Liberian delegation’s fullest cooperation
and support.
Let me also convey our gratitude to your erudite
predecessor, Ambassador Samuel Insanally of Guyana, for
the skilful manner in which he guided the deliberations of
the last session.
Our able and distinguished Secretary-General, His
Excellency Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, deserves special
commendation for his unwavering commitment to the
principles of the United Nations and his untiring efforts
in the promotion of world peace, international security
and human dignity. We are particularly pleased at his
keen interest and involvement in the search for durable
peace in Liberia.
As we approach the midpoint of the last decade in
this millennium we are encouraged that our world
continues to make steady progress in the transition from
years of ideological confrontation to convergence on
global interdependence.
A manifestation of this changing situation is the
growing utilization of a consensual approach to
addressing such burning issues on the international agenda
as human rights, population and the environment. In this
regard we welcome the outcome of the International
Conference on Population and Development held at Cairo
and look forward to the World Summit for Social
Development, to be convened in Copenhagen, Denmark,
in 1995, which will consider the core issues of alleviating
and reducing poverty, expanding productive employment
and enhancing social integration.
General Assembly 22nd meeting

The peaceful transition from apartheid to majority rule
in South Africa has been of monumental significance to
Africa. We heartily welcome the new Republic of South
Africa into the fold of the world body and look forward to
the positive contributions it can and will surely make to the
achievement of the noble goals of the United Nations.
These positive developments in the international
system are, however, often overshadowed by flashpoints of
ethnic conflicts around the world. The situations in Bosnia,
Rwanda and Somalia, and in my own country, Liberia,
among others, appear to be intractable. The brutality and
destruction unleashed by these conflicts often tend to
overwhelm the international community and make peace-
keeping a major preoccupation of the United Nations and,
to an increasing degree, of regional organizations as well.
Economic and human resources that could otherwise be
applied to improving the human condition are being
expended on peace-keeping activities.
Some of these intra-State conflicts are so complex that
policy makers are forced to debate the pros and cons of
peace-keeping or peacemaking when the main issue should
be that of saving lives, especially in those situations where
a legitimate governing authority is absent.
The result is that the international community
sometimes reacts with what may amount to short-cut
solutions. Often attempts at resolving some of these
conflicts unwittingly overlook the intransigence and
recalcitrance of warlords who were the ones primarily
responsible for bringing untold suffering and deprivation to
their own people. These conflicts also create lucrative
opportunities for arms dealers and international supporters
of warlords.
A disturbing phenomenon associated with these
conflicts is that of the child soldier. Children are recruited,
indoctrinated and trained in the art of murder, mayhem and
genocide, thus depriving a country of an entire generation
of its human resources. This is particularly true for my
own country, Liberia, where the great majority of the
60,000 combatants are children who have yet to complete
their primary education. The forced conscription of our
children — the building-blocks of our future — must be
stopped, since it violates the Convention of the Rights of
the Child. Therefore we should not yield to any action that
has the effect of sanctioning the acquisition of power
through the use of force or promoting solutions aimed at
appeasing warlords at the expense of the larger unarmed
population.
The world has witnessed the rise, during the last
four years, of a powerful movement for democracy and
democratization. This movement has swept asunder some
of the strongest totalitarian regimes in its wake, from
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to Latin
America, Africa and Asia.
The international community must therefore
demonstrate its resolve to support this movement so that
the democratic aspirations of all peoples are realized
throughout the world. It would be an indictment of the
present world leadership for it to simply watch countries
become involved in these conflicts, which may have been
ignited initially by the spark of democratization.
It is against this background that we wish to briefly
review the Liberian peace process.
At the outset, I should like to register the heartfelt
gratitude of the Liberian people to the gallant men of
ECOMOG — the Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS) Military Observer Group — who
foiled the attempted coup on 15 September 1994. Since
1990, their selfless sacrifice has provided a security
blanket in parts of Liberia, thus enabling us to work
towards the attainment of peace in our country.
It will be recalled that in December 1989 the
Liberian situation exploded into an armed conflict,
ostensibly to rid the country of military dictatorship. By
mid-1990, however, the conflict had degenerated into a
three-way struggle for power. The State machinery had
disintegrated.
None of the armed factions engaged in the struggle
appeared capable of winning a decisive victory and
establishing legitimate authority. In the wake of this
deadly stalemate, ECOWAS intervened with a two-
pronged peace plan: A peace-monitoring force would be
dispatched to Liberia to provide security for the country,
while the Liberians themselves would re-establish an
internal civil administration to prepare the country for
democratic elections.
The ECOWAS peace-monitoring group, ECOMOG,
arrived in Liberia in August 1990. An All-Liberia
Conference was convened in Banjul, the Gambia, in the
same month, and elected the Interim Government of
National Unity (IGNU). Upon the insistence of the
National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), a second, All-
Liberia Conference was convened in Monrovia in 1991,
which endorsed the Interim Government. Unfortunately,
2
General Assembly 22nd meeting

the NPFL, which insisted on the Conference as a
precondition for peace, walked out during the deliberations.
Several other meetings of the warring factions were
held in Banjul, Freetown, Dakar, Bamako, Lomé,
Yamoussoukro and Geneva, in search of peace with the
armed factions. With remarkable success, the ECOWAS
peace plan, with an interim civilian administration for
Liberia and with ECOMOG, restored some degree of
stability and provided a semblance of law and order in the
country for a period of two years.
On 15 October 1992, the NPFL launched an
unprovoked attack on ECOMOG and the people of
Monrovia in what was termed “Operation Octopus”. The
refusal of the NPFL to fully comply with the
Yamoussoukro Accord gave rise to a new armed group, the
United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy
(ULIMO), which claimed its sole purpose was to free the
Liberian people from the NPFL.
With hostilities raging among the armed factions, the
United Nations, in concert with ECOWAS and the OAU,
decided to convene a peace conference of the parties to the
conflict in Geneva in June 1993. The meeting was attended
by the NPFL, ULIMO and IGNU. The IGNU delegation
included the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL).
The United Nations Secretary-General’s Special
Representative chaired the meeting, which was also
attended by the OAU Eminent Person, the Executive
Secretary of ECOWAS and the Field Commander of
ECOMOG.
The framework agreed upon in Geneva was formally
concluded and signed by the parties in Cotonou, Republic
of Benin, on 25 July 1993. The overriding principle of the
Cotonou Agreement was to achieve disarmament and
demobilization of the warring factions, which agreed that
they would give up their arms in exchange for participating
in the formation of a new government.
The Cotonou Agreement provided for the
establishment of the Liberian National Transitional
Government, headed by a five-man Executive Council of
State, a 35-member Transitional Legislative Assembly and
the reconstitution of the Supreme Court and the Ad Hoc
Elections Commission. Each of these organs was to be
composed of nominees representing the parties to the
Agreement. The Cabinet positions were apportioned in
consultation with the parties.
The Liberian National Transitional Government was
given the mandate to extend its authority throughout the
country, to repatriate and resettle refugees from abroad,
and to conduct free and fair elections within six months.
Disarmament was to be carried out concomitantly
with the seating of the Liberian National Transitional
Government, and the armed factions agreed to cooperate
with the expanded ECOMOG to disarm under the
supervision of the United Nations Observer Mission in
Liberia.
The Liberian National Transitional Government was
inducted into office on 7 March 1994, and the Special
Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General
gave assurances that disarmament would commence
simultaneously. He also assured the Liberian people that
the armed factions would comply fully with the
provisions of the Cotonou Agreement. After the seating
of the Liberian National Transitional Government the
military aspects of the peace process did not keep pace
with the political aspects as contemplated by the
Agreement. Moreover, it took six months for the
additional troops from Tanzania and Uganda to arrive in
Liberia. The expanded ECOMOG troops were never
deployed and the factions did not disarm. They continue
to believe in the attainment of political power by force of
arms or, more precisely, through the barrel of the gun.
Consequently, there has been a mushrooming of
armed groups. There are now two factions of ULIMO
and two factions of NPFL. There is also the Liberian
Peace Council (LPC) and the Lofa Defence Force (LDF).
Each of the breakaway factions of ULIMO and the NPFL,
together with the LPC and LDF, have joined in a
coalition of forces to fight the branch of NPFL led by Mr.
Charles Taylor. As I speak, the battle in central Liberia
rages on. A consequence of this situation is the mass
exodus of frightened citizens who have had to seek refuge
and havens in neighbouring countries and a heightening
of the humanitarian needs of the country.
I come now to the Liberian National Conference.
Realizing the current morass in the country and the
uncooperative attitude of the warring factions towards the
Liberian National Transitional Government, a citizens’
consultative meeting was convened in Monrovia from 29
to 30 July 1994. At that meeting the people of Liberia
determined that for the last four years the destiny of the
country had been largely dictated by the warring factions
and that they, the citizens, were being marginalized.
They also concluded that the stalemate in the peace
3
General Assembly 22nd meeting

process was the result of the intransigence of the warring
factions with respect to disarmament and their failure to
cooperate with the Liberian National Transitional
Government, ECOMOG and UNOMIL in carrying out their
respective responsibilities and duties under the Cotonou
Agreement.
The people of Liberia therefore decided that they
must, and would, become involved in breaking the
stalemate in the peace process. They have therefore
convened since 24 August 1994 the Liberian National
Conference (LNC), with representatives coming from all
walks of life, including the 13 political subdivisions of the
country, political parties, interest groups, professional
organizations, social and religious organizations, trade and
labour unions, student and youth groups and women’s
organizations.
The Conference organizers endeavoured to involve and
encourage the participation of the warring factions. The
Conference was addressed by the Special Representative of
the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Trevor Gordon-
Somers; the former United States President, Jimmy Carter;
and the OAU Eminent Person, the Rev. Dr. Canaan
Banana. General Arnold Quainoo, ECOMOG’s first field
commander and Special Representative of the ECOWAS
Chairman, and the Executive Secretary of ECOWAS, Dr.
Edouard Benjamin, also addressed the Conference and
expressed support for it.
The Conference agenda included disarmament and
demobilization, governance and elections. The consensus
of the Conference was that the fundamental problem of the
Liberian conflict is not governance, but, rather, the refusal
of the armed groups to disarm and demobilize. The
Conference therefore called for strong and effective
sanctions to be applied against armed groups and warring
factions which fail to cooperate in the disarmament process.
With respect to governance, the Conference indicated
that the mandate of the Liberian National Transitional
Government should be extended and the Council of State
strengthened so as to take the country through to free and
fair democratic elections. We also see the Liberian
National Conference as the embodiment of the democratic
aspirations of the Liberian people and their opposition to
the acquisition of power by force. Too much time, energy
and resources and too many lives have been lost by
Liberians and other West Africans to settle now for a less
than honourable, just and lasting solution.
I turn next to the Akosombo Agreement. The
Liberian National Conference had gained momentum and
was at the height of the debate on the fundamental
problems of disarmament, governance and elections, when
His Excellency, President Jerry Rawlings of Ghana,
Chairman of ECOWAS, along with the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General, undertook new
initiatives to resolve the impasse in the peace process. A
meeting of leaders of two warring factions, Mr. Charles
Taylor of the NPFL and Lieutenant-General Alhaji S.G.
Kromah, of ULIMO, together with the Chief of Staff of
the Armed Forces of Liberia, Lieutenant-General
J. Hezekiah Bowen, was held at Akosombo, Ghana. The
OAU Eminent Person, Dr. Canaan Banana, also attended
the meeting. Except for General Bowen, the Liberian
National Transitional Government delegation was
excluded from the deliberations at Akosombo.
On 12 September 1994, General Bowen, Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of Liberia (AFL), without
authority signed the Akosombo Accord, along with the
two warring leaders: Charles Taylor and Alhaji Kromah.
The Agreement did not adequately address the issue of
disarmament but instead called for the restructuring of the
Council of State of the Liberian National Transitional
Government (LNTG). The two armed factions would
each nominate a representative; General Bowen —
selected without consultation — would represent the AFL,
the constitutional army of Liberia; the ongoing Liberia
National Conference would nominate one civilian; and the
National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) and the United
Liberation Movement for Democracy in Liberia (ULIMO)
would consult to nominate the fifth member of the
Council. The restructured LNTG would have a life-span
of 16 months, with general elections slated for October
1995 and installation of the newly elected government in
January 1996. The LNTG delegation registered its
reservations about the Agreement with the Ghanian
Government before returning to Liberia.
In Liberia, the Akosombo Accord caused an outcry
and widespread indignation. It was viewed as yet another
attempt to appease the armed factional leaders whose
uncompromising stance has been responsible for
prolonging the conflict, causing the death of so many
Liberians and bringing so much destruction and suffering
upon the people.
The Government of Liberia has therefore rejected the
Akosombo Accord for a number of reasons. First, the
Accord endeavoured to reduce the armed forces of
Liberia, the constitutional army, to a warring faction.
4
General Assembly 22nd meeting

Secondly, it failed to address adequately the political
problems — disarmament and demobilization of the
warring factions — that have been the single most
important stumbling-block to the peace process. Thirdly,
the premises underpinning the Akosombo Accord were
fundamentally flawed. It ascribed power and influence to
armed leaders whose standing, credibility and control within
their own respective factions are questionable. There was
also a failure to recognize the changing military positions
of the factional leaders on the ground. For example, Mr.
Charles Taylor of the NPFL has been unable to return to,
or regain, his headquarters at Gbarnga since leaving the
meeting in Ghana, because his forces have been driven out
by rival factions. A few days after General Hezekiah
Bowen returned from Ghana, there was an attempted coup
and mutiny in his army ranks, and he had to seek refuge at
the headquarters of the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) Military Observer Group
(ECOMOG). General Alhaji Kromah’s ULIMO remains
split.
We are pleased to note that as an indication of his
sincerity and commitment towards finding a just and lasting
solution to the Liberian crisis, the President of Ghana and
current Chairman of ECOWAS, His Excellency Jerry
Rawlings, was quick to respond to the concerns raised by
the Liberian people to the Akosombo Accord. Within days
of its signing, he dispatched a delegation to Liberia to hold
consultations on the Agreement. He has since convened a
broader-based consultative meeting in Accra. Consultations
on the Agreement continue in this regard.
The Liberian peace process is now at a critical stage.
The reaction to the Akosombo Accord and the renewed
outbreak of hostilities in central Liberia among the armed
factions may lead some to conclude that Liberians are
simply not ready for peace, but this is not so. We are
ready for peace. We believe peace could finally be within
easy reach, given the right mix of initiatives. Recent events
in the country, including the failed coup attempt by
dissident elements of the Armed Forces of Liberia and
renewed hostilities among the warring factions, reinforce
the need for effective action towards disarmament and
demobilization.
I would be amiss if I did not say how grateful the
people of Liberia are to the United Nations, ECOWAS, the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), non-governmental
organizations, relief agencies and the entire international
community, who have made untold sacrifices and
contributed towards the search for peace in Liberia. In this
light, we wish to appeal to the world community to give
greater support to the work of ECOMOG by providing
additional logistics and resources to enable it effectively
to execute its mandate under the Cotonou Agreement.
Haiti provides a hopeful example of what can be
accomplished when the international community stays the
course in helping to find a peaceful solution to intra-State
conflicts. Indeed, while the same set of variables that
influenced tougher United Nations action in Haiti may not
obtain in Liberia, the people of Liberia are crying out to
the world, especially to those countries that are better
endowed and constantly hail the benefits of democracy,
to take the high moral ground and lend their potent voices
and wherewithal to ending the human misery and
suffering in Liberia.
I am therefore confident that the United Nations,
which has striven to implement the provisions of its
Charter for about half a century, can still muster the
courage and will to respond to the requisites of peace,
democracy and development for the truly global era that
is dawning as we approach the twenty-first century.


Over and above the usual civilities, Sir, the very sincere
and warm congratulations of the Cameroon delegation on
your election to preside over the current session of the
General Assembly are addressed to you both as an able
diplomat and as a worthy representative of Côte d’Ivoire,
a country that is a friend of ours and with which we are
honoured to have longstanding relations of fraternal
cooperation. On behalf of the delegation of Cameroon, I
wish you every success in the exercise of your important
functions.
Ambassador Insanally of Guyana, your predecessor,
successfully reflected and expressed our concerns when
presiding over the forty-eighth session. We should like to
express our deep appreciation to him.
Since his election our Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, has placed all his courage, energy and
determination at the service of our Organization to promote
peace, justice and progress in an increasingly difficult
climate. Cameroon would once again like to assure him of
its firm and constant support.
Despite the uncertainties, upheavals and crises we are
experiencing in the evolving international environment,
several major events since the last session give grounds for
satisfaction and hope.
The emergence of a united, democratic and non-racial
South Africa, under the leadership of President Nelson
Mandela, has sounded the death knell of the apartheid era,
now a thing of the past, while marking the advent of a new
era on our continent. South Africa can now get down to its
economic and social development with increased vigour.
Cameroon, which was at the forefront of the struggle
against the scourge of apartheid, once again solemnly
welcomes South Africa’s return into the concert of nations.
The credit for this happy return goes to the United
Nations, the Organization of African Unity and the forces
of progress in the world for their combined efforts, but
mainly to the South African people and leaders
themselves, in particular Nelson Mandela and Frederik de
Klerk, who have always distinguished themselves by the
breadth of their vision, their courage and their
determination.
Echoing the new era beginning in Pretoria, an
important stage has just been reached in the long process
leading to the normalization of relations between Israel
and the Palestinians on the one hand, and between Israel
and its other Arab neighbours on the other hand.
The advent of Palestinian autonomy in the Gaza
Strip and Jericho, pursuant to the agreements concluded,
and the significant progress in the negotiations between
the Jewish State and Jordan are significant advances
towards a just and lasting settlement of the question of
the Middle East, in accordance with the relevant
resolutions of the Security Council and the General
Assembly. We must encourage this promising, but still
fragile, development and give it all the necessary attention
and determination.
The judicial settlement of the conflict between Chad
and Libya over the Aouzu Strip, which has finally come
into being following lengthy negotiations, deserves to be
welcomed with satisfaction, particularly since it
constitutes a model for others to follow.
By bringing the question of the border and territorial
dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon over Bakassi to
the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and its
machinery for the prevention, management and settlement
of conflicts, to the Security Council, which is responsible
for the maintenance of international peace and security,
and to the International Court of Justice, which is charged
with the peaceful and judicial settlement of conflicts, it
was the intention of Cameroon to subscribe fully to the
virtues of preventive diplomacy.
It is an established fact that, like non-aggression
pacts and mutual assistance pacts, preventive diplomacy
is an interesting innovation and one that may well prevent
new conflicts and suffering, and even reverse the
tendency towards confrontation and war which is so
characteristic of our continent.
For this reason, preventive diplomacy should be
encouraged and supported by the international community.
13

For its part, my country would like to thank all those who
have supported it in regard to the Bakassi affair. The
means of action and the machinery of diplomacy at the
disposal of the OAU and the United Nations should be
further strengthened.
The positive developments in South Africa and the
Middle East coincide, unfortunately, with the persistence or
the eruption of hotbeds of tension throughout the world. In
Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Cyprus, in Afghanistan, as well
as in Cambodia, peace is still threatened. It is threatened
even further on our continent, a fact to which the tragedy
of Rwanda bears witness.
This is an opportunity to renew an urgent appeal to
our brothers in Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola
and Mozambique, as well as in other countries beset by
tension, conflict and warfare, to rise above their various
differences so that they may be able to make the necessary
efforts to meet the challenge of peace.
The persistence of these conflicts and hotbeds of
tension, so harmful in their consequences, compels us to
initiate and resolutely and vigorously pursue any action
conducive to peace, security and the building of confidence,
which are so necessary in the struggle against poverty and
destitution.
Within States we should, for instance, promote
tolerance, respect for the rights of others, participation by
all in the affairs of the country, and fair distribution of the
fruits of growth.
In relations between States, the independence,
sovereignty and territorial integrity of States must be
respected, while at the same time this should not be an
obstacle to mutual cooperation in the event of natural
disasters and calamities that require humanitarian
intervention.
The creation by the African Heads of State of the
OAU machinery to which I have referred, and the initialling
by the States of central Africa of a non-aggression pact in
September 1994, are among the efforts we have been
making to promote good-neighbourly relations based on
confidence and free from any threat of the use of force.
Although at the outset this machinery has already
achieved some excellent results, nevertheless, like the
Standing Consultative Committee on Questions of Security
in Central Africa that was created by the Secretary-General
of the United Nations in the context of preventive
diplomacy, it needs the support of the international
community.
In the final analysis, these regional initiatives to
promote confidence-building measures and progressive
disarmament should, on the global level, be encouraged
in order to achieve the objectives of the international
community with respect to disarmament, peace and
security.
Thus, we welcome the respect being shown for the
moratorium on nuclear testing, as well as the progress
achieved in negotiations between the United States and
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea over the
North Korean nuclear programme. We encourage both
countries to find a peaceful solution to that dispute.
Regarding the current negotiations at the Conference
on Disarmament to conclude a comprehensive nuclear-
test-ban treaty, Cameroon joins the Movement of Non-
Aligned Countries in expressing the hope that this
convention will be signed before the Amendment
Conference in 1995.
Finally, whether we speak of nuclear weapons or
other weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons,
toxic waste, mine clearance or anti-personnel mines,
Cameroon also wishes to see the international community
working towards general and complete disarmament.
In his report entitled “Agenda for Development”
(A/48/935), the Secretary-General noted very aptly that
peace was the foundation of development; that the
economy was the engine of progress; that the environment
was the basis of sustainability; that justice was the pillar
of society, and that democracy represented good
governance.
These preliminary reflections deserve great attention,
since the “Agenda for Development” is a follow-up to the
“Agenda for Peace” (A/47/277). It reaffirms,
furthermore, that economic, social and cultural
development is a fundamental right of the human being.
Furthermore, global talks on development, which
were held in New York in June 1994 on the initiative and
under the presidency of Ambassador Insanally, the high-
level debate and the recent session of the Economic and
Social Council on the “Agenda for Development”, the
Ministerial Declaration that followed the commemorative
ceremonies for the thirtieth anniversary of the Group of
77 and the substantive session of Economic and Social
14

Council indicate that development is a complex
phenomenon, requiring constant effort on the part of States
and of the international community as a whole.
It is therefore our hope, that on the basis of the
priorities identified during these meetings, the measures
required to deal with these issues will be considered by the
General Assembly on the basis of a new report by the
Secretary-General.
The urgent need to set in motion a new United
Nations programme for the development of Africa in the
1990s should be stressed. The timeliness and relevance of
such a step was reaffirmed by the international conference
on the development of Africa held in Tokyo. The African
economy, as we know, is essentially based on primary
commodities. Any strategy for the sustainable development
of the continent must consequently take into account the
need for diversification. We would like to reiterate the
appeal we made last year from this same rostrum for the
creation of a fund for diversification of commodities for
Africa.
In a different context — and this cannot be repeated
too often — debt is a major obstacle to development. The
debt of developing countries has steadily increased, rising
from $1.662 billion in 1992 to $1.770 billion in 1993. We
welcome the efforts made so far to relieve or reschedule
debt for developing countries. However, a great deal still
remains to be done, as is emphasized in the 1994 edition of
the Human Development Report.
Drought and desertification are another subject of
major concern. We welcome the fact that negotiations were
successfully concluded last June in Paris to draw up an
international convention on drought and desertification, a
matter of undoubted importance for the world ecosystem
and, more specifically, for the implementation of Agenda
21 in Africa.
If the conclusion of multilateral economic negotiations
in the context of the Uruguay Round provides further
prospects for a dynamic revitalization of international trade,
it is important that steps be taken in parallel to reverse the
pronounced trend towards the marginalization and the
impoverishment of Africa, which could be promoted by the
new machinery established at Marrakesh.
Human rights are universal and indivisible, and we
must therefore attach equal importance to economic,
political, cultural and social rights. Whether in terms of the
rights of women, children, youth, the disabled, the aged or
other vulnerable groups, the human being must remain the
central focus of the international community’s concerns.
We should welcome the Plan of Action adopted at the
recent International Conference on Population and
Development, held at Cairo, for it takes account of that
requirement. The Plan of Action does not focus on
mankind as an abstract entity, but on human beings rooted
in their economic, social, cultural and religious diversities,
all of which need to be kept in mind.
That is why the forthcoming Copenhagen World
Summit on Social Development ought to result in specific
commitments to reduce poverty, to create productive jobs
and to strengthen social integration, particularly among
the most vulnerable strata of society.
The same concerns are reflected in the importance
we attach to the Fourth World Conference on Women, to
be held at Beijing in 1995.
It is in the interest of us all to pursue collective,
unified action to struggle against the harmful effects of
drugs, the spread of the AIDS pandemic, and natural
catastrophes, if necessary combining emergency
humanitarian assistance with measures for the
rehabilitation and reconstruction of the stricken countries.
In another area, the entry into force next November
of the Montego Bay convention — the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea — next November is
a particularly encouraging development setting the seal on
the universality of that important legal instrument. We
hope that it will promote exploitation of the seas and
oceans for the benefit of all.
As we near the fiftieth anniversary of the United
Nations, our wish is that the Organization will meet the
challenge of reform and renewal. Whether it be the
revitalization of the General Assembly and its subsidiary
organs, the enlargement and strengthening of the Security
Council, the rationalization of activities and procedures or
the consolidation of the Organization’s financial basis,
Member States should strive to mould an institution
worthy of the vision and the inspiration of its founding
fathers.


It is a great
honour for me to congratulate you, Sir, on your election
to the distinguished and very important post of President
of the General Assembly.
I am confident that your knowledge, experience and
consummate personal skills, which you have demonstrated
both as Permanent Representative to the United Nations
and as President of the Security Council, will allow the
successful resolution of the complex problems the
international community is now facing on the eve of the
celebration of the United Nations half century.
I would like also to express my appreciation to the
President of the previous session of the General
Assembly, Ambassador Insanally, whose wise guidance
resulted in the adoption of an entire set of constructive
decisions to the benefit of all Member States of the
United Nations.
The year that has elapsed since the previous session
of the General Assembly has witnessed important
international developments, in many of which the United
Nations was both a catalyst and a participant. They
included the historic turn towards peace in the Middle
East and the elimination of the apartheid system in South
Africa. Positive developments are expected in Ulster and
in other hot spots of the planet. The completion of the
withdrawal of Russian troops from Germany and the
Baltic States has at last marked the end of the European
history of the Second World War. In this context, the
leaders of the Russian Federation should be given their
due for displaying political courage and foresight.
17

Radical changes have also taken place in the political,
social and economic life of Ukraine, which recently
celebrated the third anniversary of its independence. The
Ukrainian people, of their own free will, in a truly
democratic way, elected Leonid Kuchma as the new
President, and has elected the Parliament of the country.
New leaders have come to executive power. Naturally, all
of these developments are generating broad interest in, and
closer attention to, Ukraine.
In this connection, different - sometimes arbitrary -
predictions have been made concerning the direction of our
domestic and foreign policies, and even regarding their
possible reorientation. Many radical and even diametrically
opposed views have been heard - for example, whether the
political pendulum in Ukraine will swing to the East or
West, or whether Ukraine will remain an independent State
and preserve its political sovereignty.
In taking the opportunity to speak from this rostrum,
I should like to clarify these important issues.
First, the State policy of Ukraine will be consistently
based on the authority established by the Ukrainian people
when it confirmed, almost unanimously, its choice of
independent development during the national referendum
held in December 1991. This reality is decisive, and
rumours that Ukraine will eventually lose its sovereignty
are absolutely unfounded. We shall continue to follow the
path of building an independent State, and a return to the
situation which prevailed in the former Soviet Union is
impossible.
Secondly, what also seems to be an oversimplification
is the question of where Ukraine will be, whether in the
East or the West, of where it will go. I think it is precisely
here in this Hall, which brings together representatives of
all continents and regions of the world, that the artificial
division into East, West, North and South is especially
strongly felt. Today the world is becoming more
integrated, and political indicators of geographical
affiliation of countries are gradually disappearing. Ukraine,
like any other State, cannot simply "go" East or West. It
is there, where it has been for ages, and where it will stay
for ever. Its main task as a historically ancient but
politically young State consists in gradual integration into
the European and world political, economic, humanitarian
and other processes as a reliable link in a new global
system of international relations.
Of course, there will be corrections to our policy. The
world has changed considerably, even in comparison with
that period of time when Ukraine emerged on the political
map as an independent State. All of us, including
Ukraine, have to take into account new realities and
respond to them appropriately. This is particularly so
when we deal with the question of the intensification of
mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation with the
Russian Federation and with the other countries of the
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). But these
relations will by no means be developed at the expense of
our contact with our other partners. Ukraine is equally
concerned with strengthening relations with the United
States; Germany; Canada; the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe; the States of Asia - above all, China and
Japan; as well as other countries of the Asian-Pacific
region, Africa and Latin America. In other words, the
range of our foreign policy interests is very broad. I
would like to emphasize that at the international level
Ukraine will protect its national interests, including its
economic interests, with increasing dynamism and
pragmatism.
These are the corrections that will be made to
Ukraine’s foreign policy, which, despite domestic political
changes, remains, as President Leonid Kuchma has stated,
predictable, consistent and weighted. There can be no
doubt whatsoever in this respect: Ukraine has been
committed, and will continue to be committed, to
fulfilling its international obligations, consistently and in
good faith. This is a solid foundation of our foreign
policy.
The wave of political romanticism yielded to a time
of severe trials in the political, social and economic lives
of the newly independent States that emerged from the
former Soviet Union. Linking the titles of two well-
known novels, the overall tenor of the mood of society in
the post-communist world might be described as "great
expectations gone with the wind".
To speak frankly, those feelings were not spared
Ukraine, which immediately declared its readiness to
cooperate honestly and openly with all interested partners.
However, our State, after having made persistent efforts,
has felt that only recently has the world community come
to understand its position. At the same time, the reality
of the current situation of Ukraine is that we are still the
subject of pressure and suspicion from outside and that
we continue at times to encounter open reluctance to
understand the essence of the problems we are facing.
This greatly aggravates the present and still difficult
economic situation in the country and hinders the process
of market reforms.
18

Today, Ukraine is facing the difficult tasks of
overcoming an economic crisis, of normalizing its social
and economic situation and of creating favourable domestic
and international conditions for gradually raising the living
standard of its population. The President and the new
Government are focusing their efforts on those tasks, but I
must note that Ukraine’s problem in surmounting its
economic crisis has an international dimension as well
since, because of its geopolitical situation, the establishment
of Ukraine as a sovereign and economically developed State
is an important factor for peace and stability on the
continent of Europe. There is therefore every reason to
assert that support for Ukraine - both political and,
especially, economic - is a reliable investment in the
strengthening of international security. These facts are
gradually being accepted, and the discussion of the
Ukrainian question at the Naples Summit Meeting of the
Group of 7 was evidence of this trend.
The existence of a group of countries undergoing
transition to a market economy has become a real factor in
current international relations. Ukraine is a part of that
group. Our experience is showing that the transition period
will not be smooth, that it will be fairly lengthy and that it
will necessitate considerable effort, including international
effort. There is, however, no alternative. Those very
aspects of statecraft will be the focus of President
Kuchma’s attention in the policy statement he will soon
deliver to the Parliament. I should also like to note that the
difficult economic situation in our country can to a
considerable extent be explained by the vast financial
burden of nuclear disarmament and the eradication of the
aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster. Those problems are
not solely Ukrainian; they have a global dimension as well.
In this connection, one positive development is the fact that
the problems of countries undergoing the transition to a
market economy are gradually coming to occupy a rightful
place in the varied activities of the United Nations and its
specialized agencies.
However, it seems that donor States, while declaring
their support for the implementation of reforms in countries
undergoing transition, are still being excessively cautious in
providing adequate support to specific projects in Eastern
Europe and in the countries of the Commonwealth of
Independent States (CIS). Today, that attitude is beginning
to pose a serious problem.
We are also looking forward to target-oriented
activities by the international community designed to create
favourable conditions for free access to the world market
for exports from countries in this region, particularly
Ukraine. In this connection, Ukraine welcomes the
establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO)
and firmly intends to accede to the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT)/WTO system. We hope that
that system will promote trade liberalization and facilitate
the creation of an open and transparent system of trade.
After all, the intensification of international trade is an
integral part of economic development.
As a European country, we are primarily concerned
with the problem of security in Europe in the broadest
sense of that term. I should like to express some views
concerning Ukraine’s vision of ways to safeguard peace
and stability on that continent.
The difficulties of making forecasts in the field of
international relations can be explained by the number of
new risks and challenges to security that have been
created by political, economic, inter-ethnic and other
contradictions. These have already generated a wave of
conflicts to which Europe was not prepared to make an
adequate response.
The anxiety on the continent of Europe is clearly
demonstrated by the ongoing search for new machinery to
ensure State security in Eastern and Central Europe, of
which Ukraine is also a part. The point is not that
appropriate structures to strengthen security in Europe do
not exist. There are the activities of the Conference on
Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Western
European Union (WEU) and the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council (NACC), and the countries of the
Commonwealth of Independent States are also seeking
ways to achieve collective security. However, for various
reasons none of those structures is able adequately to fill
the military and political vacuum created in the region
following the disintegration of the USSR and the Warsaw
Treaty.
That is why Ukraine strongly supports initiatives
aimed at all-European cooperation in various fields,
including the field of security.
I should like to recall that Ukraine was the first of
the CIS countries to become a signatory of the NATO
Partnership for Peace programme and the Agreement on
Partnership and Cooperation with the European
Community. The Ukraine became a party to the
Conference on the Pact on Stability in Europe and has put
forward initiatives for the strengthening of security and
19

cooperation in Central and Eastern Europe and in the Black
Sea region.
However, it should be acknowledged that,
notwithstanding all their positive features, neither the
Partnership for Peace programme nor any other measures
undertaken can yet ensure reliable security safeguards for
the States concerned.
In the existing situation it seems reasonable to focus
attention on a detailed examination of the question of
creating an all-European security structure that would
involve all the existing structures in this field - the CSCE,
the NACC, NATO, the WEU - and, of course, the States of
the former USSR should have an appropriate place in that
structure. Ukraine advocates just such an approach,
namely, the strengthening of partnership and cooperation in
an all-European dimension rather than a search for new
geometrical schemas which would, in fact, solidify the
division of the European continent, small as it is on the
global scale.
We feel that the strengthening of stability and security
in the all-European sphere can and must be supplemented
by regional actions that could be organically integrated into
the overall process of confidence-building and constructive
cooperation.
In the search for such steps, Ukraine put forward the
initiative on confidence-building measures in the region of
the Black Sea. This region is extremely important to us as
a crossroads between Europe and Asia and between North
and South. The elaboration and implementation of specific
confidence-building measures in the military and political
fields in the Black Sea region would promote good-
neighbourly relations and political and economic
cooperation between the Black Sea countries.
Multilateral consultations on these issues have already
begun. Ukraine proceeds on the basis that all Black Sea
countries may participate in confidence-building measures.
We believe that the measures themselves should be
identified in a politically binding document, which would
regulate naval activities on the Black Sea, establish a
procedure for the exchange of appropriate information and
promote the development of contacts between the naval
forces of States parties.
The principle of collective action aimed at the
maintenance of peace under appropriate international
control must be one of the important conditions for the
operation of an all-Europe security system. At the
present stage, national and international security is
threatened not so much by the possibility of military
aggression from outside as by local and regional conflicts
provoked by domestic circumstances - economic, ethnic,
religious and others - and especially by the possibility of
their spilling over and involving neighbouring countries.
This requires timely preventive action.
Assessing recent developments in the world, we have
to recognize that, on the whole, preventive diplomacy is
coming to the foreground of United Nations activities
aimed at securing, restoring and strengthening peace and
of activities of the CSCE. In this context, I should like to
express gratitude to Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the
United Nations Secretary-General, for his significant
personal contribution to the development of the
foundations in this extremely important field of
international activity.
We greatly appreciate United Nations peace-keeping
efforts aimed at settling regional conflicts. We realize
that such activities require intensive political, physical and
financial support from Member States. Unfortunately, the
difficult economic situation of our State - not to mention
the unjustified excessively high contribution to the regular
budget - prevents Ukraine from meeting in full its
financial obligation to the United Nations. However, we
are trying to compensate, at least partially, through our
contribution to the peace-keeping forces.
Ukraine has already become one of the major
contributors to United Nations forces, and it remains
ready to cooperate in this field. We believe that
appropriate protection and security for the peace-keeping
personnel are essential conditions for such cooperation.
Let us consider the sad statistics. In the course of all
United Nations operations more than 1,000 peace-keepers
have been killed. In the territory of the former
Yugoslavia nine Ukrainian servicemen gave their lives,
and more than 30 persons were wounded. The problem
of security for United Nations personnel becomes more
acute every year. When sending its troops to Yugoslavia,
Ukraine took the initiative of developing an international
convention on the protection of United Nations peace-
keepers and of submitting a draft of the document. We
now await with hope the completion, during the current
session, of work on this question.
Developments in the former Yugoslavia and in
Somalia compel us to think about the problems of the
20

effectiveness of United Nations peace-keeping operations.
The fact that the United Nations, even using the potential
of such a powerful organization as NATO, failed to
extinguish the flames of bloody conflict in these countries
obviously calls for a more thorough examination and a
closer definition of principles of United Nations peace-
keeping operations. First and foremost, there are such
questions as a precise mandate, a link with the negotiating
process, the neutrality of the United Nations contingent, the
reasons for coercive action and the concept of multinational
forces.
Today, with the transition to a multipolar world, it has
become evident that no country, however great its potential
for military power, can any longer pretend to be an
effective guarantor of peace by relying exclusively on its
own strength. This would be incompatible with the rules
and principles of behaviour that are recognized throughout
the world. Unfortunately, the United Nations proved not to
be completely ready to assume this important role.
Operations have become increasingly expensive and
unwieldy. During the last four years alone United Nations
expenditure for these purposes has increased from $350
million to $2.8 billion, thus aggravating the chronic
financial problems. In the opinion of the world community,
peace-keeping operations have lost their element of the
extraordinary and have become routine, and not always
successful, emergency actions. But the main reason for the
crisis in United Nations peace-keeping efforts has proved to
be changes in the conditions and circumstances of conflicts.
Classic peace-keeping operations started after the end
of the "hot" phase. That is why they were, in fact, quite
effective means of conflict prevention. Now, in many
cases, the United Nations intervenes when hostilities are at
their height. This changes the principles of the use of
peace-keeping forces. It is not always the case that the
"blue helmets" are regarded by all the conflicting parties as
welcome guests. That is why the United Nations forces’
mandate is considerably wider than used to be the case. In
some cases they have been given the right to use all
available weapons - and not only in self-defence.
The parties to conflicts are often unable to provide
adequate conditions for United Nations forces to accomplish
their peace-making mission. A distinctive attribute of
current conflicts is the phenomenon of field commanders.
These people obey no one and, thus, compromise United
Nations decisions or agreements reached within the
framework of efforts aimed at achieving an armistice.
It is high time to renew the principles and
mechanisms of peace-keeping operations on the basis of
the United Nations Charter. We feel that it is necessary
to accelerate the creation of United Nations rapid-
deployment forces, which would recruit volunteers and
would be extraterritorial in character. Ukraine has
already declared its readiness to take part in this process.
An extremely important issue is the enhancement of
the role of international law within the system of
international relations and the creation of a climate
between States that would completely exclude diktat,
interference in internal affairs, the proclamation of
so-called zones of special interests, and so on. The
United Nations is also making a valuable contribution to
strengthening the international rule of law. In this
context, Ukraine advocates further enhancement of the
rules and principles of international law - first and
foremost, such basic principles as respect for the
sovereignty of States; territorial integrity and the
inviolability of borders; and the protection of individual
human rights, including the rights of national minorities.
Our State is committed to cooperating with other
countries in this field.
Ukraine is also ready to make its contribution to the
solution of other urgent problems. It is necessary that we
should examine thoroughly and comprehensively the
question of the implementation of economic sanctions
against those who threaten peace and security. Previous
United Nations experience in this field provides grounds
for justified criticism of the effectiveness of such
sanctions. It is time to give serious thought to the
creation of machinery for the implementation of Article
50 of the United Nations Charter. This would protect the
economic interests of third countries, which are suffering
colossal losses as a result of the strict implementation of
sanctions.
Ukraine has already lost more than $4 billion as a
result of the implementation of sanctions against
Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, the international structures
did not extend appropriate assistance to enable our State
to overcome the economic difficulties caused by the
embargo. Obviously, collective action aimed at
implementing coercive measures cannot be taken on such
an unfair basis, as this increases the danger of a loss of
confidence in the device of sanctions.
Generally, the necessity of substantively reforming
the United Nations, with a view to enhancing the
effectiveness of the Organization while reducing at the
21

same time the expenditures for its functioning, is a very
serious problem. I am confident that this problem has
ceased to be merely an administrative and budgetary one
and is moving to the foreground as one of the major
political problems. Many countries, including Ukraine, are
currently encountering great difficulties in convincing their
citizens that it is necessary to make excessively large
contributions to the budget of international organizations.
There are still many outstanding problems in the field
of arms control and disarmament, which traditionally
occupy an important place in the foreign policy of Ukraine.
We support efforts aimed at putting into force the chemical
weapons Convention. We are taking an active part in the
elaboration of effective mechanisms of international control
regarding the implementation of the inhumane weapons
Convention, the Convention on the prohibition of biological
weapons, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in
Europe, and other international instruments to which
Ukraine is a party. We attach great importance to the
preparation of the comprehensive test-ban treaty, which is
now under way within the framework of the Conference on
Disarmament. These activities prove that Ukraine is
pursuing a consistent policy in the field of the prohibition
of weapons of mass destruction, and they demonstrate its
openness and readiness to cooperate, its commitment to
respect the obligations assumed. Ukraine stands for the
equality of all States parties to international treaties and
supports the universality and non-discriminatory nature of
these treaties.
It is precisely from such a position that Ukraine
approaches nuclear disarmament, which, at the present
stage, is its most complicated problem. It should be
emphasized that Ukraine is the first State in the world that
has voluntarily and unilaterally assumed the obligation of
eliminating nuclear weapons located in its territory - the
third nuclear potential in the world - and that intends to
achieve the status of a non-nuclear Power.
The decision on non-nuclear status was approved by
the Parliament of Ukraine for the benefit both of the
highest interests of our State and of mankind as a whole.
This decision was based on the profound belief of our
people in the morality of the non-nuclear option and was
not the result of any external pressure.
At the same time, Ukraine, as a State that of its own
free will is giving up nuclear weapons - this most effective
means of deterrence - obviously has the right to obtain
reliable security guarantees from other nuclear States and
adequate economic and technical assistance from the
international community for the elimination of these
weapons.
Unfortunately, our partners did not immediately
comprehend these just demands, and we lost a lot of time.
The Ukraine Parliament’s conditions for revoking its
reservations at the time of the ratification of the START
Treaty and the Lisbon Protocol, and for proceeding with
the practical withdrawal of nuclear warheads from
Ukraine with the view to their further elimination, were
created only after the Trilateral Statement by the
Presidents of Ukraine, the United States and the Russian
Federation was signed and the relevant implementation
agreements were concluded.
Very soon the Parliament of Ukraine intends to
consider the accession of our State to the non-
proliferation Treaty. Today, the settlement of this issue
depends mainly on the finalization of an acceptable text
of the document concerning the provision of guarantees
for Ukraine’s national security by the nuclear States.
Ukraine stands for corresponding guarantees to be
multilateral and to be addressed directly to Ukraine as
that State which for the first time in history, on its own,
is getting rid of nuclear weapons; these guarantees should
provide a mechanism of consultations, which could
become involved should the security of Ukraine be
threatened. In this process, we attach great importance to
the role of the United Nations as the most authoritative
international organization.
In conclusion, I would like to express optimism
concerning the future development of the United Nations
and international co-operation. Current international life
is highly complicated and contradictory: there are
alarming moments and there are frustrations, but there are
also truly historical shifts which have led to the end of
the cold war and to the transition to constructive
co-operation. It is highly symbolic that this is happening
on the eve of the fiftieth anniversary of our Organization,
which emerged from the ruins of the Second World War.
On behalf of Ukraine, which suffered very heavy losses
in that war, I would like to support the proposal to
proclaim 1995 the universal year of commemoration of
the victims of this, the bloodiest of wars.
Present-day realities are laying a sound foundation
for global cooperation, stability and peace. Let us
therefore make every effort not to lose this historic
opportunity.


It
is my pleasure, Sir, to congratulate you on your election
to the presidency of the forty-ninth session of the General
Assembly. We are certain that your experience and your
19

diplomatic skill will lead to a very positive outcome for the
work of this session.
May I at the same time convey to the Secretary-
General our profound appreciation of his tireless efforts to
adapt the United Nations to the increasingly complex
requirements of a changing world.
The structure of the international system, at the end of
this century, is experiencing radical changes, particularly
the end of the post-war bipolarity, the fall of the Iron
Curtain and the end of the cold war. Many new peoples
have gained their right to self-determination and democratic
development, long repressed by totalitarian regimes. Some
succeeded in accomplishing this by peaceful means; others
have had to go through tragedies and major conflicts, such
as those in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the territory of the
former Yugoslavia and the Trans-Dnestr, the Caucasus and
Central Asia, former territories of the Soviet Union. Today
they are all sources of concern to the international
community because of their implications for regional and
international peace and security.
The revolutions in Central Europe, whose essential
purpose was the restoration of freedom and dignity to the
people in that part of the world and their return to
traditional democratic values, with respect for fundamental
human rights and political pluralism, have inter alia, made
more politically homogeneous a part of the continent long
marked by ideological and political barriers and
confrontation between opposing military blocs.
Europe is undergoing an apparently contradictory
evolution. On the one hand, there is a tendency towards
the fragmentation of States and a reaffirmation of the
national identities and personalities of the central part of the
continent and the former Soviet territories. On the other
hand, in the West there is a process of integration which is
tending to draw in new European States.
Other continents are also undergoing historically
important changes.
The Middle East, thanks to the actions of a number of
politicians who were bold enough to take the great
responsibility of rising out of the inertia there, and running
the risks of peace, has entered a process of historic
reconciliation which once seemed impossible.
In Latin America, as well as in Asia and the Pacific,
dynamic economic zones have been created, thus destroying
false assumptions about the inevitability of
underdevelopment in two-thirds of the world.
In Africa, the abolition of the policy of apartheid,
the reorganization of the Republic of South Africa on
democratic lines and the defeat of reactionary racial
concepts open up new prospects for cooperation and
development for the entire continent.
The dynamics of the world have changed. This
creates many questions for the international community,
Governments, politicians and political forces. So far the
answers have been few and inadequate. But life does not
wait. States and people have concrete needs as well as
hopes and ideals. Their natural tendency is to act in
order to fulfil them, whether or not there exists an
organized international framework for harmonizing
divergent interests.
This is where international organizations and the
United Nations in particular have a role to play. In the
effort to decode and evaluate the significance of the
highly dynamic and complex developments in the
international political arena, several scenarios have
appeared in which these developments are viewed as
preludes to a new era of confrontation between
civilizations. But freeing international relations from
ideology does not and must not necessarily lead to
confrontation between civilizations. By definition,
confrontation is alien to civilization. Civilization is
characterized, rather, by tolerance and open-mindedness.
Of course, this does not exclude competition between
civilizations, between the values they promote, between
their capacities to guarantee the free enjoyment of basic
human rights and the development of initiative and the
human personality. But to establish the conditions of
such coexistence between civilizations a restructuring of
international relations is required if an optimal framework
for the affirmation and development of each people’s
individuality, as well as prosperity, are to be ensured.
From this perspective, the role of the United Nations is
essential.
Next year we will be celebrating the fiftieth
anniversary of the end of the Second World War and, at
the same time, the establishment of the United Nations.
Like other States in the region, Romania, against its will,
was dragged into a conflict that claimed millions of
victims and wrought enormous destruction. However,
through the determination of all its internal democratic
forces - the embodiment of our nation’s aspirations -
Romania managed to break away from Hitler’s war
20

machine and join the coalition of the united nations on 23
August 1944. The great human, material and logistical
efforts made by the Romanian people between 23 August
1944 and the final victory of the united nations forces are
engraved in the Golden Book of our national history. Even
though the status of co-belligerent was not granted to
Romania, no one has ever contested the strategic value and
political importance of these sacrifices.
We support proposals that in 1995 - the year which
marks half a century since the end of the war - the
international community should concentrate its efforts on
building a climate of peace and giving a decisive impetus
to the peaceful settlement of conflicts existing in various
regions of the world, thus making next year a true
international year of peace.
In this framework, we believe that there is a need to
rethink the entire machinery and to adapt the structures of
the United Nations to contemporary requirements. Indeed,
this rethinking process has already started, and this is to be
welcomed. The Secretary-General’s "Agenda for Peace"
offers excellent material for reflection and action.
In this context, we support the proposals, in our view
justified, aimed at reviewing the composition of the
Security Council in order to adapt it to today’s realities and
ensure a better representation of the great geographical
regions. In our view, such a limited increase in
membership would have to include Germany and Japan
among the permanent members of that the Council, taking
into account their potential, role and contribution to the
activities of the Organization. Certainly, this should not
mean the establishment of a "condominium" of the
permanent members over the rest of the world. Rather, we
see it as a deeper commitment to their responsibility for
maintaining international peace and security, which is the
main task of the Security Council. In this way, a balance
could be achieved between the Council and the General
Assembly and the other main bodies within a context of
democratic decision-making procedures that would allow all
countries to act on a democratic and equal basis in
protecting their legitimate interests.
Any rethinking of the structures of the United Nations
must take into account the phenomenon of the globalization
of international problems, one of the features of today’s
world. Objective factors of development are increasing the
interdependence of States and regions of the world. In one
way or another, we are all affected by the tragedies that
have unfolded in, for example, the former Yugoslavia, the
Trans-Dnestr region, the Caucasus, Rwanda and Haiti. The
world economy shows clear trends towards integration on
a global scale, a development which affects the interests
of all States. The ecological equilibrium of the planet is
becoming of vital interest to all regions and summons all
States to bear their share of responsibility.
All these phenomena, typical of the late twentieth
century, require us to develop an awareness of our planet
as a veritable spaceship if our Governments’ actions at
the international level are to be both effective and
convergent. The United Nations system is best placed to
encourage and sustain the development of such an
awareness.
Today, there is no greater threat to international
peace and security and no greater source of tension and
conflict among nations than the widening gap between
rich and poor States. The corrections already attempted
by the international community, including the Decades for
Development and various assistance programmes, have
not managed to put a halt to these negative trends. This
poses a grave threat to the global balance, particularly
through the inevitable phenomenon of massive population
migration, which is impossible to control, from the
underdeveloped areas of the planet to much smaller zones
of prosperity in Europe and North America.
It is in mankind’s general interest to prevent such a
prospect and to preserve its diversity. This can be
achieved solely through a determined and enlightened
effort on the part of the international community to
eradicate underdevelopment and promote the economic
growth of the developing countries, thus turning them into
the truly equal partners of the developed countries, as is
rightly emphasized in the Secretary-General’s Agenda for
Development. The United Nations system is the most
appropriate framework for launching on a global scale a
partnership for development, the necessity of which is
growing more apparent by the day.
Clearly, such a development must first address the
needs and aspirations to progress of the developing
countries. At the same time, it should coincide with the
interests of the developed countries, which are facing
many difficulties today - not on the same scale, of
course - by offering them new opportunities to overcome
recession and chronic unemployment. The experience of
the developed countries themselves demonstrates that
economic development inherently leads to an increase in
the absorption capacity of national markets and in the
degree of economic interaction.
21

From this viewpoint the European continent is in a
position to engage in an experiment that has great relevance
for the world economy. Without coordinated action by
European States and institutions, the ideological and
political barriers characteristic of the period when Europe
was divided into opposing military blocs may well be
replaced by a new iron curtain, economic in nature,
between developed countries and those in transition,
because of the gaps between them. Such risks could be
eliminated by the ever-growing trend towards integration at
the continental level; the construction of a system of
economic relations based on equality between the countries
of the East and West on the continent, which will help to
promote reforms in the Central and Eastern European
countries; and the realization of the necessary standards of
integration. Those developments could also make a vital
contribution to the achievement, in a similar manner, of a
partnership for development.
In this connection, international efforts to promote the
economic growth of a particular area must not be viewed in
terms of competition or rivalry with other areas. Any
economic progress in an area that is lagging represents a
gain for other areas. In this context, the United Nations
system can play a moderating and balancing role in
managing, as rationally and effectively as possible, a
partnership for development at the global level.
I have referred to some of the major challenges
contemporary international developments present to the
international community, and to the United Nations in
particular, developments with regard to which the latter is
particularly called upon to assume the role of organizing
cooperation between States to harmonize and safeguard
their common interests.
As a democratic State aware of its responsibilities to
its people as well as to international peace, security and
cooperation, Romania intends to be part of the universal
effort to face these challenges. My country’s principal
contribution to this joint effort consists of consolidating the
democratic process and domestic stability. Over the nearly
five years since the Revolution of December 1989, the
country’s face has radically changed. A new Constitution,
modern and democratic in nature, has come into force; the
totalitarian regime has been abolished and the foundations
of a State of law have been laid; the free exercise of
fundamental human rights, including the rights of
individuals belonging to national minorities, is guaranteed.
On that basis, we have created step by step an ever greater
degree of domestic stability, which today makes Romania
a stabilizing factor in the region. This is an especially
remarkable achievement in that it was obtained under
difficult international conditions - in particular, the
situations of conflict in our immediate neighbourhood and
above all the extremely heavy burden which the embargo
against Yugoslavia has imposed upon the Romanian
economy, with no compensation whatsoever.
To the extent that it can, Romania participates in the
efforts of the international community to resolve regional
conflicts, primarily those in our own geographical area.
We are ready to assume all our responsibilities and make
our contribution to peacefully settling those conflicts and
ensuring security and calm in a region traumatized by
military confrontations and with interests at stake that are
not necessarily the same as those of the parties engaged
in combat.
In that spirit Romania has fully associated itself with
the Partnership for Peace offered by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) to the countries of Central
Europe and of the former Soviet Union. We believe this
new form of interconnection with an institution that
constituted a guarantee for the maintenance of peace
throughout the European continent will give a better
opportunity for peace in Europe and, implicitly, for
international peace and security.
Similarly, in a broader context, Romania supports
the process of integration at the continental level. It is
endeavouring to contribute to this by pursuing a policy of
good-neighbourliness and by implementing regional
cooperation projects, particularly in the area of Central
Europe, the Black Sea and the Danube basin, all of which
should accelerate the integration of the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe into the structures of the
European Union, NATO, the Western European Union
and the Council of Europe.
The priority Romania attaches to the European and
Euro-Atlantic options, resulting from its history and from
geopolitical factors, does not exclude traditional
relationships established over the years with countries and
areas outside the European continent. On the contrary, as
the country’s domestic political and social life has
become more stable and as its economy has begun to
improve, those relations have been renewed and
expanded. They are certainly valuable at the bilateral
level, but they are also valuable multilaterally, since they
strengthen international confidence and trust and develop
a global awareness of the fact that the world is shrinking
all the time, in terms of both time and space, and that
22

each State shares responsibility for the tranquillity, peace
and prosperity of other States.
The extremely complex situations in various parts of
the world and the contradictory currents that exist, with all
their attendant risks and uncertainties for overall peace and
security, demand a democratic vision of the new
international order, which must be built, and abandonment
of prejudices in relations between States inherited from the
cold-war period. But that is not all. I believe that today
we need a vision of the management of international
relations in which realism and pragmatism predominate.
Unfortunately, the after-effects of ideological outlooks still
linger in political thinking, distancing us from reality and
inevitably influencing policy making. In certain conditions,
this can have extremely serious consequences for States and
peoples by marginalizing them or even by isolating them
from international cooperation. In the medium and long
term, such political decisions can only have harmful
consequences for international peace and security.
Because of its vocation and its Charter principles, the
United Nations is the ideal forum for determining an
approach to international problems free from stereotypes
and prejudices. To the extent that the United Nations
succeeds, all Member States stand to gain - each
individually and the international community as a whole.
Romania is prepared to participate in this joint effort to
build a world of international peace and cooperation, free
from conflicts and prejudices.


Allow me to begin by conveying to the President, on my own behalf and on that of the Gabonese delegation, warm and brotherly congratulations on his noteworthy election to the presidency of the Assembly. His great experience in international affairs, along with his outstanding intellectual and moral qualities, are for us a guarantee that his presidency will stamp the work of the General Assembly with renewed dynamism.
We wish to express to his predecessor, Mr. Samuel Rudolph Insanally of Guyana, our satisfaction at his decisive actions in the course of the forty-eighth session.
I would also like to reiterate our appreciation and support for Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, whose competence, rigour and effectiveness in the service of the Organization are well established.
The end of East-West antagonism foreshadowed unexpected horizons of peace and a bright tomorrow. Very quickly, however, the emergence of all kinds of extremism radically changed this picture of the future.
Today the international community is divided between the hope of settling age-old conflicts, concern over the persistence of contemporary conflicts, and preoccupation over the emergence in some places of civil wars born of ethnic or religious tensions. While the risks, directly or indirectly linked to the cold war, of world-wide conflict have faded, armed conflicts continue to sow death and destruction.
The resolution of the Cambodian conflict, the continuation of the Middle East peace process, the favourable progress of the conflict pitting Israel against its neighbours, the settlement of the border conflict between Chad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and, above all, the abolition of apartheid in South Africa - to cite only a few examples - give us good reason to be pleased.
Gabon has followed most attentively the current positive developments in the situation in the Middle East. We encourage the parties concerned to hold on to their gains and to pursue the peace process under way until the agreements reached are fully implemented.
With regard to Cambodia, we appeal to all the parties involved to work for the consolidation of national unity and democratic institutions.
Finally, for the first time in several decades, apartheid is not to be found on our agenda. This historic turn of events is the result, first and foremost, of the sacrifices of the South African people themselves and, then again, of the efforts of the international community as a whole. Gabon hails the return of a united, democratic and non-racial South Africa to the concert of free nations.
For the settlement of these conflicts we are indebted primarily to our world Organization, which, free of the burdens of the cold war, seems to have recovered the dynamism that inspired the San Francisco Charter.
In this context, the end of the border conflict that for years turned Chad and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against each other is an outstanding example of the merits of settling disputes peacefully. The parties to that conflict have abided on all counts by the opinion of the International Court of Justice.
My satisfaction is even greater because of President Omar Bongo's assumption of the chairmanship of the Ad Hoc Committee that was established in 1977 by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) at its fourteenth summit meeting and that is intended to provide a political settlement of that conflict. May this example serve to inspire the many States involved in conflicts to come into harmony with the spirit of the Charter of our Organization.
These reasons for hope notwithstanding, in Africa and in Eastern Europe there are real reasons for concern with regard to the prospects for peace and stability in the world.
With regard to Africa, partial and contradictory analyses aside, we must recognize that the peace and security of our continent are seriously threatened by civil wars and inter-ethnic conflicts.
In Somalia there is no event or initiative that allows us to look to the future with optimism. Quite the contrary: thanks to the ruthlessness of the belligerents, the international community is becoming discouraged and the conflict is becoming entrenched. This is why the Gabonese Government urges the various factions to speed up the process of national reconciliation on the basis of the Addis Ababa Agreements.
The conflict that has been tearing Liberia apart for so many years is still continuing relentlessly, showing hopes for peace to be illusory, hopes that were nurtured by the Agreements signed in Cotonou in July 1993 under the aegis of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). We would venture to hope that the recent Akossombo agreement, signed in Ghana, the eleventh of its kind, will lead to a lasting settlement of the conflict.
Thoughts of these zones of conflict lead me now to pay a tribute, on behalf of my country, to the Angolan Government for its determination to pursue negotiation. Gabon encourages the efforts to restore peace in Angola, in accordance with the peace Agreements concluded to date and with Security Council resolutions 864 (1993) and 932 (1994). Here we appeal to UNITA to take advantage of the opportunity offered by the Lusaka talks to put an end to this war that has been casting a pall over Angola for almost 20 years now.
On Rwanda, I reiterate the appeal of the Government of Gabon to all the sons and daughters of that country to adopt a spirit of tolerance, harmony and renewed peace and begin at last to work towards the same goal: the reconstruction of their battered, devastated country. In that context, Gabon has not failed to express its support for the humanitarian activities undertaken by the United Nations through the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR), by France through its Operation Turquoise, and by many non-governmental organizations. My country has also called for more effective and persistent participation by the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the United Nations in the peace process aimed at putting an end to the tragedy.
Having hailed the welcome initiatives of non-governmental organizations and of Gabonese citizens to ease the suffering of our brethren in Rwanda, my Government has decided, first, to make a voluntary contribution - the funds for which have been released - to the United Nations Special Fund for Rwanda. Secondly, it will provide assistance to the afflicted populations, principally in the form of food products, clothing and medicine, which my Government is committed to sending to Kigali by its own means. The "air-bridge" for that purpose opened on 18 September 1994, when we delivered the initial portion of this aid to the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Rwanda. Thirdly, if the need arises, we shall take in Rwandese orphans, in collaboration with international organizations such as the United Nations Children's Fund and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
In eastern Europe, the horror continues in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the negative result of the recent referendum is not likely to allow the speedy settlement of this conflict, which has gone on far too long. Here again, Gabon appeals to the parties to the conflict to bring peace to their region.
These tragedies have put the Organization to a harsh test. But, despite the uncertainty of the post-cold-war period, the United Nations remains a priority forum for creating and nurturing the collective search for peace. To do this, the passivity displayed by nearly all participants in international life must be replaced by a determination to take preventive action. In that connection, the Agenda for
Peace outlines the action that needs to be taken to avert, as quickly as possible, situations that could give rise to conflicts, particularly action in the framework of preventive diplomacy.
For its part, Africa has not been idle in this sphere. Indeed, our major concern is reflected in the creation by the OAU of machinery for the prevention, management and settlement of conflicts. In the same spirit, the States of central Africa have established a permanent mechanism dealing with questions of security in central Africa, with a mandate to promote confidence-building measures among member States in line with the principles of the Charter.
The agreement on a non-aggression pact at the September 1993 Libreville meeting, the signing ceremony for which has just taken place in Yaounde, Cameroon, attests eloquently to the dedication of our States to the values of peace and solidarity. But to be more effective operationally, and to play an active role in the decentralization of peace-keeping operations, this machinery should benefit from logistical and technical assistance from the United Nations.
To take due account of the new international political landscape I have described, the desired developments must be multidimensional, dealing not only with the structure of the United Nations, but also with its activities. I am pleased to note that there have been various initiatives to that end, including the vast process of restructuring the principal organs, which was begun two years ago. This has been reflected in such things as the beginnings of a debate on the reform of the Security Council, with a view to enlarging its membership and ensuring equitable representation of Member States. Gabon is in favour of such reform.
It is agreed today that international peace and security are no longer limited to political and military considerations, but that they encompass such diverse areas as the economic, social, humanitarian and environmental spheres. We think the time has come for this vision, which accords with the Charter, to be reflected in reality. To be sure, since the founding of the United Nations mankind has made major economic, scientific and technological progress. But, despite these notable advances, some parts of the world continue to live in poverty and destitution.
For Africa, the United Nations has set up two successive programmes: the United Nations Programme for African Economic Recovery and Development, and the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s. Both were intended to contribute to the continent's sustained economic growth.
While the African States have fulfilled their obligations under these programmes, we have to say that the industrialized countries have failed to honour their commitments. It is also regrettable that the Rio Summit on environment and development, which had given rise to new hope and which for the first time had incorporated the concept of sustainable development, is suffering from a glaring lack of international support. Our expectations are not being met with respect to the financing needed to implement Agenda 21.
The Agenda for Development proposed by the Secretary-General should fill these gaps once the international community realizes the interdependence of our interests. I want to reaffirm Gabon's commitment to the major principles in that Agenda: peace, the foundation of development; the economy, the engine of progress; the environment, a basis for sustainability; social justice, a pillar of society; and democracy, the model of good governance. Yet beyond those principles we must study ways and means to implement the Agenda for Development, scrupulously taking into account the major concerns of the African continent.
In any event, for the countries of the South, the success of existing or future machinery for cooperation will depend on the role reserved for development activities and for the reduction of inequity. Here, the new World Trade Organization, which from January 1995 will replace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, will have to respond to the needs arising from differences in the level of development of the rich countries and of the less-well-off countries.
After 30 years of independence, we must observe that African States do not always have the means to satisfy their peoples' health, educational and cultural concerns. Numerous factors contribute to keeping our countries in the spiral of underdevelopment. The first is that our countries are unable to process the commodities they produce or set their prices. This leads to a drastic deterioration of the terms of trade, because the prices of raw materials are not indexed to those of the finished products.
Moreover, the external debt and the cost of servicing it are a serious obstacle to the development of African countries, as is clear from the ratio of debt to exports of goods and services for Africa as a whole. Gabon, too, is affected by this situation, and for several years has been engaging in structural adjustment programmes. These programmes have not always yielded the expected results, especially since our economy is marked by, inter alia, excessive dependence on the outside world and by growing public and private debt.
In this context, on 12 January 1994, there was a 50 per cent devaluation of the parity of the currency of the African States of the franc zone compared to that of the French franc. At the time of the devaluation all the African countries of the franc zone were given equal treatment, but today discrimination between those States is being exercised. Gabon thus remains the only country which, because of its intermediate revenues, is refused access to the loan windows in flexible conditions, on the pretext that its per capita gross national product is too high.
It is true that devaluation could have some positive aspects, including a relaunching of investment, more competitive exports, a revitalization of the agricultural sector and a reduction of imports. But we believe that it is necessary, indeed urgent, to receive assistance in order to establish new machinery to help the most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable persons.
Our common destiny and international solidarity should prompt us to transcend our differences and give priority only to meeting the needs and ensuring the well- being of mankind. The interdependence that flows from this dictates that the industrialized countries, with their technological know-how and financial resources, should support the efforts of the weakest and most disadvantaged to participate in the establishment of this new global economy.
These days, States are confronted with trans-border scourges which individually they are incapable of stemming. That is true of the phenomenon of increasing flows of refugees and illegal immigrants, the illegal drug trade, malaria and the AIDS pandemic. Joint and coordinated international action is required to attack the roots of these evils.
It is the custom today for everyone to emphasize the importance of the trilogy of democracy, development and human rights. In that respect - and specifically concerning democracy - Gabon, which was one of the very first African countries to return to political pluralism, has been making an effort for several years now to establish new institutions adapted to democratic rules and to promote the emergence of a genuine state of law. But we are aware that time is needed to achieve this.
In this framework, recently, in the presence of international observers, negotiations were held between representatives of the Opposition and representatives of the Government to seek ways and means to establish democracy by consensus - the sole guarantee of peace and social cohesion.
Unquestionably, the founding fathers of the United Nations wished it above all to respond positively to the questions the peoples were asking about the best way to organize international life. The statement of purposes and principles within the very first provisions of the Charter eloquently attests to this. Hence it is up to the United Nations system and Member States to ensure that at each session the General Assembly takes a decisive step towards the attainment of these purposes and principles that we hold so dear. I hope that this will be done at the forty-ninth session.