I congratulate Mr. Diogo
Freitas do Amaral on his election to the presidency of this
session of the General Assembly. His election is a tribute
both to him and to Portugal, and Australia will work with
him to ensure that this historic fiftieth session is as
memorable as it could possibly be.
I join in warmly welcoming, as the 185th Member
State of the United Nations, our fellow South Pacific Forum
member Palau.
If we are to effectively prepare for our future we must
first be able to clearly see our past. If we are to see where
we must go, we must know where we have been: we must
be conscious of our failures, but we should be proud of our
successes.
The structure of today’s world community — of
sovereign, self-determined, independent States working
together on the basis of equality in a framework of
international law — simply did not exist before the Charter
of the United Nations came into being. There were
imaginings of it in the minds of many for a very long time,
and we saw emerge between the two world wars a pale
approximation of it with the League of Nations. But it was
at that special moment in San Francisco, 50 years ago, that
today’s concept of a community of nations was first truly
born. And that concept has passed the test of 50 years of
life.
Gifted though the authors of the Charter were, they
would I think be awed to see how very much their vision
of a globalized world has now been answered, and
exceeded. Today’s world is one world, a world in which no
individuals and no States can aspire to solve all their
problems or fulfil all their dreams alone. The ideas of San
Francisco have entered into the unconscious of people all
over the world. Those who refuse to acknowledge the
global character of our world, or who recoil from it and
retreat into unilateralism or, worse, isolationism, have
simply not understood the new dynamics that are at work.
Ours is an age in which we are called to more, not less,
cooperation — and to ever more, and more responsible,
sharing of our common destiny.
The ideas of San Francisco have assumed many
concrete forms, which have deepened and expanded over
the last five decades. States now habitually, virtually
automatically, conduct their relations with each other on
the basis of the United Nations Charter. We have added
continually to the corpus of international law and
agreements made pursuant to the Charter, in ways that
have touched every aspect of modern life. We have built
institutions that have sought to deliver to the peoples of
the world their most basic needs — for peace and
security, for economic well-being, and for dignity and
liberty.
It was natural that following a devastating world war
and the hideous brutality which accompanied it, the
Charter would have at its heart the maintenance of
international peace and security. So far, anyway, we have
passed the test of ensuring that the world would never
again be subjected to global conflict. The United Nations
has been, of course, deeply challenged in the maintenance
of peace, from the very beginning and ever since. There
are areas in which its attempts to maintain and restore
peace have been flawed, and where the United Nations
has faltered. But for all that has gone wrong in places like
Bosnia and Somalia and Rwanda we should not forget the
successes, like those in El Salvador, Cambodia and
Mozambique. To go back a generation, no one should
forget the role that was played by the Security Council
and the Secretary-General in that desperate month of
October 1962 when the hands of the clock were seconds
before midnight and the world did face potential nuclear
holocaust. And no one should forget the role that, for
example, the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty has played
in falsifying the almost universal prediction in the 1960s
that within two decades there would be 20 or more States
possessing nuclear weapons.
In development, in seeking to fulfil its commitment
to promote "social progress and better standards of life"
the United Nations has laboured hard, sometimes in very
difficult circumstances. The gap between developed and
developing countries remains unacceptably high; there
have been and continue to be difficulties with the
availability of resources for development assistance; and
we have to acknowledge the awful reality, according to
the World Bank, that 1.3 billion of our people still live in
absolute poverty. But in food and agriculture, in
employment and labour standards, in health, in education
and in building the infrastructure so vital to communities
in the developing world — roads, bridges, water
systems — the United Nations and its agencies have
worked relentlessly in the service of the human family. It
is because of the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) that today 80 per cent of the world’s children
are immunized against six killer diseases. And this is just
10

one of hundreds of similar stories that the United Nations
can and should be telling.
Basic to the United Nations concept of the world
community was that it should operate under and foster the
development of law, justice and human rights. A
fundamental commitment of the United Nations is to
establish conditions under which justice may prevail,
international law will be respected and peace can be built.
In fulfilment of this charge, the United Nations has
provided the setting for the negotiation of over 300 major
treaties, including in such crucial fields as arms control,
transport, navigation and communications. This very
practical area of international cooperation has formed the
framework of a globalized world.
The Charter of the United Nations speaks not just of
securing better standards of life, but of those better
standards being enjoyed “in larger freedom”. And the
articulation, development and implementation of human
rights standards across the whole spectrum of rights —
economic, social and cultural as well as political and
civil — has been one of the most important and
constructive roles of the United Nations. One of the worst
of all denials of personal and political freedom was that
imposed by apartheid. The triumph over that evil was above
all a victory for those South Africans and their leaders
whose freedom and dignity apartheid had so long denied.
But it would ignore the testimony of history not to
recognize the importance of the role played by the General
Assembly and the Security Council in creating the
conditions for that to occur.
For the peoples of this world, no political right has
been more important than the right to self-determination.
The achievements of the United Nations in this field alone
are testimony to the indispensable role it has played in
human affairs, with hundreds of millions of people having
exercised their right to self-determination in these past 50
years. It is the great movement of decolonization, as much
as the cold war and its aftermath, that defines the modern
world as we now know it, and which shapes the world’s
agenda for the years that lie ahead.
The United Nations of the future will need to be,
above all, an organization which works and speaks for all
its Members, no matter how large or small, and whose
legitimacy is thus without question. It must be an
organization better oriented to performance, to delivery to
people of the things they need and have a right to expect.
And it must be an organization which seeks to reintegrate,
and better coordinate, the implementation of the three basic
objectives of the United Nations so clearly articulated at
San Francisco 50 years ago: the objectives of peace —
meeting the need for security; of development —
meeting economic needs; and of human rights and
justice — meeting the need for individual and group
dignity and liberty.
In the peace agenda, disarmament and arms control
continue to be of crucial importance, and a major
challenge immediately ahead will be to maintain the
momentum of multilateral disarmament and
non-proliferation efforts. The decision by the Review and
Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to extend the
Treaty indefinitely was, and remains — despite what has
happened since — the right decision. The work on a
comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty must be brought to
conclusion, as promised, in the first half of 1996. We
must also begin as soon as possible negotiations on a
treaty to ban the production of fissile material for nuclear-
weapons purposes. A further helpful step, although more
difficult to achieve, would be a regime requiring all States
to declare and account for their present stocks of fissile
material. The basic objective in all of this is to move
towards the goal that is agreed by all — and it should
never be forgotten that it has been agreed by all —
namely, that we will, ultimately, eliminate all nuclear
weapons.
It is in this context particularly that the decisions by
France and China to continue nuclear testing are to be so
strongly deplored. The environmental consequences are
bad enough of setting off an explosion more than five
times the size of that which destroyed Hiroshima — as
France did yesterday on the fragile atoll of Fangataufa in
Australia’s Pacific neighbourhood. But the nuclear policy
consequences are even worse. This is not the time to be
reinforcing nuclear stockpiles and asserting their ongoing
deterrent role: the world wants and needs to be moving in
the opposite direction.
This is the time to be negotiating away those
stockpiles, and building verification systems of the kind
we did with the chemical weapons Convention — which
still needs to be ratified to come into effect — and I urge
those States that have not yet acceded to that Convention
to do so urgently. This is not the time to be encouraging
scepticism about the nuclear non-proliferation Treaty, as
the Chinese and French tests are doing. It is, rather, the
time for the nuclear Powers to be encouraging the
universal observance of that Treaty in the way that they
best can: by showing that they themselves are absolutely
11

serious about moving to eliminate nuclear weapons from
the face of the globe. The best way for them to do that
right now is for France and China to immediately end their
testing programmes; for all the nuclear-weapon States to
sign the nuclear-weapon-free-zone treaties that now exist in
the South Pacific and elsewhere; and for those States to
commit themselves wholeheartedly to negotiating a
genuinely comprehensive, zero-threshold comprehensive
test-ban treaty into place by the middle of next year.
The past few turbulent years of United Nations
experience on the ground in peace-keeping and peace
enforcement has underlined the need for it to improve the
effectiveness of its work in these important fields. Australia
has welcomed the Secretary-General’s further work in this
area in his very lucid January 1995 “Supplement to An
Agenda for Peace'”. In our own contributions to the debate
on these issues, we have argued for the clearest possible
thinking to be given to the achievability of objectives right
across the whole spectrum of responses to security
problems — from peace-building to peace maintenance to
peace restoration to peace enforcement.
We have consistently argued, and I make the point
again very briefly today, that if the United Nations is to be
able to meet effectively the security challenges of the
post-cold-war world it must begin to devote more resources
to preventive strategies than to reactive strategies. It just
makes more sense to concentrate on prevention than on
after-the-event peace restoration, both for inter-State
conflict and in the unhappily now far more common case
of intra-State conflict. Violent conflicts are always far more
difficult and costly to resolve than non-violent disputes, and
failed States are extremely difficult to piece back together.
All that said, it has been encouraging to see the
progress made in recent days towards resolving the conflict
in the former Yugoslavia, and in moving the Middle East
peace process a substantial new step forward. The United
Nations should always be prepared to lend its support and
encouragement to preventive diplomacy and to peacemaking
efforts taking place outside the formal framework of the
United Nations system, and it should remain particularly
alert to the opportunities envisaged in the Charter for
advancing the peace agenda through regional organizations.
In the latter context we in the Asia-Pacific have been very
pleased with the rapid evolution of the new Regional Forum
of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
over the last two years as a new vehicle for dialogue and
trust and confidence-building, in our own region.
Particular attention has been given recently, as we all
know, to the question of improving the rapid reaction
capability of the United Nations, and I warmly commend
the work that has been done to clarify our thinking on
these issues by the Netherlands and Danish Governments,
and particularly in the major Canadian report, “Towards
a Rapid Reaction Capability for the United Nations”, just
presented to the Assembly. The very useful emphasis of
the Canadian study is on the idea of improving the United
Nations system’s capability at the centre first, particularly
in the area of operational planning, and thereby
encouraging greater willingness by troop contributors to
give practical and more urgent effect to stand-by
arrangements. No organizational arrangements will ever
substitute for clear-eyed decision-making by the Security
Council on the responses and mandates that are
appropriate to particular situations, but the implementation
of changes of this kind should make us much better
equipped as an international community to deal in future
with situations like that in Rwanda, where last time our
response was so tragically inadequate.
The security agenda tends to dominate most popular
perceptions of the United Nations role, but we in the
international community must never allow our attention to
be diverted from the demands of the development agenda,
now as pressing as ever. When historians hundreds of
years hence look back at this last half century, the cold
war and its aftermath will not be the only great
international current to be remembered; it will be the
giant step of decolonization that looms at least as large.
Decolonization led to the emergence of a world
economy which for many years has been seen as divided
principally into two categories, the developed and the
developing countries. But today, the picture is more
complicated. Mainly for reasons of change in technology
and information systems, we do now live in a global
economy. No part of it is entirely separate from the
whole, and no one can act in that global economy in an
effective way, entirely alone. Because we live in that kind
of economy a key part of our action to deal with the
problems of development must, accordingly, be
multilateral, and the key problem facing us, both
multilaterally and in our bilateral, donor roles, is that
within the global economy the gap between rich and poor
countries, despite all efforts to resist this, has grown. The
fact that some 1.3 billion of the 5.7 billion people alive
today live at an unacceptable level of poverty is morally
insupportable, and dangerous.
12

The United Nations of the future must, as a matter of
the most urgent priority, forge a new agenda for
development and reshape its relevant institutions to
implement that agenda effectively. This is as important as
any task it faces in the service of the human family and in
recreating itself as an institution fit for the twenty-first
century. The agenda is available for all to see. It has been
fully described in the six global conferences held by the
United Nations in the past four years — the conferences on
children, the environment, human rights, population, social
development, and now women. There have also been
important studies by the international financial institutions
and by academic institutions. We know now what we need
to do. We must resolve, politically, to do it.
In pursuing these various themes it is important,
however, for us not to lose sight of those geographical
regions where particular focus is still required, and where
the United Nations role is more vital than ever. Africa’s
influence and importance continues to be felt throughout the
world in every field of human activity and culture. Exciting
political developments, including the ending of apartheid,
have been accompanied by major new efforts to restructure
and reform national economies. Those efforts demand the
continued support of the international community, and in
particular the United Nations system. Other regions where
the United Nations needs to play a particular role to
facilitate economic and social development are the Central
Asian republics, the Middle East, the Caribbean, and in a
number of areas in the Indian Ocean region.
The Indian Ocean region is one where Australia, as an
Indian Ocean country as well as an Asia-Pacific country,
has been promoting, with others in the region, both
governmental and non-governmental efforts to enhance
regional cooperation, particularly on economic and trade
issues. The success to date of the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation Council (APECC) in developing cooperative
strategies in the Asia-Pacific region to promote prosperity
and stability, complementing the United Nations broader
work for these goals at the international level, does offer
one possible model for the countries of the Indian Ocean
Rim to consider.
The institutions of the United Nations relevant to
economic and social development are urgently in need of
reform. The General Assembly has created the high-level
Working Group needed for political consensus on this. That
must complete its work in this fiftieth anniversary year, and
it must do so creatively, setting aside past vested interests
in the system. We must implement the development agenda
of the future in a way which ensures a productive and fair
place in the global economy for all States.
The complex and interlinked system of principles,
legal regimes and machinery that the United Nations has
established to promote human rights is one of its major
achievements. It must be built upon and strengthened,
recognizing always that the human rights whose
universality and indivisibility we assert are about
economic and social and cultural rights just as much as
about the civil and political rights on which the developed
countries tend to focus so much attention. Priority must
be given to the major international human rights
instruments and machinery and the committees which
monitor their implementation. By this means we can
provide a frank, non-confrontational and constructive
dialogue amongst States parties.
The advisory services and technical-assistance
activities of the United Nations can also play a role in
promoting the observance of human rights and the
implementation of democratic principles around the world.
Programmes to help countries develop their own national
institutions and systems to promote and protect human
rights will enhance their capacity to prevent violations
and, accordingly, make a direct contribution to human
security.
It cannot be sufficiently emphasized enough that the
peace and development and human-rights agendas I have
mentioned are all interlinked. We need to avoid the
compartmentalization that occurred throughout the cold-
war years, in which peace-and-security issues,
development issues and human-rights and justice issues
were isolated in completely different conceptual and
institutional boxes. Any viable modern concept of
international peace, let alone peace within States, must
recognize that peace and security and development are
indissolubly bound up with each other. There can be no
sustainable peace without development and no
development without peace. And human rights, in the
fullest sense, as I have described them, have to come into
the equation too. There is unlikely to be sustainable peace
in any society if material needs are satisfied but needs for
dignity and liberty are not.
No agendas of substance, no matter how clear in
concept, how well-coordinated in principle they may be,
will mean anything to people if they are not able to be
implemented through effective organizational structures
and instruments. There has been widespread recognition
in recent years, as we all know, that the structure of the
13

United Nations that grew up during the past 50 years is
simply not adequate to the tasks of the next.
We now have an embarrassment of riches with respect
to ideas and proposals for change to the United Nations.
Just as it is urgent that we complete work on “An Agenda
for Development” in this fiftieth year, it is equally urgent
that we complete the work of the high-level Working Group
on the reform of the United Nations system also within this
fiftieth year.
The structural problem that it is probably the most
urgently necessary to resolve, if the credibility of the whole
United Nations system is to be maintained, is that of the
Security Council. The debate on this subject has been long
and detailed and is familiar to all of us. Australia’s definite
view is that it has been going on for long enough, and we
are now at the time when action is required. Last year, we
submitted some illustrative models on the basis of which
consideration could be given to an expansion in the
membership of the Council. Others have made very specific
proposals. Again, in this field there is no lack of ideas.
What we have to do now is move to the stage of forging
political consensus on a new Security Council, which will
be effective, represent the whole membership of the United
Nations and sensibly reflect the realities of today and the
future, not those of 1945.
There are many structural changes and personnel
reforms that could and should be made within the United
Nations system to improve its efficiency. But ultimately the
quality of that system depends on what we are prepared to
pay for it.
It is important to appreciate at the outset the order of
magnitude of the sums we are talking about. The core
functions of the United Nations, involving the Headquarters
in New York, the Offices in Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi,
and the five regional Commissions, cost just US$ 1.2
billion between them. To take just one comparison, last
year the annual budget of just one Department in one
United States city, the New York Police Department,
exceeded that $1.2 billion by $600 million.
The total number of personnel needed to run those
United Nations core functions is around 10,700. Compare
the local administration of my own national capital,
Canberra — again, just one city in one of the 185 States
Members of the United Nations — which has some 22,000
employees on the public payroll.
The cost of United Nations peace operations last
year, in Cyprus, Western Sahara, the former Yugoslavia
and 13 other locations, was $3.2 billion. That is less than
what it takes to run just three New York City
Departments: the Police Department, the Fire Department
and the Department of Correction.
If we add to the core functions of the United Nations
all the related programmes and organs, including the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), the United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF), the United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD) and the International Drug
Control Programme (UNDCP), we are still talking about
a total of around 33,000 people and a total budget,
including both assessed and voluntary contributions, of
$6.3 billion. That sounds a lot — rather more than just
for the core functions — but it is not quite so much when
one considers, for example, that the annual global
turnover of just one international accounting firm, Price
Waterhouse, is around $4.5 billion.
If we go further than that and add to the core
functions and related programmes all the other specialized
programmes and agencies of the entire United Nations
family — agencies such as the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), the International Labour
Organization (ILO), the United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the
World Health Organization (WHO) and the International
Atomic Energy Agency, and put into the equation as well
the Bretton Woods institutions — the World Bank group
and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which
between them employ nearly 10,000 people and spend $5
billion annually — we are still talking about total United
Nations-system personnel of just around 61,400 and a
total United Nations-system dollar cost of $18.2 billion.
A total of 61,400 may sound like a lot of people,
and it is, but perhaps it is not so many when we consider
that more than this number — 65,000, in fact — are
employed by the three Disney theme parks in California,
Florida and France. Three times as many people sell
McDonald’s hamburgers around the world as work for the
United Nations system. And $18.2 billion might be a lot
of money, but just one major multinational corporation,
Dow Chemical, which happens also to have 61,000
employees world wide, has an annual revenue in excess
of $20 billion.
14

When we put the financial problems of the United
Nations into this kind of perspective, as I think we ought to
do more often, the solutions do not really look quite so
hard. Surely, between us, with our combined defence
expenditure alone of around $767 billion, the 185 Member
States can find that kind of money. But, of course, the
problem of paying for the United Nations has now become
critical because of the unwillingness or inability of so many
of the Member States, including the biggest of us all, to
pay their assessed contributions, notwithstanding that the
cost of these for the major developed-country contributors
works out at between $7 and $15 per head per year — the
price of no more than one or two movie tickets in this city.
We have a short-term problem, which I believe can
and should be solved within the United Nations system by
allowing the United Nations to borrow from the World
Bank. But we also have a longer-term problem which,
frankly, does not look as though it is going to be solved,
however much we continue to work at adjusting assessment
scales, exhort Member States to pay up and remind them of
the consequences under Article 19 of the Charter if they
fail to do so.
So what are we to do about all this? In my judgement,
it is time to look again — this time very seriously
indeed — at the options which exist for supplementing
Member States’ contributions with external sources of
finance. The practicability of collecting a levy on every one
of the $300,000 billion worth of foreign-exchange
transactions that now occur every year remains to be fully
assessed, but simple arithmetic tells us that if we strike a
rate of just .001 per cent for such a levy, which hardly
seems likely to have any significant economic
consequences, we could generate $3 billion in revenue.
Moreover, we know that if we could impose a levy on
international airline passengers of $10 for every
international sector flown, which would be very easily
collectible indeed, we could also raise $3 billion: nearly the
whole annual cost of United Nations peace operations.
There are also other revenue options that, to a greater
or lesser extent, have the same rational nexus with United
Nations costs as these do, in that they involve transactions
which are international, take place within a framework of
law and cooperation provided by the United Nations and
can be harmed by a breakdown in international peace and
security — precisely the areas in which the United Nations
has a fundamental responsibility.
But traditionally, a threshold objection of principle has
been mounted against any such talk. Member States, it has
been said, should themselves wholly own the United
Nations system; if the Secretariat had direct access to
revenue other than assessed contributions of Member
States, who knows what adventures it might be inclined
to get up to. But ownership and control are totally
separate issues. The United Nations operates on a
sovereign-equality principle, which means that, for
example, those six States which between them pay at
present over 65 per cent of the United Nations regular
budget should under no circumstances have greater
authority over how it is spent than the overwhelming
majority of Members, each of which pays much lesser
proportions of the total.
Whatever the funding sources involved, the crucial
question is surely how and by whom the money is spent.
It is absolutely crucial that there be appropriate control of
funds by Member States, with all the accountability
mechanisms that implies. But that does not mean that
those Member States should themselves have to provide
all the funds in the first place.
In talking about these issues to many of my
ministerial colleagues from a wide range of countries and
across all continents over the last few days, I have found
the almost unanimous reaction that the present, and likely
continuing, financial crisis of the United Nations demands
that these issues be looked at again, without any
prejudgements of the questions of principle or
practicability involved.
I would suggest accordingly that the time is right for
the Secretary-General to convene once again a high-level
advisory group, like the Volcker-Ogata group established
in 1992, with a mandate to think explicitly through what
has hitherto been more or less unthinkable: how to fund
the United Nations system in a way that reaches out
beyond the resources that Member States are prepared to
put directly into it. Such a group could report to or work
with a committee of representatives of Member States —
one in existence already, such as the High-Level Working
Group on the Financial Situation of the United Nations or
one newly created for the purpose.
A great deal of work has already been or is being
done on many of these issues, and it should be possible
for such a group to report within six months or so —
certainly within a year. The parameters of the debate have
to be changed, and for that to happen we need an
authoritative new statement of the art of the possible.
Here, as elsewhere, we have to move forward. We
have to look to new ideas. We have to encourage
15

humankind’s ingenuity to search for better ways for States
to deal with each other as relationships take new shape, as
new States emerge and as problems which could not have
been conceived of a few years ago become the challenges
of the day.
We will fail to meet those challenges if we adhere
solely to the ideas and dogma of the past. The United
Nations was itself founded on a mixture of idealism and
pragmatism. Both were essential to build a new world 50
years ago, and in the past 50 years that idealism has not
disappeared. It was an important force in bringing about the
end of the cold war, and, more than anything else, it was
idealism that lay behind the process of decolonization,
which so shifted the tectonic plates of history.
To some idealism will always be the enemy of
practicality. But to others it will always involve, more than
anything else, the courage to take advantage of new
opportunities, ensuring that at least some of today’s ideals
will become tomorrow’s reality. Perhaps now, 50 years
beyond San Francisco, we need to renew that idealism and
walk down some of those uncharted paths that idealists
have always been prepared to tread.


It is a great pleasure for
me to see you, Sir, presiding over this very important
session of the General Assembly. As a politician with a
long and distinguished career, you are eminently qualified
to guide us ably through the crucial coming months.
It goes without saying that I fully endorse the
intervention by Minister Solana on behalf of the European
Union. At this fiftieth anniversary session of the General
Assembly, I would like first of all to affirm the deep
attachment of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the
United Nations. The United Nations is the expression of
the relatively new notion that nations and people
anywhere in the world have the same rights and are
bound by the same duties. For 50 years, this Organization
has provided the basis for building a civilized
international community and we cannot afford to be
cynical about the United Nations.
There is no alternative to the United Nations in
dealing with global challenges. It is up to us, the Member
States, to make use of the Organization and to make it
work. This anniversary should be an occasion neither for
self-congratulatory speeches nor for despondency. Rather,
it should inspire us to unite in a renewed effort to bring
the Organization into harmony with the demands of the
times.
In this age of instant communication and televised
images, respect for human rights and solidarity among
nations can no longer be applied selectively. Aggression,
war crimes and massive violations of human rights, such
as those in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, trigger an
immediate and massive response throughout the world. It
is impossible for people to remain indifferent to the fate
of their fellow human beings anywhere — unless, of
course, they should be denied access to these means of
communication. However, the revolutionary growth of
communications has also created a gap between people’s
demands for action and the limited ability of
Governments and organizations to satisfy these demands.
The same observation applies to national decisions
touching on the security concerns of people in countries
around the globe; and nowadays, these concerns include
environmental, ecological and all other aspects of human
security. Sovereignty has become restricted and
circumscribed because of new global interdependencies.
It is an illusion to think that in this age States can
continue to conduct their business in splendid isolation
without regard for international public opinion and
sensitivities. Again, as sovereignty becomes less
formidable a barrier and people organize themselves
freely and globally in various ways, the need for global
12

regulation becomes more pressing. For this purpose, people
look to the United Nations. But can the United Nations
meet these new demands?
The crises in Bosnia and Rwanda illustrate the types
of conflict that at present pose the biggest threat to the
international system. In many parts of the world ethnic,
racial and religious divides are resurfacing with a
vengeance. Where State structures are weak or
disintegrating, those divides may become battlegrounds for
struggles over land, water and other scarce resources.
The response of the international community to these
political and humanitarian emergencies has often been
inadequate, slow or hesitant. Lack of resolve in the early
stages of a crisis has forced Member States to scramble
later to close the gap between their acts and their words
and to restore lost credibility. There is a certain tendency to
take words for deeds and to be satisfied with words alone.
Language is a currency whose value depends on
corresponding behaviour. For the United Nations to be
credible, its language must be credible, and its language can
only be credible if it is matched by its deeds. These are
simple, basic rules, not only in banking but also in politics.
Unfortunately, it can be convenient to forget these rules for
reasons of political expediency. In such cases a higher price
must be paid at a later stage.
The war in former Yugoslavia is a tragedy for its
people, but it also exemplifies the dangers threatening the
international order. The fatal practice of “ethnic cleansing”
has been unanimously condemned by the international
community. Those warnings have not been heeded, and the
mad dream of ethnic purity is still being pursued. The
practice of “ethnic cleansing” has, moreover, set in motion
a cycle of revenge and further violence.
The end of the war may now come into sight, thanks
to forceful international intervention and a shifting balance
on the ground. The current diplomatic initiative is designed
to exploit this opportunity and finally to create conditions
for true peace. We should do everything in our power to
assist the negotiators in their mission. But for the
international community, represented by the United Nations,
the question also remains of whether it should have
intervened earlier, and with greater decisiveness.
Members of all the parties to this conflict have at
various times committed crimes and breaches of
international law. But there is a difference in the scale of
human rights violations and criminal responsibility.
The Bosnian Serb side has from the beginning
resorted to “ethnic cleansing” and acts of terror against
the civilian population as a systematic tool in its
campaign, and therefore its leaders carry prime
responsibility for initiating these practices.
The latest and perhaps largest single crime was
committed against the population of the former Bosnian
enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa. The victims were living
in areas declared safe by the Security Council. The Serb
behaviour has been condemned by the Security Council,
but the United Nations and its Member States cannot
escape sharing some of the blame for not living up to the
United Nations commitment. We, the Member States, had
convinced ourselves — and what is more, our Bosnian
protégés — that a largely symbolic United Nations
presence would be sufficient to deter aggression. It did
not. We have been proved cruelly wrong, and as a result
the populations of the enclaves paid a terrible price in
terms of human life and displacement at the hands of the
Bosnian Serbs. The Netherlands, whose small contingent
of Blue Helmets was powerless to prevent the onslaught
on Srebrenica, is deeply shocked by the massive
violations of human rights which were committed by the
Serb aggressors.
We share the Security Council’s deep concern about
the fate of the former inhabitants of Srebrenica who have
not been accounted for. There are strong indications that
thousands were murdered in cold blood. It is a disgrace
that the Bosnian Serbs have not honoured their
commitment to give immediate and full access to
representatives of international organizations to investigate
the situation of those who are missing. In the interest of
the credibility of any future peace agreement, we cannot
acquiesce in the Bosnian Serb refusal to cooperate on this
and other human rights issues. We expect the same kind
of cooperation from the Croat and Bosniac authorities
with regard to verification of reports about human rights
violations in areas under their control.
If similar calamities are to be prevented in the
future, we, the Security Council and the troop
contributors, must ensure that the operational aspects of
the Council’s resolutions have a solid foundation in
military planning and available capabilities. This includes
the political will to use those capabilities when needed.
Therefore, in the future no mandate should be given
13

before the means and the readiness for implementation are
assured.
Srebrenica and Zepa have also shown that
humanitarian action can never be a substitute for decisive
measures against a party which perpetrates aggression and
massive human rights violations. Humanitarian assistance,
important though it undoubtedly is in itself, risks being
tainted in the eye of the public if it is perceived as a
substitute for decisive action going to the root of the
problem.
In order to avoid the repetition of violent outbursts,
the seeds of future wars must be eliminated. These seeds
often lie in the ruthless exploitation of situations of
potential conflict by unscrupulous politicians and local
warlords. To deter such action, justice must be done and be
seen to be done.
The establishment of the international criminal
Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda may
prove to be an important step in the right direction, and in
more than one respect. For the second time in history, after
Nuremberg and Tokyo, the international community is
holding individuals responsible for their actions during
wartime and in the initiation of war. So, hopefully, the
blame for atrocities will not be put on entire peoples, which
would call for massive revenge in the future, but on those
who are personally and directly responsible. We hope that
the creation of these Tribunals will prove to be a catalyst
for the establishment of a permanent international criminal
court.
The question of United Nations credibility in Bosnia
and Rwanda points to a broad range of issues related to
United Nations reform in the domain of peace operations,
the structure and work methods of the Security Council,
finance and the economic and social area. Let me comment
briefly on each of these.
At last year’s session of the General Assembly I noted
that a more rapid response by the United Nations might
have prevented the genocide in Rwanda. My suggestion
was that in order to deal with emergencies like these we
should consider creating a permanent brigade which could
be deployed almost instantly once the Security Council had
taken a decision. In the months thereafter this idea was
explored in a series of consultations in New York and at an
international colloquium organized in the Netherlands.
These discussions resulted in the Netherlands non-paper on
a United Nations rapid deployment brigade, which was
distributed to all Member States last April.
But the idea of a United Nations brigade should be
seen as a contribution to the wider debate on United
Nations peace operations. The most logical manner to
address the problem of rapid response would be, in my
opinion, a small, standing United Nations force which
could fill the time lag between a Security Council
decision and the deployment of national contingents.
However, the Netherlands will support and actively
contribute to any proposal that represents an intermediate
step towards the longer-term objective of a United
Nations force for rapid deployment.
Against this background, we applaud the Canadian
study on a United Nations rapid-reaction capability.
Among other things, it recommends, as our colleague Mr.
Ouellet pointed out, setting up a United Nations planning
cell, which could function as a mobile headquarters and
be part of the vanguard concept. That is, it could be the
nucleus of a force composed of national contingents under
the United Nations stand-by arrangements system. We
fully endorse this recommendation, which partly realizes
the idea I raised and in due course could lead to the
creation of a standing United Nations brigade. We shall
be in touch with other interested Member States in order
to coordinate practical suggestions with a view to possible
further political action.
The continued viability of United Nations peace
operations ultimately rests on the preservation of their
legitimacy. This implies that the Security Council should
be made more responsive to the views of the United
Nations membership at large. The transparency of the
Council’s decision-making concerning peace operations
has already undergone noticeable improvements.
Nevertheless, further adjustments are called for.
Therefore, we support the creation of a mechanism for the
discussion of all aspects of peace operations with troop
contributors.
The Assembly should address with the utmost
urgency the critical financial situation of the United
Nations. Without early agreement on financial
contributions, there can be no basis for the necessary
broad reforms. It is unacceptable that responsible Member
States should carry the burden of making up for other
States’ lack of financial discipline.
These States are in contravention of the Charter,
which makes assessed contributions, once agreed, a
binding obligation on Member States and, thus, of
international law. I strongly associate myself with the
European Union Presidency in calling upon Member
14

States to pay their contributions in full, on time and without
conditions.
The problem can be solved only if Member States
participate actively in the current negotiations aimed at
strengthening and reforming United Nations financing and
refrain from unilateral actions. The Netherlands, for its part,
will participate constructively in efforts to arrive at a
solution.
The provision of the necessary resources would also
give the United Nations the possibility of dealing more
effectively with the promotion of the economic and social
advancement of all peoples. But effective multilateral action
on socio-economic issues is not a matter only of financial
resources. It will require new thinking on the future of the
United Nations. The Secretary-General indicated the right
direction last year, in “An Agenda for Development”, in his
analysis of the five dimensions of development: peace,
economic growth, the environment, justice and democracy.
A number of initiatives, some from within the Organization
and others, such as the Carlsson report, from outside, aim
at strengthening, revitalizing and reforming the United
Nations.
The Netherlands recognizes the need for a thorough
debate and early decisions on ways to improve the
performance and accountability of the United Nations. We
welcome these initiatives, including the creation of the
High-level Open-ended Working Group by the General
Assembly. I could imagine that three years from now, in
1998, a ministerial conference could meet to agree on the
basis for the implementation of the High-level Group’s
findings.
In the field of disarmament, the Netherlands attaches
the highest priority to the conclusion next year of a
comprehensive test-ban treaty. In order to ensure that the
negotiations will reach this absolutely essential objective,
they should be given a strong political impulse.
In this context, the Netherlands deplores the recent
nuclear tests and fervently hopes that the other
nuclear-weapon States will maintain their moratoriums. A
decision not to conduct any further tests would be of great
benefit to the creation of a positive climate for the
resumption of the negotiations and their successful
completion in 1996. Therefore, the Netherlands strongly
urges the nuclear-weapon States to desist from all further
testing.
Having said all this, I should like to close on a note
of hope and appreciation for what the United Nations has
done and can continue to do in a number of very
important areas. I am thinking of the environment, the
population problem, human rights, the status of women,
democratization and social policy. In these areas, the
United Nations is providing the infrastructure for the
shaping and consolidation of a world-wide consensus and
for the practical realization of what this consensus is
about. Much of this happens through large-scale
conferences, with elaborate preparatory processes
involving the various regions of the world and a wide
spectrum of both governmental and non-governmental
actors.
The women’s Conference in Beijing is clear proof of
the crucial role of these meetings in bringing about a
global awareness of the issues at stake. These conferences
set norms and standards by which individuals and non-
governmental organizations around the world can measure
the progress made by Governments and by the United
Nations as a whole towards well-defined goals. If
properly implemented and monitored they can prove to be
decisive for the quality of life of future generations, and
even of our own, and for the credibility of our
Organization.


Mr. President, it affords me
great pleasure to congratulate you on your election to
direct the work of this historic session of the General
Assembly. Such an honour bears testimony to your
undoubted dynamism and diplomatic skills, which will in
no small measure bear on the outcome of the work of this
Assembly.
Permit me also to pay tribute to your predecessor,
His Excellency Mr. Amara Essy, of Cote d’Ivoire, for his
outstanding leadership of the forty-ninth session. We
congratulate him also on the many initiatives that he took
in the furtherance of the work of our Organization.
Lastly, may I refer to the sterling work that the
Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros-Boutros Ghali, continues
to do against great odds. His report on the work of the
Organization in 1995 has painted in sharp relief the
awesome task that faces us at the threshold of a new
millennium and as we enter the second half-century of the
United Nations existence.
The United Nations has been, and will always be,
the symbol of humankind’s fervent desire to conduct its
affairs with the purpose of eternal survival. When the
dark clouds of war threatened to engulf the world with a
catastrophe of unimaginable proportions, humankind
found strength within itself to negate the Armageddon.
The pattern of large-scale wars involving many nations
has been reversed, and the worst that we suffered in
recent years was a cold war that was more
psychologically than physically damaging. Happily, that
is now behind us.
But, even as we stop to ponder and reflect on the
past, a new pattern of ethnic intra-State conflagrations has
emerged and continues to threaten the very survival of
humanity. This new scenario has posed a serious
challenge to the initiatives and peace-keeping capabilities
of our Organization.
The record of the United Nations in the recent past
in peace-keeping has been mixed. We have had
unqualified successes in some places, but then in others
4

success has eluded us. Our resolve, therefore, has to be to
shift the balance in favour of greater success. Our
machinery for peacemaking and peace-keeping needs to be
fine-tuned to maximum precision. The implications of this
requirement are far-reaching and need to be appreciated in
their amplitude.
First, the financing of peace-keeping operations must
be put on a more secure footing. Persistent arrears, such as
those we are currently experiencing, especially when they
are incurred by major Powers, cannot but have an adverse
effect on the morale of the small countries, such as my
own, that make great sacrifices to meet their obligations to
the Organization.
Secondly, greater attention should be paid to peace-
making and preventive diplomacy, thereby reducing the
prospects of conflicts, with their attendant costs. In this
regard, the ideas contained in the Secretary-General’s
Supplement to An Agenda for Peace merit our close
attention. The strategy of pre-empting the eruption of
conflict is, of course, closely linked to the United Nations
efforts in the fields of social and economic development,
because it is in the soil of poverty that the seeds of national
upheavals take root and sprout.
Last, but not least, the changed nature of the
challenges facing the Security Council call for the
restructuring of that organ to reflect the changed realities of
present-day international relations. All the international
peace-and-security matters of which the Council is currently
seized pertain to developing countries or countries in
transition. Thus, it is reasonable to suggest that the
composition of the Security Council should include an
appropriate proportion of developing countries in both the
permanent and non-permanent categories.
My delegation therefore supports the view that the
reform of the Security Council should be in accordance
with the following principles: one, the reform of the
Security Council must not put in danger its effectiveness,
but, on the contrary, should strengthen it; two, the
enlargement of the Security Council should enhance its
representative character, taking into account the emergence
of new economic and political Powers as well as the
increase of United Nations membership; three, the
enlargement of the Security Council should enhance
equitable geographic representation; four, the possibility of
smaller Member States serving on the Security Council
should not be diminished; and, lastly, the enlargement
should take place in both categories of permanent and non-
permanent members.
The Open-ended Working Group on the Question of
Equitable Representation on and Increase in the
Membership of the Security Council has continued to
address the question of the reform of the Council. It is
encouraging to note that discussions have shown a general
support for the need to increase the membership of the
Security Council, especially of developing countries, and
a subsequent need to review the Council’s composition.
The general view is that the size and composition of an
expanded Council should reflect more accurately the
universal character of the United Nations and present-day
realities.
It has further been recognized that the principle of
the sovereign equality of all Members of the United
Nations and the concepts of equitable representation and
distribution, legitimacy, effectiveness and efficiency
should serve as guiding principles for the reform of the
Security Council.
A number of political questions continue to
preoccupy us. In this regard, the leaders and people of
Israel, Jordan and Palestine deserve our congratulations
on having transformed the hopes and goals embodied in
the Middle East peace process into tangible achievements.
The people of Israel and the Palestinians have overcome
formidable obstacles. Yet the most difficult and divisive
issues still remain unresolved.
The peace process in that area of the Middle East is
of the utmost importance and must therefore be negotiated
against a backdrop of continuing and satisfactory
progress. Only that will help give both Israel and
Palestine the further confidence needed to make the
political decisions that will ultimately achieve a lasting
solution.
We also need to urge the international community to
respond quickly, appropriately, generously, practically and
flexibly to the needs of the Palestinian people.
Achievements must match expectations.
In the tragic situation of the former Yugoslavia, the
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina must be
commended for accepting the peace proposal of the five-
nation Contact Group, which has been endorsed by the
Security Council. This peace proposal, as recent
developments have indicated, does not sufficiently
respond to the requirements of justice and equity, but we
are none the less encouraged by a number of positive
developments that have taken place.
5

We therefore urge the international community, in
particular, the Security Council and the member States of
the European Contact Group, to respond effectively to the
situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We hope that the
logic of peace will finally overcome the logic of war, on
the basis of the cease-fire, which is yet to come into effect.
In Africa, many significant developments have taken
place in respect of peace-keeping that have to be
understood in the context of changes in the international
environment. The changes include the fatigue and
reluctance of the leading world Powers, especially those in
the Security Council, to participate in peace-keeping
operations in Africa. That reluctance was exemplified by
the events in Burundi, where the Organization of African
Unity (OAU) had to deploy a limited observation mission
because the United Nations could not.
On the other hand, however, some of the Western
countries have launched several initiatives aimed at
identifying ways in which the international community can
assist Africa to cope with the challenges of conflict
prevention and management. While Africa, in keeping with
its determination to combat conflicts on the continent, is
appreciative of these gestures from its outside partners, we
wish to remind the international community of the United
Nations primary role as the guardian of world peace and
stability everywhere, including in Africa. Africa remains
part of the international community, and the notion that
“African problems need an African solution”, as some
countries advocate, is erroneous. The determination of
Africa to address, through the OAU, the problem of
conflicts on the continent should not be misconstrued as
absolving the United Nations from its responsibility for
peace and security where Africa is concerned.
The Sahraoui people have a right to self-determination.
We therefore appeal to all parties to respect the decision to
hold a referendum in Western Sahara, to be held as
scheduled in January 1996.
My delegation believes that the key to attaining
nuclear disarmament and a nuclear-free world continues to
be the universality of the non-proliferation regime. In this
connection, therefore, I wish to register my delegation’s
strong rejection of nuclear tests, which are clearly
inconsistent with the decision of the Review and Extension
Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) regarding the
principles and objectives of nuclear non-proliferation and
disarmament, which committed all States to work towards
the elimination of nuclear weapons and to exercise the
utmost restraint with respect to nuclear testing. We call
on all nuclear-weapon States to refrain from any further
testing.
We express our deep disappointment at the lack of
concrete results on the question of the review and
appraisal of the implementation of the declaration of the
1990s as the Third Disarmament Decade.
It is important to note that at its forty-ninth session
the General Assembly adopted resolution 49/75 B of 15
December 1994, in which it decided to undertake, at its
fiftieth session, such a review and appraisal. The
Assembly requested the Disarmament Commission, at its
1995 session, to make a preliminary assessment of the
implementation of the Declaration and of suggestions that
might be put forth to ensure appropriate progress. We
regret to note that despite extensive efforts to agree on
consensus language, there was a divergence of views and
it was not possible to reach a consensus. It is
disappointing to note that delegations were not willing to
engage in serious negotiations to find even small areas of
common ground.
In recent decades the Organization of African Unity
(OAU) has also adopted a number of other resolutions on
disarmament and on the denuclearization of the African
continent. Convinced that the establishment of nuclear-
weapon-free zones can contribute to the strengthening of
the international non-proliferation regime, the sixtieth
ordinary session of the OAU Council of Ministers
adopted a resolution in which the OAU Secretary-General
was requested to convene a joint meeting of the
Organization of African Unity inter-governmental group
of experts and the Group of Experts to Prepare a Draft
Treaty on an African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone set up
jointly by the Organization of African Unity and the
United Nations. This initiative needs the unrelenting
support of the international community, in particular that
of the nuclear-weapon States, through their accession to
the protocols that concern them in connection with the
reduction and prohibition of the use and testing of all
weapons of mass destruction.
My Government, like the Governments of all African
States, is convinced that the establishment of nuclear-
weapon-free zones worldwide, through the encouragement
of the United Nations — especially in the Middle East, as
already proposed by Egypt — would enhance the security
of Africa and the subsequent viability of the African
nuclear-weapon-free zone.
6

In the social and human rights field, the United
Nations continues to make some progress. The World
Summit for Social Development, held at Copenhagen in
March, was a milestone in humankind’s quest for consensus
on universal standards for social development. The
implementation of the undertakings which the Heads of
State or Government made needs to be monitored closely
in order to assess the degree of progress being made in
achieving those undertakings. In this regard, the 20/20
compact is an important step in the direction of
international collaboration to achieve balanced development
of the social sector. It is the intention of my Government to
fulfil its commitment to allocate 20 per cent of its
development budgetary allocation to the social sector; we
expect our development partners to meet us half way in this
endeavour.
The outcome of the Fourth World Conference on
Women is still very fresh in our minds, having been
achieved only a few weeks ago. Although it was
unfortunate that some countries found it necessary to enter
reservations in respect of certain paragraphs of the Platform
for Action, we are encouraged that a significant step
forward was taken towards the goal of recognizing the right
of women to be equal partners with men and to have
complete control over all aspects of their lives. The triple
goals of equality, development and peace, enunciated 20
years ago in Mexico City, underscore the undeniable truth
that development and peace are not feasible while half of
the world’s population is discriminated against and not
allowed to realize its full potential. My delegation reaffirms
our Government’s determination to forge ahead with vigour
with the implementation of the Platform for Action until the
full emancipation of women is attained. In this connection,
I should like to call for an early follow-up and review
conference lest the momentum generated in Beijing be lost.
There is a widely held myth that the developing world
is experiencing a high growth rate because of the
remarkable economic performance of East Asia. How can
this be true when a total of 47 developing countries
classified as least-developed countries continue to fight for
survival? These countries account for 10 per cent of the
world’s population but earn only 0.1 per cent of the global
income. For over two decades now, they have continued to
experience serious declines in per capita income. Their
share of world trade has declined from 0.6 per cent in 1980
to 0.2 per cent in 1992.
Africa continues to be the region most in need of help.
The 1995 economic growth indicators, however, present an
encouraging picture. For the first time in over six years, the
economic-growth rate is projected to match the
population-growth rate, which is, unfortunately, the
highest in the world.
Africa has been used over the past 20 years, and is
still being used, as a policy laboratory for the Bretton
Woods institutions. It is regrettable that today, as the
United Nations celebrates its fiftieth year since the
signing of the Organization’s Charter in San Francisco,
many people in Africa continue to live under even harsher
conditions of poverty, hunger, disease, civil war and
natural disaster. The plight of the African continent
remains a major challenge for the emerging world order.
There is an urgent need for a stronger consolidated effort
to pull the continent out of the poverty trap into which it
continues to sink.
A few months ago at Geneva, the Economic and
Social Council, at the high-level segment of its 1995
substantive session, deliberated an item entitled “The
development of Africa, including the implementation of
the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of
Africa in the 1990s”. The high-level segment recognized
that, among all the five regions of the world, Africa
continues to be the only one lagging far behind in terms
of development and that it remains the most marginalized
in the world economy.
Allow me at this juncture to take this opportunity to
applaud the Government of National Unity of the
Republic of South Africa for having embarked on a
reconstruction and development programme as a strategy
for tackling the thorny issue of the economic imbalances
created by the policies of apartheid. It is important for the
international community to realize that the entire southern
African subregion was as much affected and that it still
suffers from the impact of the apartheid legacy. Any
international support for the implementation of the
reconstruction and development programme in South
Africa should take this fact into account.
The southern African States members of the
Southern African Development Community continue to
pay priority attention to closer and stronger integration of
their economies. The international community should
make its best endeavours to ensure that our efforts are
adequately supported through complementary financial
and technological support, including improved terms of
trade, increased flows of direct foreign investment and
appropriate debt relief measures.
7

Lesotho, as a land-locked and least developed country,
attaches great importance to issues of concern to the least
developing countries, particularly their transit transport
problems. We welcome the adoption by the
intergovernmental meeting of the land-locked and transit
developing countries, donor countries and financial
institutions of a framework for cooperation to alleviate
transit transport problems of the land-locked States and of
their transit neighbours. It is our sincere belief that this
session of the General Assembly will seriously address
itself to the provisions of this framework, with a view to
speeding up their implementation.
The Programme of Action for the Least Developed
Countries for the 1990s remains largely unimplemented.
Lesotho, as a least developed country, is seriously
concerned about this.
In Lesotho, as in many other countries in Africa and
other regions, we have undertaken far-reaching political
reforms, thus heeding the international clarion call to
restore democratic administration, popular participation,
accountability and good governance. These reforms have
been undertaken amidst painful but necessary structural
adjustment programmes intended to improve our
macroeconomic policies and structures. The international
community needs to realize that the success and
sustainability of all these reforms cannot be guaranteed
unless they bring about tangible results and satisfy the
expectations of our people, particularly the most
disadvantaged.
Our cooperating partners, in the forefront of advocates
of democratic rule, seem to be relinquishing their
responsibility of seeing to it that democratic institutions are
sustained. In most of our countries our fledgling
democracies face the serious challenge posed by lack of
resources initially promised by our friends. We see
emerging in each of our countries pockets of discontent
which in essence challenge and destabilize the very shaky
foundations of our young democracies. We in Lesotho
understand very well the complementarity of democracy
and development, and it is on this basis that we call upon
our partners to carry out as a matter of urgency their
international responsibility, particularly in this area.
For two consecutive years now, Lesotho has been
experiencing an unprecedented devastating drought, which
has adversely affected food production. This year the
quantity of acreage cultivated was substantially reduced,
due to lack of rainfall. As a result of the drought, the
Government had to declare a state of food emergency and
send urgent appeals to our traditional and new food
donors for a helping hand. Unfortunately, not very
encouraging responses have so far been received. It is
therefore my humble duty and responsibility to renew this
appeal to the international community through the
Assembly.
Today’s world is increasingly being made smaller
and smaller by technological advances. Developments in
one part of the world are of direct relevance and interest
to other parts of the world. Closer cooperation and
collaboration between partners is more urgently needed
than ever before. South-South cooperation has to be
further strengthened and universalized. In this regard, the
importance of triangular arrangements for promoting and
expanding South-South cooperation cannot be over-
emphasized. Furthermore, increased transfer of modern
productive and efficient technologies is a necessary
condition for all the nations of the world to be able to
fulfil their obligations and commitment to leave man’s
common heritage — the Earth — in a condition that will
enable future generations to sustain life on it.
Many of us are doing our best to develop the full
potential of our human resources through education, good
health, a clean living and working environment and
nutrition. We have put in place appropriate policies to
ensure the realization of this noble objective. We are
worried about slow progress towards the discovery of a
permanent cure for the HIV/AIDS pandemic, and would
urge all humankind not to spare any effort or resources
until this menace has been vanquished. We therefore join
the appeals for increased political commitment and
financial and material support for scientific and other
research that will lead to the discovery of a cure for this
disease.
For a long time the nations of the world have
expressed their desire to enhance the international justice
system. The recognition that an international criminal
court was an essential element in building respect for
human rights throughout the world led the Members of
the United Nations nearly half a century ago to pledge to
create a new system of international justice. Progress in
this regard has, however, been slow.
The atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
provided an impetus to establish a permanent international
criminal court. Lesotho supports the view that a
permanent international criminal court should be
established by 1996. We believe that the most practical
method of establishing such a court is by a multilateral
8

treaty that would enter into force following ratification by
a reasonable number of States. It is our fervent belief that
such a court would be the living embodiment of the
fundamental principles of international criminal law.
Besides being able to hold individual perpetrators of human
rights violations personally liable, the court would
complement prosecutions in national courts by acting when
States were unwilling or unable to bring perpetrators to
justice.
The commendable efforts of the International Law
Commission in preparing the draft statute for the court are
to be applauded. It now remains for Governments and other
organs of civil society to strengthen the draft statute to
ensure that it is a model of justice, fairness and
effectiveness.


There is, of course, a special
resonance to the congratulations we offer the President on
his election to this high post at the fiftieth session of the
General Assembly. In this watershed year, his job will be
particularly challenging. The delegation of Belize pledges
its fullest cooperation in helping to ensure the success of
his stewardship.
All the world is conscious of the historic significance
of this fiftieth anniversary year. And a lot of work has gone
into the process leading up to this session. We also at this
juncture, then, express our thanks to the President’s
predecessor, His Excellency Mr. Amara Essy, and those
whose job it has been to supervise and implement the
preparatory effort.
If this is a year of celebration, it is also a year of
reckoning. Inevitably, the jubilee has concentrated attention
as never before on our Organization. Can we withstand the
scrutiny we provoke? Is our record one that, on balance,
vindicates the vision of the founders? And in a world that
is almost unrecognizably transformed since 1945, are we
equipped for the changing role the United Nations must
now play?
Well over 100 States have come into being since
1945. The myriad issues that now dominate the global
agenda are attended by a host of problems. The duties and
burdens of the United Nations system have therefore
proliferated hugely. Can the United Nations cope? And are
we, the Member States, prepared to invest our enterprise
with the resources necessary to deal with the new realities.
These, it seems, are the questions most urgently in
need of answers.
In thinking of the future, though, we would do well to
look at the past. And I would wish briefly now to examine
our historical record, highlighting some issues of special
relevance to small countries such as Belize.
Just four days ago, Belize celebrated the fourteenth
anniversary of its independence. It was an independence
long delayed by the territorial claim of a neighbouring
country. But it the end it was an independence made
possible in no small measure by this Organization and its
role in world affairs.
One of the things that in the first place made our
aspiration for sovereignty realistic, was the seminal 1960
General Assembly Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. And the
United Nations thereafter became our guiding star as we
steered our course between the Scylla of the historical
colonialism from which we were escaping and the
Charybdis of the recolonization that was inherent in the
territorial claim.
During the years of our independent existence, this
Organization has similarly continued to be a bedrock of
our viability. The principles enshrined in the Charter, and
the international legal order derived from those principles,
have been a welcome guarantee of our sovereignty. The
territorial claim has not gone away. But the norms
imposed by the United Nations, especially those requiring
pacific settlement of disputes among Member States, have
at least helped to keep it from confounding our integrity.
Who can doubt that, in one form or another, this
salutary experience of Belize with the United Nations has
been replicated by any number of small countries?
Because of the multiplication of new States, especially
since 1960, the international order has been characterized
by an unprecedented differentiation in underlying power
capabilities between the huge and the tiny. Very weak
States can, of course, never seriously hope to influence
international behaviour solely through the use of their
national power capabilities. What the United Nations has
done for us, then, has been to offer a plenitude of
sustenance via its many entities and constituent groupings.
In effect, the set of opportunities created by the character
of post-Second-World-War international organizations that
have been the United Nations and its progeny has made
sovereign equality a very real concept, power
asymmetries notwithstanding.
For small States, certainly, the political and
diplomatic vitality of the United Nations system is a
matter of undeniable fact. Nevertheless, the United
Nations should continue to enhance cooperation with
regional organizations, as it did last session when this
Assembly resolved to institutionalize cooperation with the
Caribbean Community. Belize was honoured to introduce
that resolution.
Likewise, the principle of inclusiveness should be
employed to ensure that States in the various regions of
the world, including Asia and the Pacific, are not
confined to incomplete participation in the international
order.
22

I turn now to the economic sphere. The record of our
Organization is, I am afraid, rather less compelling. It is
true that various organs of the United Nations system —
the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD), the United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO), the Economic Commission for
Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) — have
provided small States with an unprecedented forum for the
articulation of our concerns. Even now, Belize prepares to
assume its elected seat on the Executive Board of the
United Nations Development Programme. But continuing
large disparities in wealth between rich and poor countries,
the debilitating debt consuming us in the developing world,
the unemployment, the persistent poverty, speak volumes as
to the absence of sufficient progress on this front.
Since the last general debate, the World Trade
Organization has come into being. In the Americas, the
Hemispheric Summit is now a matter of record. But we
note with regret that, even as liberalization advances, the
call of the disadvantaged for special and differential
treatment goes unheeded. This is accompanied by the
continuing volatility of the international trading and
financial systems, and the well-known vulnerability of small
countries to external shocks.
For us in Belize, negative economic trends among our
major trading partners have had a baneful effect. This, in
turn, has served to heighten our concern over the nature and
pace of globalization. The structural changes that fragile
economies need to make in order to be in step threaten to
swamp us. But no one seems to be paying attention.
Perhaps new forms of regionalism are the answer. One
arguable example is the new Association of Caribbean
States, which will create the world’s fourth or fifth largest
market area and of which Belize is the geographical centre
and the cultural bridge.
Yet it is essential, we contend, that the international
community exhibit full sensitivity to the condition of
smallness. We remain highly susceptible to changes in the
global marketplace; and adverse developments then impose
additional setbacks on us in the areas of competitiveness,
development finance and overall fragility. For Belize, the
recent crisis in neighbouring Mexico, starkly dramatized our
own precariousness.
Generally, we think, the impact of the events in
Mexico on the markets and economies of other countries
serves as a clear warning. It is foolhardy to believe that
inflexible social and economic formulas can be applied
uniformly to our differing circumstances. Heedless
adjustment and implacable time-tables might well
condemn small economies to extinction.
Indeed, many of our small countries have already
made strenuous efforts at stabilization and reform. We
have liberalized trade, reduced fiscal deficits and
privatized State enterprises. But where are the rewards?
We continue to be overcome by debt, by poverty and by
woefully inadequate social and physical infrastructures.
And our difficulties are exacerbated rather than solved by
the austerities that reduce government spending and
curtail our public sector investment programmes.
Time is not on our side, as economic and fiscal
orthodoxy bear inexorably down on us. Our constituencies
continue to press us: Where is the understanding of our
plight? Why is there is no capital inflow revival? What is
to be done about the alarmingly high rate of
unemployment? When will we see the special
mechanisms to assist us with retraining, the moulding of
new technologies, and the critically needed human
resources development? Can we ever seriously hope for
the dedicated financial resources that must underpin any
serious effort at diversification?
We are being told that this liberalization advance —
this march of the martinets — is the panacea for our ills,
but the evidence to the contrary is quite startling. For our
domestic producers, for our banana farmers, it is a bitter
joke. Global free trade, it seems to many of us, is like the
Holy Roman Empire: not holy, not Roman, not an
empire.
The Bretton Woods institutions certainly need to
demonstrate more creativity. Their too-rigid reliance on
the prevailing orthodoxy is choking us. Democracy in
small countries will not be worth a fig if this auto-da-fé-
type insistence on these articles of faith is not leavened
by a real appreciation of our peculiar needs.
It is in this context that we also call for this
Organization to promote true global cooperation in efforts
towards sustainable development. This shared quest must
be the essence of the economic relations and the
development dialogue between the North and the South
and among the developing countries themselves. My
Government certainly pledges full support for the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Unit on
South-South Cooperation, well exemplified by the Ruta
Maya tourism project of our Central America. We also
23

call for support for strengthening the Alliance for the
Sustainable Development of Central America, a major
initiative for developing what we call our delicate filigree
isthmus. And we welcome such relationships as Belize’s
recently concluded joint implementation pilot programme
under the Climate Change Convention.
The overarching goal of our precursors was
“to save succeeding generations from the scourge of
war”.
Well, how have we been doing on that score?
In the sphere of peace and security, some grave
developments have taken place in various parts of the
world. In several places genocidal impulses have been let
loose, with predictably devastating results. Paradoxically
enough, the end of the cold war has resulted in an upsurge
of civil and territorial strife. Fratricidal conflicts have been
launched to the drumbeat of overblown notions of history
and dangerous concepts of ethnicity. For all the Assembly’s
efforts, we continue to experience a relative stalemate in
Cyprus and elsewhere. The Balkan conundrum still seems
intractable, though we note with encouragement that this
Organization has recognized that there is a limit beyond
which forbearance ceases to be a virtue. Rwanda refuses to
go away.
Yet we hail now the breakthrough in Palestine, and we
again rejoice at the continuation of peace and stability in
South Africa. In Namibia, Mozambique and Angola, the
United Nations has assisted, or is assisting, in bringing civil
wars to an end.
In my own part of the world, the continuing United
Nations partnership with the people of Haiti is consolidating
reconstruction and democracy in that Caribbean country.
Despite the limitations on our resources, Belize is happy
now to be able to play a commanding role in the Caribbean
Community and Common Market (CARICOM) sub-unit of
the United Nations Mission in Haiti.
Likewise, the United Nations Observer Mission in El
Salvador is successfully overseeing efforts to cement the
newly minted peace. In Guatemala, the dialogue between
the URNG and the Government, begun under the auspices
of our Secretary-General, is proceeding apace.
My Government takes great satisfaction in the calm
that reigns almost universally on our continent, from
Hispaniola to Tierra del Fuego. The disappearance of
authoritarian Governments in Latin America and the
resolution of most of our internal conflicts is bringing
liberty and democracy to all our peoples. Our efforts can
therefore be committed fully now to the business of
fostering economic and social development, human rights
and the protection of the environment. As the first-ever
Defence Ministerial Meeting of the Americas confirmed,
our militaries are fully cognizant of the new role they
must play in supporting this process.
We therefore applaud the strong and clear views on
nuclear sanity expressed during the Conference on the
extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
and currently being reiterated. This delegation reaffirms
its own view that the parties to the NPT have now
invested in the nuclear Powers a trusteeship that those
Powers must zealously discharge.
At the same time, we must be equally aware of the
other danger: the continued production, trade and use of
all types of so-called conventional weapons that harm,
maim and kill.
In the context of more general concerns, we cannot
escape the overdue obligation to rationalize also the
structure of the Security Council, so that the veto is
tamed and equity and democratization take centre stage.
We continue to insist that all regions obtain balanced and
equal representation as permanent members; small
countries be brought into the Council’s decision- making;
and consideration be given to such devices as multipartite
seats or constituency groupings.
One final word on the question of peace and
security. The Secretary-General has stressed the multitude
of new demands for peace-keeping made upon the
Organization as conflicts erupt around the world. The
caution has been expressed that the increased burdens in
this regard should not displace the attention that economic
and social questions demand. Of course, the two are
interrelated. It is a truism that there can be no
development without peace. We would content ourselves,
then, with merely urging that we put in place a more
coordinated system to embrace peace-keeping and conflict
resolution as well as human rights and social and
economic development.
Also, the non-traditional threats to peace and security
must be addressed. In recent years we have witnessed
growing links among organized crime, drug trafficking,
terrorism and the spread of armaments. The dangers from
this phenomenon are all the more insidious for being
24

novel. We must therefore quickly develop the international
cooperation measures to deal with it.
So, as this Organization completes its fiftieth year, we
in Belize are well convinced of its continuing vitality. The
jeremiads of those that bemoan its failures are not for us.
While we are not going to be Pollyannaish about what is
admittedly a mixed record, we see enough to be sanguine
about.
There is extraordinary cooperation on the part of
States, other political entities and non-governmental
organizations in the dozens of areas of substantive concern
of the United Nations organs; in the burgeoning,
multidimensional sphere of sustainable development; in the
territory where humane concerns and values, social ordering
and cultural norms coalesce; and in the field of
peace-keeping, of providing States and peoples with
security from violence and disorder.
Of course there is still a long way to go. And we will
never truly realize the vision of the founders unless
Member States agree to provide the future United Nations
system with adequate, reliable and predictable resources.
Let us therefore, during this our half-century session,
determine to enhance our effectiveness. Let us rationalize,
let us economize. Let us pay our dues in full and on time.
And let us intensify the quest for agreement on autonomous
financing for the Organization and for related activities.
Above all, let us dedicate ourselves to universality and
pledge to enlarge our image and re-energize the world. For
that day may still be greatly postponed when our
resolutions and decisions, rather than blood and iron, will
summarily determine the great international questions.
But in continuing efforts at global conflict avoidance,
we are still, if the Assembly will forgive the colloquialism,
the only game in town. In other words, true international
peace and security can only ever come by way of the
United Nations, which remains the last, best hope for
mankind.


On behalf of the delegation of the United
Arab Emirates, it gives me great pleasure to extend my
sincere congratulations to the President on his election to
the presidency of the fiftieth session of the General
Assembly. This demonstrates the esteem the international
community holds for the President and his friendly country.
We wish him every success and good fortune. We also
wish to express our deep appreciation to his predecessor,
His Excellency Amara Essy, the Foreign Minister of
Côte d’Ivoire, who presided over the last session with
wisdom and competence.
I should like to seize this opportunity to express anew
our confidence in the strenuous efforts made by Mr.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General, to enhance
the role of our Organization in today’s world.
This session coincides with the celebration of the
fiftieth anniversary of the foundation of the United Nations.
This is an important political event in the history of this
Organization, particularly in light of the rapid changes that
have taken place in international relations. These changes
have contributed, in varying degrees, to the achievement of
some progress with regard to a number of issues that relate
to disarmament, economic and social development, and to
the containment of some regional conflicts.
In spite of this, our international community remains
far from the desired world peace. New challenges have
emerged and have entailed suffering, extermination,
expulsion and famine to thousands of people. These, in
turn, have affected international life as they have impacted
on the economic, political and social situation in the world.
Such a situation, of course, does not measure up to
the expectations the new regional and international
changes gave rise to when they followed on the heels of
each other. The hope of witnessing the emergence of a
new world order that would favour development, peace,
growth and justice has not yet taken a concrete shape that
would affect the future of mankind. The emergence of
such an order requires a wider framework of regional and
international cooperation which would work in favour of
finding peaceful solutions to world problems. Such
solutions should aim at elaborating a comprehensive
approach designed to promote and enhance human,
economic and social development, encourage harmony,
tolerance and communal solidarity, ensure respect for the
customs, traditions and religious beliefs of each
community and country, in addition to combating
terrorism and its manifestations, combating drug
trafficking, and strengthening the role of the United
Nations in the areas of peace-keeping, conflict prevention
and the mitigation of the human suffering of many
peoples of the world, especially in the developing world.
We believe that the establishment of such a world order
requires a stronger political will and a much wider
framework of regional and international cooperation in
order for it to be compatible with the thrust of the new
international changes.
The stability and security of States and the
settlement of disputes have become high priorities of
today’s world. To achieve stability and security, new
practices are needed. Such practices should be based on
the provisions of international law and the principles of
the Charter, especially the principles of sovereignty,
regional peace, non-interference in internal affairs of
States, the settlement of disputes and conflicts by peaceful
means and the promotion of relations of good-
neighbourliness.
On this basis, the United Arab Emirates reaffirms its
position which calls for direct bilateral and unconditional
negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran to put an
end to its military occupation, which has lasted since
1971, of the three Arab islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser
Tunb and Abu Moussa, as those islands form an
indivisible part of the territorial sovereignty of the United
Arab Emirates. If this is feasible, my country renews its
initiative, announced at the last session, which calls for
referring the dispute to the International Court of Justice,
in view of the fact that the Court is the international body
entrusted with the settlement of disputes and that many
countries, including Iran, have had recourse to it in
seeking to settle similar disputes.
11

Our peace initiatives have received support from
sisterly countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council, the
League of Arab States and other friendly, peace-loving
nations, since what is at stake here is one of our legal
sovereign rights. In spite of this peaceful approach, the
Islamic Republic of Iran not only rejects those initiatives
but also imposes a policy of fait accompli by military force.
It has adopted a set of illegal measures with the aim of
entrenching its occupation. Those measures conflict, not
only with the principles of peaceful coexistence and good-
neighbourliness, but also with the provisions of the Charter
of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the Charter
of the United Nations and the principles of international
law.
Over the past decade, the Arabian Gulf region
witnessed a number of conflicts and wars that resulted in
devastation and loss in terms of human, material and
environmental resources. It would have been wiser to
benefit from such resources by striving for economic and
social integration and sustainable development in the
interests of the region’s peoples who enjoy common bands
of history and religion and have common interests.
The question of building confidence between the
countries of the region has become one of the most
significant and focal issues for the Governments of the
countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Over the past
few years, those Governments have spared no effort in
trying to ease the suffering caused to their peoples by past
events whose consequences have demonstrated that the use
or threat of force by certain parties will never lead to the
achievements of their aim of changing the immutable
historical and geographical realities of the region. On the
contrary, the use or threat of force creates new crises and
disputes that threaten international and regional peace and
security. It is our belief that the best way of avoiding such
a situation is to opt for dialogue, bilateral and multilateral
negotiations, confidence-building measures and to comply
with international legality.
In this context, we welcome all peaceful efforts and
initiatives aimed at the demarcation of boundaries between
the sisterly countries of the region. While we wish to put
on record our firm position regarding the need to safeguard
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, the need to
ease the suffering of the Iraqi people and not to interfere in
its internal affairs, we call upon the Iraqi Government to
meet all its international obligations set out in relevant
Security Council resolutions, especially those relating to the
release of Kuwaiti prisoners and detainees and the nationals
of other countries, as well as the return of Kuwaiti
property still in its possession.
The United Arab Emirates welcomes the progress
made in the negotiations between the Palestinians and
Israelis, which led to the Declaration of Principles and
complementary agreements, the latest being the agreement
on the second phase of expanded self-rule in the West
Bank. Implementation by the Israeli Government of those
agreements would be an important and essential step
towards enabling the Palestinian people to exercise its
right to self-determination and to the creation of its
independent State on its national soil, like any other
people in the world.
In the same context, we are of the view that the
achievement of a just, comprehensive and permanent
peace in the Middle East is contingent on making tangible
progress on the Syrian and Lebanese tracks. This will
require a greater international effort, especially on the part
of the two sponsors of the peace process, to encourage
the Israeli Government to comply with its undertakings
and obligations in the context of the principle of “land for
peace” and of Security Council resolutions 242 (1967),
338 (1973) and 425 (1978), which stipulate complete and
unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all the occupied
Arab and Palestinian territories, including the holy city of
Al-Quds, the Syrian Golan and southern Lebanon.
The maintenance of international peace and security
is a collective international responsibility that requires the
existence of political will, a new approach and the
adoption of transparency, instead of the application of
double standards, if the declared intentions in the field of
disarmament and the elimination of weapons of mass
destruction are to be translated into concrete realities. In
this field, it behoves the international community to take
firmer steps to prevent the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and the possibility of their use in any region of
the world.
Proceeding from the importance we attach to the
achievement of common security, we announce that on 25
September 1995, the Government of the United Arab
Emirates completed the legal procedures for acceding to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
This is in conformity with our position which calls for the
creation of zones that are free from all weapons of mass
destruction, especially in the Middle East. This is a goal
that cannot be achieved so long as Israel continues to
refuse to submit to the system of international monitoring
and safeguards or to accede to the Treaty on the
12

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a posture that
weakens the credibility of the Treaty.
In spite of regional and international efforts to rescue
Somalia from its plight, conflicts between the disputing
factions continue. We therefore call on those factions to end
the bloodshed, to renounce conflict and to work towards a
settlement that would restore Somalia’s national unity,
security and stability.
After more than three years of crimes of murder,
destruction and “ethnic cleansing” that have continued to be
committed by the Serbian forces against the people of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a new turning-point
has emerged in the form of the recent peace negotiations
that have led to a preliminary agreement on the
fundamental principles for a comprehensive settlement
based on the decisions of international legality.
The United Arab Emirates, which has continued to call
upon the parties, since the outbreak of the conflict,
especially on the Serbian side, to resort to peaceful dialogue
instead of military force, today renews its support for all
the efforts undertaken by the international community,
especially the Contact Groups of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, the European Union and the United
States of America, to solve this crisis peacefully and to
guarantee respect for the territorial sovereignty of Bosnia
and Herzegovina. At the same time, we stress the need, in
accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United
Nations, to lift the arms embargo imposed on Bosnia and
Herzegovina, in order to prevent the repetition of the acts
of aggression, massacre and “ethnic cleansing” that the
Serbian forces have perpetrated against Bosnian civilians,
particularly Muslims.
In spite of the positive situations which the changes in
economic and social situations at the national, regional and
international levels gave rise to over the past few years, the
developing countries have continued to suffer from hunger,
poverty and an aggravated debt burden, side by side with
the decline in the prices of primary commodities, and the
inequitable measures that the developed countries continue
to apply as part of their economic and trade policies and
that contribute to widening further the economic and social
gap between them on the one hand and the developing
countries on the other. In view of this situation,
responsibility for the resumption of dialogue between the
countries of the North and the South rests with the
international community, in order for it to serve equally the
interests of the developed and the developing countries
alike.
In the midst of the celebrations on the occasion of
the fiftieth anniversary of the United Nations, the United
Arab Emirates supports the international call for
evaluation, reform and development in the structures of
the United Nations, especially with regard to increasing
the membership of the Security Council and ensuring the
transparency and equitable geographical representation
needed if the Organization is to face up to the great
challenges, whether at the level of consolidating
international peace and security or at the level of
promoting economic and social development.
We should like also to emphasize the need for
cooperation between the United Nations and regional
organizations with a view to creating a wider framework
of coordination and consultation, and with the aim of
reaching joint peaceful solutions to current conflicts based
on international law, with a view to strengthening security
and stability and promoting development.
In conclusion, we hope that these aspirations will
help shape and strengthen the commitment of all States to
the principles of the Charter and the provisions of
international law and will form a framework for the
renewed unification of the power and determination of
this Organization, which over the last fifty years has
remained a symbol of hope in the ability of humanity to
free itself from the scourges of war, hunger and disease
and to live in lasting peace and security.