First of all, allow me
to subscribe to the statement delivered this morning by the
Foreign Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Jacques Poos, on
behalf of the European Union. In particular, Sir, I wish to
join him in his congratulations to you on your election to
the presidency of the General Assembly.
As the year 2000 draws closer, our feelings somehow
make us ponder more keenly the achievements and
misfortunes of the present century, and make us look ahead
to the next one. As I do this, central to my thoughts is the
United Nations, an institution created when I was an
adolescent, at the end of a war whose horrors were just
then coming to light. I remember having been elated at the
time about the purposes and principles of the new
Organization, and I remember how intrigued I was to see
that, in a way, devastation and despair had given rise to the
belief that a better world could yet be built, a world marked
by peace, development and respect for human rights,
notions I was just beginning to learn about. Soon enough,
I came to realize that such a world would be rather longer
in the making than the Charter had led me to hope; that old
questions were giving way to new ones; that the United
Nations was not a panacea for all the troubles of mankind;
and, more to the point, that the United Nations could never
be stronger than its Member States collectively willed it to
be.
Yet somehow my expectations remained, expectations
which I shared with a growing audience around the globe,
and which one generation was passing on to the next.
Rightly or wrongly, nations and individuals, Governments,
civil society and the public at large: they all have
expectations about what the United Nations can do for
them, and about how it might change their lives and their
destiny for the better.
The question then is not so much whether the United
Nations can meet all of those expectations. For it cannot,
and it probably should not even try. The United Nations
has neither the mandate, nor the resources, nor the power
to be the world’s keeper. The question is rather how we
can exploit the strong points of the Charter, how we can
make the United Nations play a role that only the United
Nations can play, and how we can better equip the
Organization to do more by doing what it does better.
With that in mind, I wish to highlight three matters this
afternoon: the fitness of the Organization; the potential of
the United Nations to manage crises in the wider context
of development; and the Organization’s action in the field
of human rights.
Part of the reason why the United Nations has
problems in meeting expectations is what it has turned
into over the past 30 years: an amazing structure of
boards and committees populated by a growing
membership and assisted by an army of civil servants. For
that reason alone, the Organization has lost credibility.
Efforts to streamline and revitalize the Organization are
therefore long overdue. United Nations reform is a must.
The proposals put forward by the Secretary-General are
an important first step in that process, as the Foreign
Minister of Luxembourg, Mr. Poos, said this morning, a
process that will have to incorporate more ambitious ideas
as it unfolds. The Kingdom of the Netherlands supports
the Secretary-General in his reform drive, we applaud the
fact that he has made reform his number-one agenda item,
and we welcome the reform package Mr. Kofi Annan has
put in our care.
But we should get on with it. The world cannot
afford to wait. We are looking at an Organization that is
far behind on its maintenance schedule. Yet over the past
three years, the reform debate has inched forward as if
oblivious to the need to produce results. Fortunately, the
Secretary-General has injected new momentum into the
debate, and we should all welcome this.
As we are about to engage in this “Reform
Assembly”, as the Secretary-General has called it, we
should be conscious of the underlying concerns that have
surfaced in the reform debate from time to time. These
concerns are real, and dismissing them would jeopardize
a promising outcome for the present session. Indeed,
various groups of nations have doubts about what other
groups of nations are ultimately aiming for in this
exercise. Developing countries have even expressed
misgivings about the reform process as a whole. Some of
them are clearly afraid that major Western Governments
15

are out to recast the United Nations as an institution that
would run on the lowest possible budget and concentrate on
peacekeeping, humanitarian aid and human rights. Another
concern is that the development programme of this
Organization — perhaps its single most important
achievement over the past 30 years — might actually suffer
as a result of reform.
Understandably, many nations see the decline in recent
years of official aid levels as the writing on the wall. They
are disheartened by the empty promises of Rio de Janeiro
in 1992. Moreover, they are worried about the current
financial crisis of the United Nations. And finally, a handful
of nations describe the Secretary-General’s proposals as a
“northern” package — one that caters mainly to the needs
of the industrialized world.
Instead, developing nations would wish to see the
United Nations strengthened in what to them is perhaps its
most critical field of action, a field of action that
corresponds to one of the main purposes mentioned in the
Charter: social and economic development. They rightly
argue that if the United Nations membership wants to be
serious about that objective, it needs to equip the
Organization accordingly. And so, in their view, more
resources should flow into the Organization. Before
consenting to change anything, they are inclined to play it
safe and to hold on to what is there.
This line of thought, assuming I am reading it
correctly, calls for comments. My first remark is that,
clearly, the Secretary-General was well-advised in having
most of his package focus on the economic and social
sectors. This is indeed the area that commands the widest
interest among the membership. If we look at the merits of
the package, it seems fair to say that many industrialized
nations might have wanted to see more ambitious and
comprehensive proposals. Still, speaking for the
Netherlands Government, I would argue that the present
package of reform measures is well-directed, substantial and
worthwhile. Evidently, the Secretary-General, on the basis
of consultations which only he could undertake, has
concluded that the contents of the package represent the
maximum of what is achievable in the present state of play.
And we should all accept that as a given.
Furthermore, it is important to remember that reform
might strengthen the development sector of the United
Nations to the point where it can actually deliver better
service with the resources that are presently available. This
exercise is not about cutting costs. Yet a leaner and meaner
Organization might give better value for the money. At the
same time, we welcome the idea of a development
dividend, as put forward by the Secretary-General.
A stronger development sector may help make the
United Nations a more attractive Organization not only to
recipients, but to donor countries as well. Voluntary
contributions should not come only from the same small
group of traditional donors year after year. For a long
time now, the Netherlands has been among the top
contributors to the United Nations system, and we intend
to remain so. We appreciate the spectacular gesture by
Mr. Ted Turner. But donor contributions should also
come from those nations that fall far below the 0.7 per
cent mark, as well as from newly industrialized countries
in Asia and elsewhere.
Finally, all Member States should become current
and stay current on their financial obligations under the
regular and peacekeeping budgets; and payments should
be prompt, in full and certainly without conditions.
All in all, the heart of the matter is not about core
concepts and not about mindset; it is about trust. It is
about feeling comfortable with the idea that among 185
Member States, a difference of views is inevitable,
particularly when they are asked to discuss such a wide-
ranging matter as the future of this Organization.
We have arrived at a crossroads where we face a
critical choice. This is a moment when we have to rise
above the level of squabbling over details in working
groups. No doubt, we all have a point to raise, a question
to ask and a change to make. But that avenue would lead
us nowhere, for soon enough the package would fall
apart. Now is the time to start trusting each other. This is
a time for vision and political courage. We, as statesmen,
should be ready to accept our responsibility in this regard,
to join forces and to forge a breakthrough. We should all
rise to the occasion and accept the package of the
Secretary-General as it is before us now and work out the
details and implementation later. Endorsement in general
terms needs to be expressed before we all adjourn next
December. Without such endorsement, the momentum in
the reform process will be lost.
We, the Member States of the United Nations,
pledged ourselves, in the words of the Charter:
“to take effective collective measures for the
prevention and removal of threats to the
peace”.
16

Next to the United Nations development effort,
peacekeeping and peace-building are perhaps the most
visible part of what the United Nations does — an
impression refreshed by Cable News Network (CNN)
almost daily. More importantly, those who are on the run,
who are afraid for their lives, who watch their homesteads
invaded, who are occupied and repressed, who look
starvation and genocide in the face — they have
expectations of the United Nations. They expect the
Organization to bail them out.
We need to improve the capacity of the United
Nations to deal with crises, be they military, political or
humanitarian ones, whether man-made or not. There is
considerable room for improvement here, as illustrated by
the situations in Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and Zaire. As we
speak, innocent blood is flowing in many places around the
world. Yet all too often the United Nations remains
impotent. We cannot allow this to continue. Here again lies
a major area where reform is indispensable, and the
Secretary-General has duly underlined this.
A number of Member States, including the Kingdom
of the Netherlands, have been trying to develop the concept
of a standby high-readiness brigade within the framework
of the United Nations standby agreements. They have been
making modest progress over the last three years. A rapidly
deployable headquarters is now being established.
Tomorrow a small group of nations will informally
deliberate on how to promote further steps. Several other
initiatives are under way, including regional ones. Given the
complexities, this is going to be an incremental process, but
one where we cannot afford to let up.
The real test is where to position peacekeeping in the
wider context of the overall concerns of the United Nations.
Our agenda should be wider and should include conflict
prevention and peace-building.
The difficulty we need to address here is how to
integrate different policy instruments — political, military,
relief, rehabilitation and social and economic development
— into one comprehensive framework. Crises require a
coherent and effective international response, a response
that should integrate preventive diplomacy, political
mediation and humanitarian relief, but also social action,
economic alternatives and cultural communication. In sum:
development.
Of course, prevention is the key. The United Nations
can be much more effective when we invest in prevention.
Diplomacy, economic sanctions, arms embargoes and
political pressure will reduce risk and costs as compared
to military intervention in an escalated conflict. We could
avoid the loss of life and escape generalized human
misery. As a result of timely prevention, we could also
avoid the immense costs for rehabilitation, resettlement
and reconstruction that arise after violence is over.
Military intervention, under United Nations auspices, for
humanitarian purposes may be necessary in certain
conflict situations. But it should always be a means of
last resort. Intervention implies that prevention has failed.
The link between development on the one hand and
peace and security on the other is a tenuous one in the
United Nations system. Yet experience has proved that
making the link is imperative. We need to find the best
combination of conflict management, humanitarian
assistance and social and economic programmes to pave
the way for sustainable development and for sustainable
peace.
In San Francisco we promised to promote and
encourage
“respect for human rights and for fundamental
freedoms for all”.
It is a pledge we will have to renew again and again,
perhaps indefinitely. Yet such a pledge may not
degenerate into lipservice. Commitments must be turned
into reality; obligations must be implemented. We cannot
let our guard down as we face reports on violations of
human rights. Torture is still being practised on a wide
scale. People continue to disappear. Arrest and detention
without cause take place routinely. And freedom of the
press is non-existent in too many countries.
Still, we recognize that human rights are in better
shape worldwide than they were 10 years ago, and
certainly 50 years ago. Totalitarian regimes have all but
disappeared; democracy is on the rise. Also, there is more
interest than ever before in the triangle of democracy,
good governance and human rights.
Today, human rights are well established as an
important objective in their own right and a major field of
activity for the United Nations. But, perhaps more
important, human rights have become a leitmotif in a
wide variety of other areas of United Nations policy, from
sustainable development to population, from trade to
humanitarian aid, and from peacekeeping to human
settlements. That human rights is a “cross-cutting” issue
is evident from the reform proposals of the Secretary-
17

General and from the way he has revised the top
management structure in the Secretariat — both of which
we welcome warmly.
Expectations on what the United Nations can achieve
in the field of human rights have run high, among victims
of human-rights violations, among mothers of the
disappeared, among grass-roots groups, and among
non-governmental organizations. Then again, there are
Governments that expect the United Nations to stay out of
their precincts entirely: Governments that accept the
universality of human rights, but only as a debating point;
Governments that accept the United Nations actions against
human rights-violations, but only at a theoretical level and
not when it concerns them.
All in all, the instruments the United Nations can
apply have become the core of an extensive machinery that
in many cases has worked strikingly well. Examples are
numerous and expanding. I refer to such diverse methods
as international dialogue, the integration of human rights
activities into cooperation arrangements, the work of human
rights field offices, human rights education and
strengthening regional supervisory machinery.
More recently, a new High Commissioner for Human
Rights took up her position. If this is indeed the age of
human rights, as the Secretary-General says, then
Mrs. Mary Robinson will be one of its key personalities.
We wish her courage and wisdom in her new assignment,
and she can be sure of our commitment.
One major platform in the realization of human rights
and the international administration of justice is soon to
take its definitive shape. Next summer, a diplomatic
conference will convene in Rome — we should all be
grateful to the Italian Government for hosting it — that
will, hopefully, adopt a convention establishing an
international criminal court. Once established, the court will
be the natural counterpart to the International Court of
Justice. My Government is looking forward with
anticipation to this new offspring in the international legal
order, and I take pride in announcing that my country is
offering to house the seat of the court, in the city of The
Hague.
The fitness of the United Nations as an Organization,
its capacity to manage crises in the wider context of
development, and its action in the field of human rights are
areas of ongoing concern to all Member States. This
Assembly will continue to address them, either on their
own merits or in the context of United Nations reform. The
United Nations is expected to perform in these areas and
to produce results. Yet there is only one way this is going
to happen: if all of us join forces, join forces to make the
United Nations a viable and credible institution, join
forces to make it a centre for harmonizing the actions of
nations in the attainment of these common ends. For only
then will we keep the promise of San Francisco.


I
should like to join those who have spoken before me in
offering you, Sir, my warmest congratulations on your
outstanding election to the presidency of our Assembly.
To your illustrious predecessor, Mr. Razali Ismail of
Malaysia, my delegation reaffirms its satisfaction with the
efficiency and competence with which he guided the work
of the fifty-first session. We wish once again to convey to
him our sincere appreciation.
I also wish once again to welcome the election of
Mr. Kofi Annan as Secretary-General of our Organization.
In raising him to this position, the international community
recognized the qualities that have brought honour to him,
his country and the entire African continent. On behalf of
my delegation, I pay tribute to him for his dedication to the
cause of international peace and security and for all he is
doing to make the United Nations more effective and
credible by improving its capacity to meet the needs of
today’s world.
Two years ago, we celebrated the United Nations first
half-century. We recommitted ourselves solemnly to
working together to advance peace, development, equality,
justice and understanding among all the peoples of the
world. The current session provides us with another
opportunity to assess our collective work at a time when we
are preparing to enter the twenty-first century with major
achievements under our belt, to be sure, but also with
innumerable challenges to face.
In its ongoing quest to make life better for peoples,
our Organization has adopted and is implementing
alternative strategies to meet the demands of a world in
constant change. The proclamation of the United Nations
Decade for the Eradication of Poverty, the advancement of
the rights of women and children, and the convening of a
special session of the General Assembly on environment
and development are all actions demonstrating the
determination of the United Nations to address the great
problems of our time. But we must recognize that, despite
the efforts of the international community to establish a
new world order, we are still waiting for the ardently
desired peace, security, development and growth to
materialize.
Despite the detente that has existed since the end of
the East-West antagonism, the international political
situation continues to present a gloomy picture, marked
by ongoing disputes, tensions and conflicts. Even if
piecemeal efforts are made to settle these crises, definitive
solutions seem to elude us. Thus, we remain deeply
concerned for the future of mankind.
Moreover, our helplessness in the face of resurgent
terrorism, worsening poverty, the ever growing number of
refugees and displaced persons and the deterioration of
the environment dims our hope that the noble objectives
laid down in the Charter to build a better world for future
generations will ever come true.
In this context, Togo, under the guidance of the
President of the Republic, Mr. Gnassingbé Eyadema, is
striving to strengthen the political and legal bases of a
state of law and to make development and, above all, the
eradication of poverty the cornerstones of its policy.
The citizens of Togo have entered a new era in the
achievement of greater liberty, justice and progress in
order to make their country a democratic, united and
prosperous nation. Every day, they demonstrate their will
to reflect in their actions this deep-rooted desire to live
together in peace and unity. According to experienced
observers of good faith, the democratic institutions
established in Togo are proving themselves. The National
Assembly, having become an outstanding forum for
democratic debate, is living proof of the country’s
commitment to entrench itself in democracy.
Most of the other institutions of the Republic
provided for under the Constitution have been
established — for example, the High Audiovisual and
Communication Authority, the Constitutional Court, the
National Commission for Human Rights and the Supreme
Council for the Courts.
Aware, moreover, that they control their own
destiny, the Togolese have decided to work together
towards a sound and transparent administration of public
affairs. How could we not, therefore, be pleased by the
economic performances achieved thanks to efforts made
for the effective implementation of the Government
programme? The gross domestic product increased by 6
per cent in 1996, and the rate of inflation has shown a
clear improvement compared to 1995 thanks to a prudent
wages and monetary policy. Improved export
competitiveness and the progressive resumption of
cooperation have allowed us to correct the balance of
5

payments and strengthen Togo’s contribution to the reserves
of the West African Economic and Monetary Union. The
people of Togo hope that the community of nations will
continue to support it in its progress towards legitimacy and
legality by helping it to complete the work of economic
recovery.
The maintenance of peace continues to be the primary
task of the United Nations. One cannot over-emphasize that
preventing crises, reducing tension, separating combatants
and finding definitive solutions to conflicts continue to be
among the fundamental missions of our Organization. We
are pleased to see in Togo that the United Nations, through
concerted actions, continues day by day to do even more.
My country confirms its unswerving dedication to the
principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes, in
accordance with international law, and emphasizes the need
to strengthen in this area cooperation between the United
Nations and regional organizations. Chapter VIII of the
Charter would then take on its full meaning.
Despite every effort, peace remains threatened on our
planet, particularly on the African continent. As regards the
Republic of the Congo, Togo is concerned over the
situation there since 5 June 1997. We keenly hope that the
protagonists will put aside their arms in favour of dialogue
in accordance with the spirit of Libreville Summit, held on
14 and 15 September 1997, in which eight Heads of State,
including President Eyadema of Togo, participated. The
Government of Togo urgently calls upon our brothers in the
Congo to conclude as quickly as possible a final ceasefire
so that, under the aegis of the United Nations and the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), the international
interposition force planned by that last summit can be
deployed.
As regards the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Togo, needless to say, was involved in the search for a
peaceful solution to the crisis by hosting in Lomé last
March a special summit of the Central Organ of the OAU
Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and
Resolution in Africa. Faced with a new political situation,
my Government would urge the authorities in Kinshasa to
do everything in their power to provide a climate
favourable to national reconciliation in order to tackle the
priority tasks of development.
In Sierra Leone, the hope born of the establishment of
a democratic regime and the signing of the peace agreement
in Abidjan in November 1996 between the Government and
the Revolutionary United Front was thoroughly tested by
the putsch of 25 May 1997. My country strongly
condemned this coup. It is demanding the reestablishment
of constitutional order and earnestly hopes that this
question can be peacefully resolved in order to avoid
another crisis for the West African subregion at a time
when the Liberian conflict is coming to a close. The
people of Togo are pleased to note that, on the basis of
the Abuja Agreement, the presidential, legislative and
senatorial elections were finally able to take place last 19
July in an atmosphere of discipline, transparency and
peace. My delegation takes this opportunity to
congratulate the mission carried out by the Economic
Community of West African States, supported by the
United Nations and the OAU, from the beginning of the
conflict to the establishment of new democratic
institutions.
I should like, moreover, given the instability that
Africa is experiencing, to remind the parties concerned
that they must seek to prevent fratricidal conflicts, which
diverts their energy from the path of development. More
thought should therefore be given to establishing an
African peacekeeping force, which was first suggested by
President Eyadema at the thirtieth session of the
Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the
OAU, held in Tunisia in 1994. There is now an
imperative, urgent need to establish such a force, which
could react promptly and effectively to any armed
conflict, in order to reestablish peace and stability as
quickly as possible wherever necessary.
I would like again this year to return to the question
of the Regional Centre of the United Nations for Peace
and Disarmament in Africa and to welcome the sending
by the Secretary-General of a mission of consultants to
Lomé and other African capitals to explore ways and
means of revitalizing the Centre. It is clear from the
decision taken in Harare by the thirty-third session of the
Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the OAU
that the Centre has a vital role to play in the maintenance
of peace and security in Africa as well as in the
prevention of conflicts on the continent.
I cannot fail to mention here the situation in other
parts of the world.
Regarding the Middle East, my country, which had
in the past hailed the courage, dedication and spirit of
initiative of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders in the
implementation of the timetable for the withdrawal from
the occupied territories, is today concerned about the
blocking of the peace process in the region. We deplore
the continuation of the settlements policy and the
6

resumption of acts of violence, which only serve to
undermine the climate of confidence that is a prerequisite
for the pursuit of dialogue.
Togo urges the parties to resume negotiations in
accordance with the Agreements of 1993 and 1994 in order
to relaunch the peace process and achieve a comprehensive
and lasting settlement of the conflict in the Middle East,
which has lasted now for more than half a century and is
a threat to the peace and security of the States of the
region.
I turn to the situation in the Korean Peninsula. Togo
has been following with great interest the talks under way
and calls for the establishment of lasting peace in this
region. We hope that the negotiations that have begun will
continue and will be crowned with success.
Everyone is aware that most of these conflicts have
claimed, and continue to claim, numerous victims, including
refugees and displaced persons.
The proliferation of weapons, whatever their type, is
a threat to peace and security. To be sure, commendable
efforts have been made to create a world free from the
spectre of nuclear war. However, it must be emphasized
that the maintenance of international peace and security
hinges on general and complete disarmament. My country
hailed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and
considers the entry into force on 29 April this year of the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development,
Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and
on Their Destruction to be a decisive act by the
international community in its permanent quest for a
peaceful world. In ratifying this Convention, Togo wished
to stress its unequivocal commitment to general and
complete disarmament. It hopes that implementing the
provisions of this Convention will help spare mankind the
innumerable evils resulting from the use of such weapons.
Regarding anti-personnel landmines, my country hails
the process begun in Ottawa in 1996, which concluded in
Oslo with the adoption of the treaty regarding the use,
storage, production and transfer of those mines and their
destruction. We hope that this treaty, which will open for
signature next December in Ottawa, will be ratified and
rigorously applied by all States, so that, because of its
universal nature, many human lives may be saved.
The end of the bipolarization associated with the cold
war allowed the international community to glimpse a
world in which efforts would henceforth be mobilized to
eliminate poverty so as to ensure development and well-
being for humankind. However, we are obliged to note
that, despite this favourable environment for peace and
economic expansion, poverty continues to grow
unchecked and remains a striking phenomenon in our
world. This situation provides a good illustration of the
failure of the numerous development strategies put
forward by the international community.
In this context, the case of Africa remains the most
worrying. The burden of external debt, the drop in export
earnings and the adverse consequences of trade
imbalances have largely contributed to an increased
deterioration in socio-economic conditions in many
countries. The world economy, characterized, as we near
the end of the century, by the phenomenon of
globalization, has experienced a general growth in almost
all countries over the past few years. It is regrettable,
however, that despite this globalization the new rules of
trade have not made it possible to dismantle the barriers
erected by the industrialized countries to protect their
industry and agriculture. It follows that it is still difficult
for our products to gain access to their markets.
These protectionist measures, which do enormous
damage to developing countries, especially in Africa,
cancel out the efforts made by African countries to
relaunch the growth of their economies through exports.
We cannot stress enough how much damage is
caused by the closing of the markets of the North to the
products of developing countries. This situation deprives
the countries of the South of substantial foreign-currency
income, which are necessary to promote sustained
development. In this respect, the Government of Togo
fully appreciates the willingness of the richest countries,
reaffirmed last June at the Denver Summit, intend to open
their markets further to the countries of the South. We
believe that by lifting their protectionist barriers the
developed countries will make a genuine and tangible
contribution to the development efforts being made by the
less well-off.
In this light, my Government believes that
globalization must be accompanied by an impetus for
increased solidarity, characterized by the willingness of
the countries of the North to buy our staple commodities
at remunerative prices.
Despite the commendable efforts undertaken by
African Governments within the framework of structural-
adjustment programmes, the economic situation in our
7

States remains difficult, and living conditions for our
populations are increasingly precarious. Given this state of
affairs, the international community has developed various
strategies to help the African States find viable and lasting
solutions to their many socio-economic problems. It is
important to welcome here the United Nations System-wide
Special Initiative on Africa, which my delegation believes
supports and complements the United Nations New Agenda
for the Development of Africa in the 1990s (UN-NADAF),
as well as the Cairo Programme of Action for the social
and economic development of Africa.
My country also pays tribute to the Government of
Japan which, in addition to its unfailing support to
developing countries, has taken the positive initiative of
planning to convene, in 1998, the second Tokyo
International Conference on African Development. It is very
desirable for the various parties involved in African
development who will be participating in that forum,
including Africans themselves, to become more involved in
the conception and the implementation of development
programmes for out continent.
Development policies for our countries cannot be
conceived today without cooperation and regional
integration. In this respect, the entry into force of the
Treaty establishing the African Economic Community is a
good illustration of the will of the African States to pool
their efforts to achieve sustainable development. Togo
would like to reaffirm its commitment to the policy of
economic integration of the continent and urges the United
Nations and the international community to support the
African countries in their efforts to achieve the objectives
of sustainable development so as to promote prosperity and
well-being for their populations.
We are pleased to note that 52 years after the adoption
of the Charter in San Francisco, many processes are under
way, aimed in particular at strengthening the United
Nations system, resolving the financial crisis of the
Organization and restructuring the United Nations in the
social and economic spheres and in related areas, including
the Security Council.
With regard to the Security Council in particular, it is
important that the ongoing discussions on its restructuring
aim at and succeed in expanding the number of both
permanent and non-permanent members. Such an
enlargement should take into account the interests of
developing countries and should be based on equitable
geographic representation in order to make the Council
more representative and more democratic, thereby enabling
it to respond more effectively to the requirements of the
day.
Within the framework of efforts to revitalize the
Organization, my delegation has noted with interest the
measures envisaged by the Secretary-General and the
recommendations contained in his report, presented on 16
July, which are aimed at restructuring the Secretariat and
providing it with the means to serve the Member States
more effectively. At this session the Assembly will have
an opportunity to take part in a careful and in-depth
consideration of that report.
Togo wishes to stress that the decisions and
measures resulting from such consideration should not
reduce the capacity of the Organization in the
development field. We therefore hope, as the Secretary-
General himself has proposed, that the savings resulting
from more rigorous management will permit the financing
of United Nations priority programmes, such as those for
the elimination of poverty and the advancement of
sustained economic growth in the developing countries.
At the dawn of the third millennium, humankind is
at a decisive stage in its history and requires greater
pragmatism, creativity and solidarity in settling its
problems. In this respect, our world, in a spirit of
solidarity, must mobilize further to eliminate poverty,
which is the vital concern of our time, as it impedes the
cohesiveness of societies and States, destroys the very
basis of human rights and damages the environment. We
therefore need to tackle this principal cause of
instability — poverty — with the same urgency and
vigour that we apply to political crises. For it is clear that
no system of collective security can be viable unless we
seek effectively to resolve the problems of poverty and
misery that are the daily lot of most of the population of
the world.
Together, therefore, let us seek a new international
order based on peace, solidarity and justice.


It is indeed an honour once
again to address the General Assembly.
On behalf of the people of Sierra Leone, and on my
own behalf, I congratulate you, Sir, on your election to
preside over the work of this session, which you rightly
described as one that can mark the beginning of a new
era in United Nations history. Ukraine, a founding
Member of our Organization, is well known for its
decisive stand on unilateral nuclear disarmament. This in
itself is a major contribution to the promotion of
international peace and security. As an experienced
diplomat and former senior member of the Secretariat,
you are fully equipped to steer this session to a successful
conclusion.
I wish also to pay tribute to your predecessor,
Ambassador Razali Ismail of Malaysia, for the firm and
skilful manner in which he led the Assembly in dealing
with the issues of the fifty-first session.
We commend the Secretary-General for the bold
effort he has made so far in mapping out the tracks of his
quiet revolution, a reform of the Secretariat. This is
perhaps the first time in the history of the Organization
7

that we have in the same session a President of the General
Assembly and a Secretary-General both of whom were staff
members of the United Nations Secretariat. I would like to
convey through the Secretary-General our appreciation to
the entire staff of the United Nations system, who have
been and continue to be pillars supporting the structures of
peace and economic and social well-being which our
Organization is building in various parts of the world.
When I addressed this body last year, I spoke at length
about my Government’s efforts to reach a peace agreement
with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), the settlement
of people displaced by the conflict and our efforts at
national reconciliation. I also spoke of our hopes: our hopes
for the consolidation of our new democracy, for the revival
of our economy and for the regeneration of communities
scarred by years of war. These were no starry-eyed
pronouncements. We were too well aware of the challenges
which the achievement of these objectives entailed, but we
were tackling them in a spirit of realism within the
framework of a united national effort and, above all, in
confident hope.
In the economic sphere, for example, the response was
promising. My Government was credited within a year with
the introduction of a social security scheme and a minimum
wage act; accountability and transparency in public
spending; trade liberalization and public enterprise reform,
including privatization; reduction of the rate of inflation
from 65 per cent to 6 per cent; achievement of a 5 per cent
economic growth rate, which had been minus 10 per cent
a year earlier; and plans for an investment code. These are
some of the signposts of confidence which national and
international investors saw when they concluded that Sierra
Leone was well on its way to economic recovery. Prospects
for that recovery were at their highest in more than two
decades.
Today I appear before you with a heavy heart. As I
speak, a great tragedy is unfolding in my country. On 25
May 1997, a combination of elements of the Sierra Leone
army and the Revolutionary United Front violently
overthrew my democratically elected Government and
unleashed on the country a reign of terror unprecedented in
its scope and ferocity. Overnight, Sierra Leone was
transformed into a gulag of horrors: the killing of
defenceless, innocent civilians, looting, confiscation of
property and rape. These atrocities continue. The people of
Sierra Leone have been ushered into a long night of
darkness. For the first time in our history, the survival of
our national society as a morally and socially cohesive
whole has been put into question.
It is against the background of these dramatically
changed conditions in my country that I appear before
you today, to make an appeal — a desperate appeal —
for help from the international community to save a
nation and a people. My presence on this podium
symbolizes the people of Sierra Leone stretching out their
hands to the United Nations, asking it to pull them back
from the brink of catastrophe.
The people of Sierra Leone are united in a common
fear, the fear that unless something is done, and done
now, the barbarism and adventurism of the military junta
will push the country over the brink. Their hope is that
the international community will not allow the military
junta to convert their country into one vast killing field.
If the prevailing situation is allowed to drift much longer,
because of a failure of political will, or for any other
reason, then the hopes of a peace-loving nation for a life
worthy of normal human beings will have been betrayed.
I am more than convinced that this cannot be what the
United Nations would like to see happen in Sierra Leone.
My belief in the United Nations, as the custodian of
world peace and security, and as the ultimate defence of
the weak and the defenceless, remains as strong as ever.
It is on the strength of this conviction, which has been a
part of all my adult life, that I bring the case of Sierra
Leone to the attention of the Assembly.
Only the speedy restoration of the democratically
elected Government of Sierra Leone can provide a lasting
solution to the crisis and enable the country to return to
normalcy and to resume its place as a responsible member
of the community of nations. This is no self-serving
statement. To insist on the restoration of my Government
is no more than to insist that the Government which the
people of Sierra Leone freely and openly elected in the
most closely invigilated election in the post-independence
history of the country be restored to them. Indeed, when
the Summit of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)
held in Harare considered the matter it resolved strongly
and unequivocally to condemn the coup d’état and called
for the immediate restoration of constitutional order in
Sierra Leone.
My Government emerged as a result of a transition
process under the their military regime of the National
Provisional Ruling Council. It was that regime which
appointed the Interim National Electoral Commission as
the management body responsible for the conduct of both
the parliamentary and presidential elections. At the
request of the Interior National Electoral Commission, the
Commonwealth secretariat in London provided three
8

experts, including a legal draftsman, to help with the
preparations for the elections. None of these people had
been to Sierra Leone before and they knew nobody in the
country. The point of their attachment to the Interior
National Electoral Commission was to bring to bear on the
work of the Commission the highest international electoral
practices. The European Union also provided a voter
education expert from Britain, while the United Nations
supplied a logistical expert.
In other words, at the heart of the election
management body, the international community had a
presence to ensure the highest standard of probity and
transparency in the conduct of the elections.
In January 1996, in the middle of the preparations for
the elections, Brigadier Maada Bio forced Captain
Valentine Strasser out of office as Chairman of the National
Provisional Ruling Council and immediately launched a
campaign to postpone the elections. The banner of that
campaign was “Peace before Elections”. A national
consultative conference comprising representatives of
political parties, the army, the police, trade unions,
women’s organizations, the churches and mosques and
other organizations of civil society was convened in
February 1996 to pronounce on the matter. I should add
that in attendance were also representatives of the
international community. The overwhelming majority of the
delegates to the conference supported the holding of
elections. Incidentally, the Revolutionary United Front was
invited to participate in the democratic process. Clearly
illustrating its attitude towards legitimate democratic
principles and procedures, the Front categorically refused to
honour the invitation.
And so the elections were held on 26 and 27 February
1996. There were observers from the Commonwealth, the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), the African-
American Institute, the African-American Labor Center, the
Commonwealth Trade Union Council and the World
Council of Churches, all coordinated by no less a body than
the United Nations itself. At the close of polling, and long
before the official declaration of the results, the
international observers made a joint statement on 29
February 1996, in which they said that, despite setbacks,
they had witnessed a remarkably peaceful, orderly and
transparent conduct of the vote, which led them to conclude
“that the results will genuinely reflect the will of the
people of Sierra Leone and usher in an era of
democracy”.
Having failed to prevent the holding of the elections
through political manoeuvring, the anti-democratic forces
within the army and their Revolutionary United Front
allies launched a campaign of terror and intimidation in
those parts of the countryside where the rebels had a
presence to scare away people from voting. Many
innocent men and women had their hands cut off. Some
were branded with hot irons and many more were
mutilated in ways that I cannot describe in public. But no
intimidation could overcome the determination of the
people to put an end to military rule and all its associated
abuses.
The elections which brought my Government into
office were more than an electoral exercise to replace one
Government with another. They were no less than an
opportunity — indeed, a historic opportunity — for the
people of Sierra Leone to put an end to nearly 30 years
of undemocratic rule, the last four of which were an
outright military dictatorship.
In retrospect, the victories of the people, first against
the political sleight of hand to stop the elections, and then
against the campaign of terror and intimidation to scare
away the voters from the polling booths, seem to have
left the reactionary forces in our country with only one
remaining avenue to their objective, the unconstitutional
overthrow of any civil Government, and that was
precisely what happened on 25 May.
The people of Sierra Leone have responded to the
coup in a manner unique in the history of Africa.
Thousands of citizens, some out of fear for their lives and
other human rights violations, simply abandoned their
homes and their country, moved into neighbouring
countries, declaring they would rather live as refugees
outside Sierra Leone than stay under the rule of the illegal
junta. Those who stayed behind have refused to go to
work and have in various ways refused to cooperate with
the junta. This is the manifestation of the determination
of Sierra Leoneans never to surrender their hard-won
democracy.
The struggle under way in my country is between
the unarmed millions defending the cause of democracy
and the armed reactionary clique of mutinous soldiers and
their Revolutionary United Front cohorts. In embarking on
that perilous struggle, the people of Sierra Leone were
never in doubt as to where the sheer military advantage
lay. What continues to sustain the determined resistance
of the people and to fortify their courage is the belief, and
the expectation, that the international community cannot,
9

and will not, let them down — indeed, the belief that,
whatever hardship they are facing at the moment, right will
ultimately triumph over might.
No one who has seen the reign of terror unleashed by
the regime on the defenceless citizenry or witnessed the
daily looting, rape and other brutalities which have now
become a way of life in Sierra Leone can mistake this for
peace. There is no peace in Sierra Leone. What is
happening is that the horrors which the RUF inflicted on
the rural communities — the killings, the amputation of
limbs, the looting, the arbitrary and illegal seizure of
private property of all kinds and many other crimes — have
now been generalized to encompass the urban centres as
well. To further compound their assault on innocent
civilians, the illegal junta has finally resorted to the laying
of anti-personnel landmines throughout the country, and
within the capital city itself. I need not spell out what a
horrific act this represents as far as innocent men, women
and children are concerned as they begin to fall victim to
these hidden devices.
This was precisely what my Government set out to
avert. In my inaugural statement as President, I made the
pursuit of peace and the end of the rebel war my most
urgent priority. Within a matter of days of assuming office,
I signed a communiqué at Yamoussoukro, in Côte d’Ivoire,
with the leader of the RUF, Corporal Foday Sankoh, in
which we effectively agreed upon a permanent ceasefire.
That agreement opened the way for substantive negotiations
between the Government and the RUF, culminating in the
Abidjan peace accord of 30 November 1996.
What my Government did not know was that the RUF
was negotiating in bad faith. We took the RUF at its word
and assumed that its professed commitment to peace was
genuine. The negotiations were protracted because the RUF
was adamant on certain issues. We conceded on those
particular issues with the hope that the RUF would honour
the resulting accord. This is, of course, not to suggest that
there were no doubters in our ranks who harboured
misgivings about the sincerity of the RUF. We had our
share of these doubting Thomases, but on the basis of our
peoples yearning for peace, we elected to be guided more
by our hopes and less by our fears.
After peace, national reconciliation was another central
plank of my Government’s policy. The pursuit of that
policy began with the very configuration of my
administration. My party had a substantial majority in
Parliament, and I myself had won the presidential elections
with a convincing majority. On the basis of the outcome of
the elections, therefore, I was under no obligation to
include in my Government people from other parties. But
I took a wider view of the matter and decided that if the
cause of national reconciliation was to be advanced it
would be desirable to have a broad-based Government.
Accordingly, I appointed the leader of one of the minority
parties to be my Minister of Finance, making him,
effectively, the third most senior member of the
Government. Other ministerial and senior positions were
filled by people drawn from other political parties. What
emerged as a result was a broad-based Government of
national unity in all but name.
The policy of national reconciliation was taken
further. The previous military regime, the National
Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC) had confiscated the
properties of many senior Sierra Leoneans not on the
basis of law or due process, but on ad hoc commissions
of inquiry whose findings were not published and were
subject to no appeal. No one pretended that justice had
been done by the work of those commissions of inquiry.
Yet, on the basis of their findings, not only had many
people lost their properties, some of them had also been
disqualified from holding public office. If Sierra Leone’s
new democracy was to mean anything, this was a state of
affairs which could not be allowed to continue. I
appointed a National Commission for Reconciliation and
applied to the Commonwealth secretariat for a senior
Commonwealth judge to review the findings of the
commission of inquiry and to put right what had been put
wrong. I wanted a judge of suitable seniority and
distinction whose verdict would command respect. The
Commonwealth Secretary-General secured for me the
services of judge Ulric Cross of Trinidad and Tobago. He
was due to return to Sierra Leone to resume his
chairmanship of the National Commission for
Reconciliation when the coup took place.
Following the earlier coup of April 1992, which had
installed the NPRC military regime in power, many Sierra
Leoneans went into exile. They, too, had to be enabled to
come home in security and in dignity. Former President
Joseph Saidu Momoh had been living in exile in Guinea
since the coup of April 1992. My Government brought
him home and resettled him in a manner befitting a man
who had been our Head of State.
I have gone into this background in detail to show
what my Government did to end the war that had been
raging for the best part of five years, to achieve national
reconciliation and to usher in lasting peace. All this and
much else will be erased if the regime is allowed to
10

remain in power. The burning question before the world
community, therefore, is how best to bring a swift end to
the ruinous regime of the military and to enable Sierra
Leone to rejoin the mainstream of human society.
Some people with the best of intentions but with little
knowledge of the situation have called for negotiations to
end the tragedy unfolding in Sierra Leone.I have been
involved in negotiations of one kind or another throughout
my career. In fact, in a sense negotiating is second nature
to me. Accordingly, I have no problems with the principle
of negotiation. But it would be utterly disingenuous of me
not to state the serious reservations I hold about negotiating
with the junta.
In the first place, the junta is an unstable coalition. On
the surface it presents itself as a government in which every
member shares collective responsibility for decisions jointly
taken. In reality it is nothing of the kind. There is nothing
collective about the junta except the determination of its
constituent parts to hang on to power. For now the RUF
may be allied with some elements of the army, but there is
no pretence that they are motivated by the same long-term
objectives. The RUF is not the army, and it is certainly not
under the command of the mutinous faction of the Army.
The RUF has a separate and independent command
structure, and it takes its instructions from its own high
command. Therefore, based on our experience, in any
putative negotiations with the RUF it can be expected to
come to the table with its own set of demands. The
decision of one part of the unstable coalition will not, by
any stretch of the imagination, bind the other. Indeed,
precisely because they have separate and quite possibly
conflicting objectives there is hardly any prospect of
negotiating with anything like a unified position.
In the second place, the RUF is undoubtedly the
faction with the upper hand within the junta. The RUF’s
principal objective all along has been to take and keep
power by all means, including terror and murder. In its
present configuration, the RUF has no coherent programme
to speak of. Rather than yield power peacefully, the RUF
has threatened to launch a scorched-earth campaign to
reduce the country to ashes. Its position is that if it cannot
rule Sierra Leone, nobody else should.
And if none of these points is convincing, we have
only to look at the way in which the junta has handled the
negotiations with the Committee of four Foreign Ministers
of the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS). The three-point ECOWAS formula for the
resolution of the Sierra Leone crisis entailed, in order,
“the early reinstatement of the legitimate
Government of President Tejan Kabbah, the return
of peace and security and the resolution of the issues
of refugees and displaced persons”.
This was the basis on which the regime entered into
negotiations with the ECOWAS Committee of four. The
third meeting between the Committee and representatives
of the regime in Abidjan took place on 30 July 1997. It
was expected to be a breakthrough meeting. However,
while it was in progress, the leader of the junta made a
radio and television broadcast in which he stated clearly
that his regime was determined to remain in power for a
minimum of four years. His statement was intended to
wreck the talks, and that was exactly what it did. He has
not retracted his determination to stay in power for four
years.
If, in spite of the illegal junta’s record of bad faith,
the international community insists that we must take the
path of negotiations, then I suggest that such negotiations
should be held between the junta and the Committee of
ECOWAS Foreign Ministers, whose membership has now
been increased to five. And for those negotiations to be
meaningful, they must proceed on the basis of clear
understandings. In the first place, if the negotiations are
resumed, the three-point ECOWAS negotiating agenda
must remain the agenda of such negotiations. Then they
must be time-bound. If they are open-ended, the regime
can be expected to filibuster and to spin them out
indefinitely in the hope that it will achieve a creeping de
facto recognition by the international community.
Then, the junta’s delegation must always be led by
the junta leader himself. The Committee of five should
insist on no less, because if the regime’s delegation is led
by anyone else, the scope for subsequent repudiation and
double-dealing will become infinite. Finally, to ensure
that the regime treats the negotiations with the seriousness
they deserve, existing international pressures and
measures must not only be maintained but further
strengthened. In that way the genuineness of the regime’s
declared intention to negotiate will be tested.
When all this is done and an agreement is reached,
we will still have to face the task of achieving genuine
and total national reconciliation. What Sierra Leone needs
today more than anything else is peace and reconciliation.
I have never lost sight of this need, and it is the one
objective which has influenced every step that I have
taken since assuming office in March 1996. The events of
25 May have only further deepened those divisions within
11

our society which my policies had begun to heal. As a
result, the adoption of a more vigorous policy of national
reconciliation has become an absolute necessity.
It would not be exaggerating the case to say that the
brand of political persuasion practised by the military-RUF
coalition borders on systematic genocide. Since 25 May
1997, whole villages, entire communities and targeted
families have been wholly or partially decimated in the
eastern, northern and southern provinces of Sierra Leone,
in Moyamba, Bonthe, Sanda, Bumpe, Kumrabai,
Foredugu — the list is endless.
That is why many Sierra Leoneans strongly believe
that a war crimes tribunal should be appointed to try all
those who had a hand in the making of our tragedy. I
understand the feelings behind this demand, but I reject it.
l reject it because it will add to our already grave problems
and postpone lasting national reconciliation.
Throughout this address I have tried to draw a
distinction between elements of the army in complicity with
the head of the junta and the bulk of the army, who are
basically decent men and women and loyal to the best
traditions of the Sierra Leone army. Even so, I do not
believe that any worthwhile national purpose will be served
by a policy of reprisals against the misguided elements of
the army and others in the junta’s camp.
We seek no more from the United Nations than the
assurance of 6 August 1997 contained in the statement
made by the President of the Security Council:
“The Security Council will, in the absence of a
satisfactory response from the military junta, be ready
to take appropriate measures with the objective of
restoring the democratically elected Government of
President Kabbah.” (S/PRST/1997/42, p. 1)
At the same time, we are asking the Security Council
to assist ECOWAS and the ECOWAS Monitoring Group
(ECOMOG) in giving practical effect to that objective. By
doing so, the Council will not only be saving the lives of
the people of Sierra Leone, but will also be averting an
escalation of the crisis which now threatens peace and
security in our subregion. And here I should like to take
this opportunity to express, on behalf of my Government
and the people of Sierra Leone, our sincere appreciation to
the Heads of State and the Committee of Foreign Ministers
of ECOWAS for their efforts over the past four months in
pursuit of their objective, which the Security Council
supports.
Once the objective of restoring the democratically
elected Government is achieved, my Government will, in
the same spirit of reconciliation which had guided its
policies since the 1996 elections, consider, in an
appropriate forum, the serious question of security and
full implementation of the Abidjan Peace Agreement.
Security is paramount. Without security, no meaningful
humanitarian assistance can reach the people of Sierra
Leone.
Notwithstanding the acts of bad faith initiated by the
RUF to derail the peace process and despite the
dangerous coalition which had emerged since the 25 May
coup, my Government, the legal Government of Sierra
Leone, is committed to the Agreement. We are also
committed to the Secretary-General’s plan and
recommendations, submitted to the Security Council last
January, for the establishment and maintenance of a
peacekeeping operation in Sierra Leone in connection
with the implementation of the Abidjan Peace Agreement.
We are ready to reactivate my Government’s agenda
for reconciliation, resettlement of refugees and displaced
persons, and rehabilitation and reconstruction which the
military-RUF junta so ruthlessly disrupted almost five
months ago. We owe it to our people to continue the
transformation of our economy from emergency relief
programmes to realistic projects for medium- and long-
term self-sufficiency. Of course, we know that this is not
going to be easy. However, we are confident that the
immediate and unconditional restoration of my
Government, the Government elected by the people,
constitutes the first step towards that transformation.


Allow me to extend our thanks to the outgoing President,
Ambassador Razali Ismail, and to congratulate him on the
way in which he fulfilled his mandate. I would also like to
congratulate Mr. Hennadiy Udovenko on his election and
wish him complete success in his efforts to strengthen and
increase the effectiveness of the United Nations in these
historic times, which more than ever demand our
application, perseverance, determination and good faith.
More than half a century has elapsed since the United
Nations was founded. When the United Nations was born,
mankind wanted it to lead to the creation of a world of
justice, law and peace. The United Nations was supposed
to be able to defend human rights when they were violated
and promote justice. By means of the United Nations,
mankind aspired to put an end to an era of war and usher
in an era of peace and tolerance, of respect for national
sovereignty and people’s freedom and of independence of
States; an era in which people would be free to fulfil their
dreams and aspirations and to maintain their identity. Never
in the course of human history have we needed the United
Nations more than we need it today, in this era of
communications and contacts, when frontiers are
disappearing under the force of the technological revolution.
This is an era of demographic explosion and deadly,
destructive weapons; an era when the environment is no
longer capable of meeting mankind’s demands.
Today we are truly in need of a basic means of
containing conflicts and resolving disputes. This is why
we must increase the effectiveness of the United Nations
mechanism and renew confidence in its justice, credibility
and effectiveness, the freedom of its decision-making
processes from hegemony, and the absence of imbalances
in its measured ways and in the enforcement of its
resolutions so that no one remains above international
law. These steps are essential if we want to prevent the
collapse of the United Nations, and if we want it to retain
the moral authority necessary to resolve disputes and
remain an alternative to hot and deadly confrontations.
Therefore, Lebanon enthusiastically supports the
reform of United Nations institutions, particularly the
Security Council. We call for enhancing the numerical
and geographical balance of the Council so as to reflect
changed realities. The Council must also be reformed to
dissipate the misgivings some have about the way it
performs its role.
Lebanon subscribes to the principle of rotation of the
permanent seats in the Security Council. We reiterate our
support for the position of the Arab Group, as expressed
in the paper it presented on this subject.
We welcome the Secretary-General’s proposals for
the reform of the United Nations. We have given them
our full attention and are carefully studying them. We
believe it is necessary to enhance the role of the General
Assembly and to make the issue of development a high
priority for the Organization, while attaching great
importance to the work of regional economic and social
commissions.
Under the rubric of reducing costs and the budget,
many United Nations agencies, in particular the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees
in the Near East (UNRWA), have lost much of their
ability to adequately provide social, health and education
services to refugees in their host countries. This increases
the burden on host countries, Lebanon among them. It is
difficult for us to shoulder these responsibilities under
these conditions. The responsibility of the international
community in redressing the injustice inflicted on the
Palestinian refugees must be made apparent. This bitter
reality, which cannot be free of hidden intentions, aims at
times at attempting to pressure these countries and force
them to assimilate the refugee population they are hosting.
15

This would be a step towards liquidating the refugees’ case
for return. It is also a means of pressuring the host
countries into accepting unacceptable political terms.
The international community, represented by the
United Nations and the donor countries, is duty-bound to
continue to render assistance to the Palestinian refugees
awaiting a political resolution of their status in accordance
with the right to return, as decided upon by the United
Nations and, in particular, the principle of reuniting
families. This is one of the pillars of the peace process, and
thus it is essential that the international community
persevere until a solution is attained.
We had hoped that this session would be an occasion
for us to express our gratitude for the restoration of peace
in Lebanon and the Middle East. This would have been an
attestation to the success of the Madrid peace process,
which was launched six years ago to which should be
added one year of preparation. This international peace
initiative began auspiciously. We believed in both its letter
and its spirit because the initiative was international, the
sponsorship was effective and the contents were based upon
an equitable, just and permanent peace. We were very
hopeful, because we thought that peace would be realized
on the basis of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967),
338 (1973) and 425 (1978), on the basis of the principle of
land for peace and on the basis of finding a consensual
solution to the question of Jerusalem. The initiative was
also supposed to put an end to Israel’s building and
expansion of settlements in the occupied territories and lead
to the recognition of the political rights of the Palestinian
people. It was supposed to be followed by a discussion of
regional arrangements to settle security, social and
economic questions, in particular the question of the
Palestinian refugees, thereby paving the way for the
economic development of the region.
We entered into the peace process convinced that the
basic elements had been accepted at Madrid and that they
had become commitments of the participating States. We
thought that all that remained for the delegations was to
begin negotiations on implementation. However, the advent
of the present Israeli Government and its head totally
dashed our hopes, given the practices of this new
Government. The principle of land for peace was thrown
out, to be replaced by a new formula. The Israeli
Government reneged on the need for implementation of
international decisions, and thus demanded their
reinterpretation. That Government did not want to find a
solution to the question of Jerusalem, so it went ahead and
annexed it. The Israeli Government reneged on its
commitments with regard to the occupied Syrian Golan,
so it stressed its annexation. The Israeli Government
demolished the principle of halting settlement activities
and vastly expanded their efforts at settlement.
The negotiated commitments of the previous
Government were abandoned, as if there were no
continuity from one Government to the next. Instead of
making progress towards peace — the only worthwhile
objective — the Government devoted itself to destroying
what had been done, even if the steps previously taken
were limited.
Instead of being able to work towards a genuine
peace, we have had to endure propaganda manoeuvres
aimed at numbing and misleading public opinion, along
with meetings that were designed just to give the
impression that a dialogue was continuing. Instead of
trying to find a solution to the basic conflict, the emphasis
shifted to the normalization of relations through economic
conferences — as a precondition, even before solving the
legal and political problem — instead of having
normalization occur naturally as a crowning of the basic
solution.
Faced with heightened internal crisis, the Israeli
Government resorted to stirring up tension along its
borders and in areas under occupation, to divert attention
away from the peace it had scuttled. Thus, the principle
of provocation and confrontation was re-established in
order to create unity internally.
Israel continued to carry out its acts of aggression
against southern Lebanon and the western Bekaa, once
with the goal of mobilizing Israeli public opinion against
peace, and another time for the purpose of emptying
international initiatives of their political content.
The attacks continued, through artillery shelling, air
raids, operations inside our territories — against villages
and cities — against children, women, the elderly and
homes. Destruction and demolition continued, as did the
detention of Lebanese citizens in Israeli military camps —
all of this without the United Nations international
institutions being allowed to visit them. They were not
permitted the enjoyment of elementary human rights: the
right to counsel and the right to a fair trial. Some of them
were returned to us as corpses, while others were tortured
or maimed — and this in the era of respect for the rights
of environment, of plants, and of animals.
16

Nonetheless, the more the occupation endured, the
more Israel became increasingly bogged down in the
quagmire of the south which became an inferno to it. The
occupier has become a prisoner, and the aggressor a
hostage in the face of a valiant people’s steadfastness and
the resistance of its sons and daughters. Thus Israel
sustained huge losses which is prompting it to rethink the
viability and usefulness of its continued occupation of
southern Lebanon.
Against this reality, we heard, through misleading
media reports, of an Israeli readiness to withdraw.
We have to bring the truth forth. Lebanon’s firm
stance has always been for a complete Israeli withdrawal to
internationally recognized borders so as to enable the
Lebanese State to exercise its sovereignty over its territories
through its own forces. But Israel does not wish to
withdraw; it is still camouflaging its unwillingness to
withdraw completely by relocating or redeploying its forces.
It continues to cast a smoke screen by asking to maintain
inspection and control posts, by imposing conditions that
limit the State’s authority and by giving the upper hand to
the militias that it created. Furthermore, Israel is attempting
to impose control over the Lebanese Army, which could be
deployed, as well as other conditions that challenge any
presumed Lebanese sovereignty when withdrawal takes
place.
I should like to pay tribute to our fallen heroes,
members of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon
(UNIFIL) — most recently four Italian soldiers and an Irish
sergeant. Their blood was spilled in defence of southern
Lebanon, mixing with that of Lebanese citizens. I should
also like to pay tribute to the Force itself, whose
commanders and troops are discharging a difficult task
under the most difficult and most trying circumstances.
No sooner had the people of the region begun to adapt
to the anticipated climate of peace than they were thrust
back into an era of confrontation, violence and inevitable
defiance and resistance. Though development plans for the
Middle East region were being formulated, and the world
manifested interest in its peaceful future, caution and
pessimism began once again to prevail, and hopes were
dashed. No sooner had the Government of Israel drawn
strength from the veto power used against Security Council
resolutions on its settlement policies, it has continued to
challenge Council resolutions, thereby undermining
whatever is left of the peace process.
The international community, which stands to be
affected by the situation in the region, either directly or
indirectly, must hold the defiant accountable. The
international community has not only the right but also
the duty to take action through the Organization of the
United Nations. On many occasions, the United Nations
has delegated this question to others, hoping that a
solution could be found. It has consistently refrained from
enforcing its resolutions, in contrast to its recent
behaviour vis-à-vis many other States.
The time has come for the United Nations to reclaim
its role. The time has come to return to the basics of
peace as agreed in Madrid, to the principle of land for
peace, to the need to implement Security Council
resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973) and 425 (1978), and
to resume negotiations on all tracks from the point where
they stopped. The time has come for Israel immediately
to cease all settlement activities; to resolve the status of
the city of Jerusalem; to withdraw from the Palestinian
territory and recognize the political rights of the
Palestinian people; to withdraw from the Syrian Golan to
the line of 4 June 1967; to fully withdraw from southern
Lebanon and its western Bekaa to the internationally
recognized boundaries in order to enable the Lebanese
State to exercise its authority, in accordance with Security
Council resolution 425 (1978).
Opting for a peace that ignores these fundamentals
is a choice that is doomed to failure, a choice that could
ignite the entire region. An isolationist policy that
separates the various tracks would run counter to the
principle of a comprehensive peace and will never
achieve it. This is because the conflict is fundamentally
a comprehensive one. It has never been a conflict
between one single Arab State and Israel, but has always
been between the Arabs and Israel. As long as a single
track is excluded from the solution, peace will remain
impossible. The tracks are all intertwined, which shows
how indivisible and interconnected the cause is. Nobody
should think that one track can survive, even for one
hour, while other tracks remain excluded.
Because Lebanon is at the heart of the conflict, it
has suffered a great deal. Today, however, it is
confounding all forecasts and expectations that presaged
its demise by proving to the world once again, as it has
done throughout its long and time-honoured history, that
it is too strong to wither away, and that a right that is
claimed by its people will never disappear.
17

When southern Lebanon and western Bekaa are
liberated, when Lebanese sovereignty extends to all its
territory, when the United Nations credibility is confirmed
by the authority of its resolutions, when Israeli jails are
emptied of their innocent detainees and resistance fighters,
when an end is put to bloodshed which soaks our land, then
and only then will the wound be healed. The tears will then
stop and confidence will be restored to all in a genuine,
just, permanent and comprehensive peace, a peace that can
restore to the land of civilizations, religions and cultures the
place it deserves now and in future, as it has always been
throughout its long history.
The choice of peace will not always be available to us.
The peace that the Assembly supported is in the throes of
death today. If restoring peace seems difficult, its demise
would close the door to any attempt to rekindle the process
in the foreseeable future, thus putting world peace in
jeopardy and sparking an uncontrollable conflagration,
which will be difficult to contain.
May God guide the steps of those who are working for
a peace that is just and not unfair, equitable and not biased,
consensual and not imposed, a peace that honours the
memory of those martyred, that does justice to those who
struggle, and that would put an end to darkness in the land
of the prophets and the messengers of God.


May I begin by
congratulating the President on his election to preside over
the General Assembly at its fifty-second session. We are in
good hands as we begin our work during what the
Secretary-General has called “the reform Assembly.”
I know, too, that my Foreign Minister, on whose
behalf I am speaking, would want to warmly congratulate
the outgoing President, Ambassador Razali Ismail of
Malaysia, on his efforts during the past 12 months. It has
been a challenging time, and he has demonstrated the
decisive leadership we all expected of him.
Two years ago, at the fiftieth anniversary of the
United Nations, world leaders undertook to give the twenty-
first century an Organization equipped, financed and
structured to serve effectively the peoples in whose name
it was established. With the year 2000 now only 27 months
away, we are still far from that goal. This is a matter of
great concern to New Zealand. We firmly believe in the
United Nations as a vehicle to a better life for the world's
citizens, and not just for those who live now. We have a
responsibility to strengthen the Organization for our
grandchildren and beyond. We must not let them and
ourselves down by allowing an unreformed United Nations
to slide into increasing irrelevance.
We do not pretend the process of reform is easy or
finite. As the Secretary-General has said, “Reform is not an
event; it is a process.” [A/51/950, para. 25] Our own in
volvement on the intergovernmental track, including co-
chairing the Working Group on the Strengthening of the
United Nations System and the Working Group on an
Agenda for Development, has given us a good appreciation
of the complexities involved in producing positive outcomes
acceptable to 185 Member States.
We know the Secretary-General faces the same
issues with his 16 July package. As with any package, it
is inevitable that some Member States will find fault with
individual elements. But we are firmly of the belief that
the package should be viewed as a whole. This will be
for the greater good of the Organization. Difficulties with
individual elements of the package should not be allowed
to unpick the overall good which is in it. We appeal to
Member States to acknowledge this reality and to give the
Secretary-General their generous support. It is small
countries like New Zealand, and developing countries,
which, as we see it, stand most to benefit from what the
Secretary-General is trying to achieve.
To reform and strengthen the United Nations
effectively, we see a need to redistribute resources away
from administration and into areas which are important
for those of us who place a high priority on the United
Nations itself. We support efficiencies, not cost-cutting.
The crucial difference between the two is that one
approach seeks simply to save money without regard to
the impact on the Organization. We cannot support this.
The United Nations is too important to us to allow such
a downgrading.
An approach based on efficiencies allows us to
reinvigorate the United Nations by reinvesting the money
saved from outdated administrative practices. This is
central to the Secretary-General's package. In particular,
the proposal for a “development dividend” channelling
resources freed by administrative efficiencies into
strengthening the development activities of the United
Nations is most welcome. We can certify from our own
national experience that the sort of management reforms
proposed in the package do indeed lead to a reduction in
administrative overheads, allowing more to be delivered
in terms of substantive programmes.
At a time when development funds are diminishing,
the significance of this step should not be lost. New
Zealand is a country that is increasing its overseas aid —
by 40 per cent since the 1992 United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development, the Rio Summit. Our
contributions through the United Nations system have also
increased by nearly 50 per cent over the last five years.
But the global trend is the opposite, particularly among
the larger traditional donors. It is becoming harder and
harder for Governments to meet their Charter commitment
to promote the economic and social advancement of all
peoples. One of the modest outcomes of the last two
years of reform efforts within the United Nations has
been the elaboration of an Agenda for Development
19

reaffirming the primacy of development, setting objectives
and recommending ways of achieving them. But, with the
best will in the world, implementing that Agenda will come
to naught in the absence of adequate funding.
The Secretary-General's reforms are designed to
deliver more for development. Equally important, they are
designed to boost confidence in the United Nations,
confidence which two weeks ago was given tangible form
by Mr. Ted Turner's billion-dollar grant to assist United
Nations agencies in key development activities. That
generous offer has given the Organization a real boost and
could be a catalyst for leveraging further private-sector
funds for development. We must support the Secretary-
General's efforts to make the United Nations the best
vehicle for delivering such assistance.
Member States need to trust the Secretary-General to
fulfil his responsibilities under the Charter: to give effect to
the policy directions which they set. We need to be clear
and realistic in the priorities we set for the United Nations.
We cannot mandate the Organization with more and more
new tasks and somehow expect these to be achieved within
current resources. And, having set the priorities, we must
resist the temptation to micro-manage. This will involve a
sea-change in the way Member States have become
accustomed to operating. The Fifth Committee still makes
decisions about staff numbers and placement within the
Secretariat, administrative decisions that in any modern
organization would be the responsibility of its managers.
We know that the transitional process of change will
not be easy for those working in the Secretariat either.
But — and we are conscious of our own experience in New
Zealand in instituting public-sector reform — the
managerial and results-based budgeting proposals in the
July package will improve work performance and will
deliver greater job satisfaction to those working for the
United Nations. The Organization's most important resource
is its people. The package recognizes the vital importance
of investment in staff. If the best and brightest are to be
attracted to and retained by the United Nations, they must
be recruited, trained, promoted and paid according to
procedures which are as good as the best employed by
Member States.
It is also important to stress here the loyalty owed to
the Secretary-General by those who work for him. He has
the right to expect their full support for his leadership and
for the initiatives he puts forward. Anything less would be
dishonourable, would subvert due process and would
potentially disenfranchise Member States. It could not be
tolerated.
I referred earlier to the intergovernmental track. It is
worth touching on the key issues of Security Council and
financial reform.
On the former, New Zealand will judge specific
proposals for enlargement of the Security Council by the
yardstick of democracy and the representativeness of the
institution as a whole. Increasing the proportion of
permanent to non-permanent members runs counter to this
principle. Nor could a package on Security Council
reform be acceptable to us without substantive proposals
opening up and modernizing the workings of the Council.
Sunshine, an American jurist once observed, is the best
disinfectant. Member States must continue to participate
in the debate in the search for a consensus solution.
On financial reform, New Zealand is strongly
concerned about the crisis facing the United Nations. It is
true that there are problems with the scales of assessments
for both the regular and the peacekeeping budgets. The
present floor has a negative impact on smaller, vulnerable
nations, such as the South Pacific island countries, New
Zealand's neighbours. This is just one example of the kind
of problem that needs to be addressed.
But those who want to see changes made to the
scale need to offer genuine inducements, not threats. We
cannot accept that any Member State is entitled to
withhold payments unilaterally or that the assessment of
those countries that will not pay their dues should be
picked up by others. All assessed contributions must be
paid in full, on time and unconditionally. It is a violation
of international legal obligations to do otherwise. This
must be regarded with the utmost seriousness by Member
States. It undermines the Organization's ability to operate.
It penalizes, through damage to the Organization, those
Member States that abide by their obligations. When the
State responsible for the largest percentage of arrears
owed to the United Nations is also the richest, and when
that State in addition attaches conditions to the payment
of only a portion of what it owes, it is understandable that
these actions should generate real scepticism in this
Assembly.
This sorry state of affairs must be resolved quickly.
But it can be resolved only on the basis of a credible
commitment that all conditions will be eliminated now
and that all payments will be made on time. And that
means in January each year.
20

I would like to raise another reform issue which has
not featured prominently in discussions to date, namely
United Nations regional groupings. It seems to us that this
is an issue that deserves examination. The groupings are in
need of revision to bring them up to date with present-day
geopolitical realities. It is anomalous, for example, that our
Pacific island neighbours, members with us of the South
Pacific Forum grouping, belong to the Asian Group while,
for historical reasons, New Zealand belongs to the Group
of Western European and Other States. The fundamental
importance we accord our membership of the institutions of
the South Pacific Forum, of the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council and of the Regional Forum of the
Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), and our
relationship with ASEAN itself, should be able to be better
reflected in the regional groupings. We accordingly see
value in a reconfiguration of New York electoral groupings
to bring them more in line with those used elsewhere in the
United Nations system, where New Zealand in most cases
sits with our South Pacific partners and our East Asian
neighbours.
Developments in other regions will result in further
anomalies in the present structure. We see at a future stage
some long and complex negotiations over regional seat
allocations for a revised system of regional groups. New
Zealand of course will join with others in negotiating new
and equitable allocations of seats. While we look forward
to the outcome of that process, we realize that it will not
come overnight. In the meantime, and as a matter of high
priority, my delegation is working to forge a closer
relationship with the Asian regional group in New York.
I would like to close my statement by focusing once
more on the utmost importance of Member States' giving
positive endorsement to the Secretary-General's package at
this General Assembly, as New Zealand will be doing —
not only because it provides a positive and concrete start to
a reform process, but also because the alternative of not
supporting the Secretary-General will, in our view,
seriously undermine the credibility of the United Nations.
For two years the United Nations has been involved in
the current reform exercise. But none of us can pretend that
reform is an end in itself, or that introspection is an
ongoing excuse for inaction. The United Nations exists to
deliver concrete, substantive assistance to the hundreds of
millions most in need. No amount of self-analysis is a
substitute for that. Moreover, sustained emphasis on
introspection will erode the Organization's capacity, and
possibly also its will, to perform the tasks for which it was
created.
The challenge now is to embrace the bold
programme of reform outlined by the Secretary-General,
to use this General Assembly to begin to implement it,
and then to direct our energy where it rightly belongs, to
taking practical steps to reduce suffering and build a
better and more peaceful world: like drawing up a solid,
practical programme for alleviating poverty in the coming
decade; like establishing an international criminal court
which will ensure that individuals are held responsible for
war crimes; like supporting and enhancing the United
Nations capability for preventive diplomacy; and like
invigorating the United Nations capacity for
peacekeeping.
These are the standards by which the real success or
failure of the United Nations will be judged. New Zealand
is determined that the verdict will be a positive one.
Working together, we can ensure that it is.