Allow
me first, Sir, to congratulate Mr. Razali Ismail on his
unanimous election as President of the General Assembly
at its fifty-first session and to wish him every success. I
would also like to thank his predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas
do Amaral, for the outstanding manner in which he carried
out his duties.
The succession of Governments, which is a defining
principle of Israeli democracy, has recently brought to
power a new Government in Israel. A section of the
international community has deemed this democratic Israeli
choice impertinent, suggesting that it would work against
regional peace. In response to this prejudice I would like to
make a simple statement: Israel is united in its quest for
peace. It is not a question of good people and peace-seekers
on one side and mischief-makers and people who reject
peace on the other. In Israel, those on the left and right
converge in their quest for peace, their sensibilities and
differences notwithstanding.
I wish to raise the recent history of the Israeli-Arab
peace process in order to dispel any ambiguity regarding
the practice of peace in Israel and to show that the new
majority cannot be disqualified from efforts to achieve
peace. The peace between Israel and Egypt is a founding
landmark of coexistence between Israelis and Arabs. The
Madrid Conference, to which I had the honour of
contributing, also bears the special stamp of the pioneers of
peace, to whose achievements the new majority in Israel are
the direct heirs.
The firm commitment of the Netanyahu Government
with respect to the Oslo accords is also closely tied to the
peace process, which our immediate neighbours, Egypt and
Jordan, helped to shape. However, my Government’s swift
engagement in the peace process has been minimized,
reduced and distorted. The meetings that the Prime
Minister and the Minister of Defence of the State of Israel
and I have had with the Chairman of the Palestinian
Authority have been met with sarcasm and given only
secondary importance. Those meetings dealt precisely
with the substance and the content of peace. They
initiated the ways and means necessary for the
achievement of peace. They amplified the resonance of
the Oslo accords and extended mutual Israeli-Palestinian
recognition to new sections of society and Israeli political
classes. It is Israel’s determination to reach peace
according to the policies and fundamental guidelines of
the new Government.
On its road to peace, the Government of Israel is
guided by several principles, which I would like to
expound. For us, security is neither an obsession nor a
blind belief. It touches upon our very existence in a
region where, unfortunately, threats and instability still
rage. Security must be the cornerstone in the architecture
of peace. It cannot, under any circumstances, tag along
behind a process in which terrorism and violence have not
yet spoken their last word.
Negotiations themselves, through their joint creative
energies, allow us to control the dangers and drifts. The
battle against terrorism and its infrastructures and its
sources of financing and assistance is not only for us to
fight. We solemnly call upon the United Nations
relentlessly to pursue active cooperation in the struggle
against terrorism and in condemning it unequivocally. It
is imperative to preserve the Israeli-Palestinian peace
process free from violence.
I have just returned from the Washington summit,
held at the initiative of President Clinton. On behalf of
the Government and the people of Israel, I wish, from this
rostrum, to thank the President and the Secretary of State
of the United States for their exemplary contribution to
peace by bringing the parties together and for their
profound commitment to reinvigorating the peace process.
In this respect the role and contribution of the United
States remain of great importance.
On Sunday the Israeli and Palestinian teams will
convene again in an attempt to resolve their differences in
respect of the various agreements. We are responsible to
our people and to our whole region in this matter. We
must therefore display good faith and mutual
understanding in order to fulfil our mission, and to send
out the message of stable peace and lasting security.
12

The Washington summit reconfirmed the principles
and guidelines for the negotiations. I associate myself
wholeheartedly with President Clinton’s statement that face-
to-face negotiations in a constructive atmosphere are the
key to resolving problems. A future free of hostility and the
renunciation of violence: these represent the very basis of
mutual efforts for peace.
The choice is in our hands. Will we opt for
cooperation, progress, real peace and security? Or will we
revert to the dark days of conflict, confrontation and
violence, thereby putting an end to all hope? For its part,
Israel has chosen hope.
Another major principle in our search for peace is the
will of the partners to allow a tangible peace to exist.
Regional cooperation is a critical factor in ensuring peace
and stability. Israel entertains no dreams of economic
hegemony; it wishes to play its fair role in the creation of
regional cooperation. This is a basic principle of
normalization. Peace and normalization are one and
indivisible. Consequently, if we are to follow the logic of
peace and dialogue, we cannot risk having normalization
taken hostage and brought to a halt.
Israel makes no secret that normalization of its
relations with the Arab world must be fully implemented.
This means comprehensive political and economic relations,
and the broadest possible intellectual, cultural and spiritual
acceptance. Some of our neighbours still view Israel as a
body foreign to the region. Normalization must erase
forever the residue of this ideological negation.
Normalization is the indispensable cement for keeping
together the edifice of peace.
One of our immediate goals is the resumption of
negotiations with Syria on the basis of the Madrid
principles, which inaugurated the dialogue between the two
countries. We recognize Syria’s important role in the
establishment of lasting peace in our region. From this
rostrum, we call upon President Al-Assad to resume
negotiations.
As to Lebanon, we have no territorial disputes with
Lebanon. We are committed to its sovereignty. Lebanon
can be fertile ground for the restoration of confidence and
the building of peace.
Egypt and its President, Mr. Hosni Mubarak, are our
partners in peace. They are the authors and actors that have
always been engaged in all stages of the peace process.
Jordan is unquestionably a decisive factor in the
building of peace in our region. A man of peace and
dialogue, His Majesty King Hussein has actively
supported the peace process and has provided a vital
guarantee of continuity. The Washington summit enjoyed
his complete support.
On the long path to peace, the country of Morocco,
the country of my birth and family roots, has always
walked and illuminated the path of Israeli-Arab
reconciliation. The vision displayed by His Majesty King
Hassan II has left its distinctive mark on the entire Arab-
Israeli dialogue. The Moroccan King will continue his
essential role and breathe into peace the remarkable
inspiration of his solidarity.
I would like to pay tribute also to the active support
of Tunisia. Oman, Qatar and, more recently, Mauritania
have all helped to consolidate peace efforts.
The peace process has benefitted from the
considerable support of the co-sponsors, the United States
and Russia, and from the active and positive contribution
of the European Union and Norway and of Powers such
as Japan and Canada.
Once again, I wish solemnly to reaffirm Israel’s
irreversible commitment and determination to pursue the
path of peace.
Since the dawn of history our region has been a
meeting point of diverse civilizations and cultures, a
vibrant wellspring of progress for all of humanity. At the
crossroads of continents and countries, the Middle East
must, in times of peace, discover again the genius of this
place and the richness of its edifying civilizations. Arabs
and Jews must pool their knowledge and wisdom to
regenerate their vocation as the promoters of life and
humanity.
Through international cooperation, Israel is sharing
with young countries from Africa to Asia, from Latin
America to China, its achievements and assets in the
fields of agriculture, health and science.
We hope that the day will come when a regional
security system will be established in the Middle East to
provide a cooperative multilateral response to all security
problems. The advantage of this regional approach is that
it is based on direct negotiations between the States of the
region. The first stage is to build confidence, and
thereafter we must put arms control and disarmament
13

mechanisms into place. For this reason, Israel welcomed the
establishment of the Arms Control and Regional Security
Working Group as part of the multilateral talks. We hope
that in the future this framework will encompass all States
of the Middle East.
Israel’s position is defined by a dual mandate: to set
ambitious objectives, and to pursue them pragmatically and
realistically. After peace and reconciliation have been
established among all the States of the region, Israel will
endeavour to establish in the Middle East a zone free of
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as well as
ballistic missiles. This demilitarization will be subjected to
rigorous verification.
Negotiations to establish such a zone will commence
following the signing of bilateral peace accords between
Israel and all the countries of the region. In the meantime
Israel will implement confidence-building measures that
will increase openness and transparency and, thereby, make
a contribution to easing tensions and preventing all armed
conflict.
We generally prefer regional security arrangements.
However, Israel is in favour of the implementation of
certain aspects of international mechanisms for arms control
and disarmament where appropriate. Accordingly, Israel
signed the Convention on conventional weapons and
adopted a moratorium on the manufacture and export of
anti-personnel landmines. It has also signed the Treaty
against the use of chemical weapons and now the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. Israel will
consider ratification of that Treaty depending upon
developments in the region, particularly the adoption of that
Treaty by the major countries.
Israel has thus demonstrated its determination to be
involved, whenever possible, in the efforts of the
international community to prevent the spread of
conventional and non-conventional weapons.
Israel strongly desires to be an active and fully-fledged
member of the family of nations represented in this
Organization. We note with regret and deep disappointment
that the question of our membership in a regional group has
still not been resolved. Israel is thus deprived of the right
available to all States Members of the United Nations to
participate on an equal footing in all its activities. This
impairs the principle of equality among sovereign nations
under the Charter of the United Nations. I hope that this
injustice will be rectified and that Israel will finally be able
to act within this Organization on the same footing as all
other Member States.
It is with the subject of Jerusalem, whose very name
is invoked in so many prayers for peace, that I wish to
conclude. Jerusalem is the cradle of the three great
religions. We reaffirm this status daily by respecting and
ensuring total freedom of worship and spiritual expression
for all believers. It is an entirely shared religious reality
to which Israel has made a profound contribution.
Jerusalem, the horizon of our dreams and prayers,
has throughout our exile and dispersions constituted the
summit of our collective being. Capital of Israel, both in
ancient and modern times, never has Jerusalem been the
capital of any country other than Israel.
Rarely if ever has any sovereign State been denied
the right to freely determine its capital. Israel, the people
of peace restored to sovereignty after 2,000 years of exile,
has returned to the city of peace, Yerushalayim:
Jerusalem. Thereby it demonstrates its unswerving
devotion to its ancestral capital to renew its psalm of
peace: “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem”. We shall
tirelessly dedicate all our efforts to that search for peace.


First of all, Sir, I offer you my delegation’s
heartiest congratulations on the occasion of your election to
the presidency of the fifty-first session of the General
Assembly. Your rich experience in bilateral and multilateral
diplomacy is, for my delegation, a guarantee for the success
of our work. My country, the Republic of Vanuatu, and
yours, Malaysia, enjoy friendly and cooperative relations.
I also wish to express my country’s thanks to your
predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral, for the
commitment, competence and skill with which he guided
our work at the fiftieth session of the General Assembly.
I wish to express my country’s appreciation to the
Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, for the
remarkable work that he has consistently done since the
very beginning of his term of office in the service of our
Organization. I reaffirm here my Government’s support for
the principle by which, according to tradition, Africa has a
right to a second mandate.
My Government has made its modest contribution to
disarmament and arms-control measures. This modest
contribution has been made in the areas of conventional
weapons and weapons of mass destruction alike. With
regard to conventional weapons, on 10 July 1996 the
Republic of Vanuatu provided the Secretary-General,
through the Centre for Disarmament Affairs, with
information on imports, exports and the re-exportation of
weapons covered by the Register of Conventional Arms
established by the Secretary-General under General
Assembly resolution 46/36 L of 9 December 1991. The
information I have mentioned is contained in the report of
the Secretary-General in document A/51/300 of 20 August
1996.
I wish to reaffirm the position of the Government of
the Republic of Vanuatu on the complete elimination of
anti-personnel landmines. Indeed, at the fiftieth session of
the General Assembly, the Republic of Vanuatu voted in
favour of resolution 50/70 O entitled “Moratorium on the
export of anti-personnel landmines”. As we all know, the
majority of the victims of anti-personnel landmines are
women and children.
In the area of weapons of mass destruction, my
Government has made its modest contribution through
measures at both the regional and international levels. Let
us take a look first at the regional level.
The Republic of Vanuatu acceded last year to the
Treaty of Rarotonga establishing the South Pacific
Nuclear Free Zone. I take this opportunity, on behalf of

the people and the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu,
to congratulate the United States of America, the French
Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, which signed the Treaty last year. My
Government welcomed the ratification last September by
the French Republic of the Protocols to the Rarotonga
Treaty and pays tribute to its initiative of sending an expert
team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to conduct a radiological study at the sites of French
nuclear tests in French Polynesia.
In the area of global nuclear disarmament, on 24
September 1996 I signed, on behalf of my Government, the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty adopted by the
General Assembly on 10 September 1996. Moreover, my
country acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, opened for signature in Moscow, London
and Washington on 1 July 1968, and supports the indefinite
extension of that Treaty.
The Republic of Vanuatu, like other Members of our
Organization, took note of the Advisory Opinion rendered
last summer by the International Court of Justice, the legal
organ of the United Nations, on the legality of the threat or
use of nuclear weapons. This Advisory Opinion is an
additional commitment in favour of nuclear disarmament.
The major objective of measures taken and to be taken by
the Republic of Vanuatu in the coming years is to
demonstrate our commitment to the complete and general
disarmament of our entire planet.
I would like to express my Government’s views on
some regional conflicts, namely, those in the former
Yugoslavia in Central Europe, in the Great Lakes region in
the heart of the African continent, and in the Middle East.
Regarding the situation in the former Yugoslavia in Central
Europe, my Government welcomes the elections held on 14
September as an important step forward for the future of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the Great Lakes region of
Africa, my Government supports the efforts of our
Organization, in close cooperation with the Organization of
African Unity, to avert a widespread war in that region.
Finally, with respect to the situation in the Middle East, my
Government congratulates the Palestinian and Israeli
delegations on having decided last Sunday, 6 October 1996,
to resume discussions that should lead to a lasting peace in
that region.
In the area of international law, the United Nations,
through the International Law Commission, must continue
to play a major role in the codification of international law.
In this respect, the Republic of Vanuatu joins with other
Members of the United Nations in calling for the
convening of an international conference of
plenipotentiaries entrusted with considering the draft
statute of an international court prepared by the
International Law Commission and with concluding a
convention establishing an international criminal court.
In the area of human rights, in September 1995 the
National Parliament of the Republic of Vanuatu adopted
a law on the office of mediators. The mediator began his
work in late 1995. I take this opportunity to thank the
Government of Papua New Guinea, in the context of
cooperation between members of the Melanesian
Spearhead Group, for its valuable technical assistance in
helping my Government to implement fully and with
relative celerity the provisions of the aforementioned law.
Above and beyond the role of mediator, there is,
obviously, the fundamental law — the Constitution of the
Republic of Vanuatu — which guarantees the
fundamental rights and individual freedoms of all of its
citizens.
I wish to recall the statement made here by the
Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu at last year’s
commemoration of the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption
of the Charter of the United Nations, in which he
reaffirmed the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu’s
support for the reform and rational management of the
United Nations system. I also take this opportunity to
express my Government’s opinion that the scale of
assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of our
Organization must faithfully reflect the capacity to pay of
the Member States of our Organization.
In the area of development, my Government will
participate in the special session of the General Assembly
next year devoted to the assessment of Agenda 21 and
hopes, with other delegations that have expressed this idea
here, that new commitments will be undertaken towards
the environment. In this respect, the Environment Unit of
Vanuatu’s national bureau of the environment, created in
1986 under the auspices of the Ministry of Natural
Resources, will work in close collaboration with the
environmental programme of the Oceanian region in
preparing the Pacific region’s contribution to the work of
the special session of the General Assembly.
Last year, through a decision of the Ministry of
Home Affairs and Decentralization to apply the law on
decentralization within the Republic of Vanuatu, my
Government reduced the number of provinces from 11
to 6. The purpose of this reduction was, first, to allow the
2

major islands to help the smaller ones; secondly, to allocate
financial and human resources to all of the provinces; and,
finally, to demonstrate the will of my Government to
decentralize administrative and public functions for the
benefit of provinces. In other words, it encourages
communities and individuals to participate in the economic
and social development of the Republic. In this regard, I
take this opportunity to thank the United Nations
Development Programme in its capacity as a multilateral
partner in the regional efforts of all Oceanian States and,
more particularly, for its valuable assistance to the
Government of the Republic of Vanuatu in drafting its book
on sustainable human development in Vanuatu. My
Government presented this book to the press on
23 September.
In conclusion, I wish to reaffirm here the faith of the
Republic of Vanuatu in the United Nations.


I should like to
begin my presentation by congratulating Mr. Razali Ismail
on his election to the presidency of this session of the
General Assembly. It bears testimony to this Organization’s
confidence in and high regard for his skills and abilities.
Also, I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Freitas do
Amaral for the efficient manner in which he presided over
the fiftieth anniversary session of the United Nations.
At last year’s session, I spoke of the faith of the
Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis in the United Nations
as the only global Organization able to balance the interests
of the weak against those of the strong. I spoke also of the
need for individual countries to work to develop approaches
to collective problem-solving and partnership. Saint Kitts
and Nevis reiterates this faith, which, I believe, is amply
justified.
Very recently the United Nations came to the
assistance of my country and made available support and
resources to aid the process of constitutional reform, which,
hopefully, will avert further fragmentation and preserve the
integrity of Saint Kitts and Nevis. I should like sincerely to
record my thanks to the Secretary-General for this kind
gesture.
I said previously that my Government does not ask for
hand-outs. We do not expect charity. Our participation in
this forum is the result of our commitment to
multilateralism. All we ask for is genuine partnership,
opportunity and an environment in which we all can
prosper.
My party, while in opposition, developed an action
plan for the progressive growth of the people of Saint
Kitts and Nevis. Today, as the duly elected Government,
we have readily realized that the problems facing small
developing States keep increasing. But this has not
diminished our resolve. One year ago, my Government
began the difficult and trying task of implementing our
policies and devising new strategies to address the
stubborn problems facing my country. We recognize that
the coexistence in any society of the threat of narco-
trafficking, youth unemployment and poverty is a recipe
for social chaos. We in Saint Kitts and Nevis are
therefore committed to ensuring that the young people
inherit a legacy of hope and live in an environment in
which dreams are not only kept alive but are realized.
We fully appreciate that the challenges ahead are
great, but we also see great possibilities, and we are
determined to embrace the opportunities. However, to
move our people forward we will require partnership; we
cannot do it alone.
To this end, I welcome with enthusiasm the
statement last week by the Secretary of State for Foreign
and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom. I am
encouraged by his intervention because it speaks to the
fundamental issues that we in small States have for so
long worked to bring to the top of the international
agenda.
Last year I appealed to Member States to commit to
a genuine partnership between the developed and the
developing worlds. The developing world — small States
in particular — have for far too long been languishing on
the periphery of international affairs and are often
corralled into the mainstream only when issues of votes
or candidatures are at the centre of debates and individual
national policies.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom spoke of
the need for the developed world to pursue policies that
will allow the economies of developing countries to
expand through export-led growth and the abolition of
barriers to trade in the developed world. I fully support
this call. My delegation would like to see the Bretton
Woods institutions come to the aid of small States by
creating adequate structures to allow these States to
develop economically and participate better in the world
17

system. There must be a period of transition to encourage
small States to integrate into the mainstream of
international interaction.
We all share a common responsibility to ensure that
developing countries are more equitably integrated into the
world economic system. We must break the insidious cycle
of dependency and replace it with bonds of partnership and
cooperation. We are our brothers’ keepers. This must be
given priority in our national and international policies.
The developed world must avoid outmoded
perceptions that suggest that it is best qualified to prescribe
strategies for growth in developing countries. Attention will
also have to be paid to indigenous priorities in developing
countries. I say to the Assembly that there can be no
prescription without consultation. Attempts at development
without recognizing the peculiar problems of small States
and the responsibilities of the developed world will not
promote sustainable growth.
We speak repeatedly of hope, and the promise of the
new millennium, yet sometimes overlook many of the
problems plaguing us today. My Government looks to this
new era with great optimism and unbridled hope that we
can achieve sustainable development, that sustainable
human growth can be realized, and that our people can
afford to dream of a life beyond the expectations of their
forebears.
However, I fear for our children’s dreams in a world
where the products of developing countries are
discriminated against and dubious tariffs make our goods
seem uncompetitive. I see definite cause for concern when
friendly countries that are fully cognizant of the need for
the limited preferential access our region enjoys, pursue
policies inimical to the development and growth of our
countries. This strategy is not free trade. I fear for the
progress of my people when development is measured in
cold statistical terms that ignore social transformation and
sustainable development.
I fear for the future of my children if small, vulnerable
States such as my own are continuously graduated out of
aid-recipient-country status simply because the gross
national product per capita is considered high. This policy
does not take into account our high per capita cost of
infrastructure development; it does not take into account the
frequency of hurricanes and other natural disasters, or the
diseconomy of scale faced by our small enterprises.
I fear for my brothers and sisters in the Windward
Islands, whose very livelihood is threatened and could be
seriously undermined by the disputes over Windward
Island banana exports. If the economies of the Windward
Islands are affected, my country, too, will suffer. Our
economies are very closely linked. We share a common
currency, a common central bank and, of course, a
common future.
It seems that the international community would
readily punish growth. Whenever small States experience
relative growth, instead of lending further assistance to
ensure that they emerge from the quagmire of deepening
poverty, necessary resources and support systems are
taken away, and these countries find themselves being
graduated out of concessional assistance programmes.
This is wrong. This is inhumane. When we rob a man of
the means to feed and educate himself and his family,
how can we expect him to contribute productively to civil
society? This is a world of people, and its organization
must be about people. Their needs should not become
secondary to systems, policies and experiments. Structures
should be used to further the goals and aspirations of our
peoples despite differences in economies, populations and
size. Our peoples all share a common dream: the dream
of freedom to chart their own destinies; the dream of self-
reliance; the dream of a better standard of living.
On the question of the environment, it is
inconceivable that the very countries that agree to
contribute to coastal erosion management and fund studies
on environmental protection would wish to trans-ship
hazardous toxic waste through our waterways. The
fragility of my region’s ecosystems, the openness of the
economies, the overwhelming reliance on food imports,
and the susceptibility of the tourism product put us
precariously, and, perhaps, uniquely, at the mercy of
external forces.
Saint Kitts and Nevis intends to preserve the
standard of living we have achieved and to ensure a
prosperous future for all of our peoples. My Government
strongly urges the international community to respect our
determination to make the Caribbean a nuclear-free zone
and to keep it free from toxic pollutants. The region
already suffers from the consequences of rising sea levels,
coastal erosion and the destructive effects of natural
disasters. The catalogue is very long; we cannot add
further problems to it.
Small island developing States require committed,
long-term assistance in environmental protection. I am
18

convinced that sustainable development and environmental
preservation are inexorably linked. We cannot make token
gestures of support on one level only to undermine support
on another. We need to enforce existing international
instruments, promote cooperation and allow the United
Nations to play a more central and coordinating role in
developing appropriate machinery for bringing together
political will and financial and technological resources to
guarantee results.
I call on the United Nations to devise a comprehensive
and integrated approach to addressing sustainable
development. Additionally, I urge developing countries to
work more closely together to develop indigenous strategies
and innovative approaches in order to solve the problems of
development.
The plethora of issues which come before the United
Nations are critical. Therefore, it is necessary that the
United Nations undergo substantive reform that will address
resource distribution and the implementation of
recommendations. We must be careful not to address
reform in a superficial way. We have to commit ourselves
to reforms which allow the Organization to respond more
effectively to the problems which face Member States.
It is our collective responsibility to restore and
strengthen the international agenda of the United Nations
and support its role and performance in the social,
institutional and economic fields. I believe that the
Organization can help to fuse our individual and collective
goals. However, Member countries must believe in the
international relevance of this Organization.
It is important for us to promote consensus in
addressing the important questions of budgetary and
administrative reform of this, our Organization.
Irrespective of national ambitions, irrespective of size
or resources, the United Nations is the only global
institution whose membership gives it the mandate to
examine the vast array of problems that affect the entire
community of nations.
The work being undertaken to reform the United
Nations should be structured in such a way as to eliminate
unnecessary wastage and bureaucratic inefficiency. At the
same time, we should not use the problems as an excuse to
diminish our commitment to the strengthening and re-
energizing of the United Nations.
When we look at international affairs, democracy is
still one of our most sacred aspirations. But it needs
tangible institutional and infrastructural support. My
Government welcomes the extension of the United
Nations mission in Haiti which we believe is crucial to
consolidating and furthering the cause of democracy and
human resource development in Haiti. We should not
expect to strengthen democracy in Haiti without
addressing the systemic causes of poverty, illiteracy and
violence and the absence of democratic institutions. The
people of Haiti will eventually inherit the rewards of
peace when commitment to long-term social, political and
economic development is assured. It is unwise for States
to use politics and partisanship to impede progress in
Haiti. Its people long for an opportunity to become
masters of their own fate, and they should be given that
chance to pursue their national aspirations.
My delegation welcomes the prospects for peace in
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the progress towards
implementing the recommendations of the Dayton
Accords. We welcome the willingness of the parties to
develop democratic institutions, enhance human rights and
see to the return and settlement of displaced persons. The
situation in this region is still quite fragile. We must
continue to struggle for peace, and people must be made
to believe that such atrocities will never, ever happen
again.
The situation in the Middle East has regrettably
taken a turn for the worse. I appeal to the region’s
Governments to recommit themselves to peace, the only
viable option for attaining coexistence, security, stability
and genuine progress for all parties concerned. We further
urge the Governments to continue to respect the
agreements reached and to commit to their
implementation. The successes of past years should never
be squandered.
The Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis lends its
support to the work of the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda and commends the work of the United
Nations and the Organization of African Unity in
attempting to resolve these challenging and often thorny
issues. We also urge all factions in Burundi to give
negotiations a fighting chance. Violence breeds violence,
but peace gives birth to partnership. Peace gives birth to
growth and to economic development.
We have circulated a document which reflects our
policy regarding Taiwan. Our policy is to respect the
territorial integrity of all countries and to refrain from
19

interference in the internal affairs of all Member States.
Because of our traditional relationship with the 21.3 million
people on Taiwan, we have come to respect their economic
stability and progress. Their growing democracy and their
contribution to the developing world have not gone
unnoticed.
We believe they have an important and continuing role
to play in international development strategies. We are
confident that whatever difficulties exist between the
Chinese people separated by the Taiwan Strait can be
resolved by the Chinese people themselves and in a spirit
of fraternity and good will. We urge the international
community to be ready, if necessary, to provide the
mechanisms to facilitate dialogue and cooperation.
Resolution of the stalemate would significantly contribute
to the cause of development worldwide and to peace and
security in the region.
We look forward to the implementation of the
Platform for Action adopted at the Fourth World
Conference on Women in Beijing. My Government believes
that this is a significant step and a triumph for all women
worldwide. It will allow them to achieve full equality of
opportunity and equitable integration into the mainstream of
decision-making and the development process.
We should bear in mind when discussing the question
of human rights that we commit a fundamental error by
selectively disregarding the right to economic survival and
social well-being. When we single out human rights and
freedom we do grave injustice to those people languishing
below the poverty line, unable to determine the course of
their own lives.
Fundamental to achieving tangible results is the
necessity of adopting a comprehensive and wholesome
approach to human rights. It is not nearly enough to ensure
political suffrage and freedom of expression, although these
are extremely important, without establishing mechanisms
to foster social self-reliance and economic independence.
To promote human rights in the wider sense is to
complement and consolidate a democratic culture within
any given society.
Human rights protection also means protecting the
rights of children against hunger, against mental and
physical abuse, against prostitution, against trafficking in
children and against pornography. Therefore, we must
attack the ills of poverty, illiteracy and deprivation and
enact punitive legislation. We support the first international
conference on the sexual exploitation of minors, held in
Stockholm, as a significant step and an important
initiative to raise awareness and develop strategies.
In conclusion, I challenge the international
community to give effect to promises with solutions and
tangible results. If we fail to design appropriate strategies
today to address present problems, we are doomed to
repeat past mistakes.
The time for action is overdue. Please, we can wait
no longer and we must delay no longer.


Last year we met in a
celebratory mood. But after every party comes the sober
dawn, and we now face the sombre reality that the United
Nations risks marginalization. Its role in the twenty-first
century is not to be taken for granted.
The sad truth is that today the United Nations plays
little or no practical role in the management of the most
important political, strategic and economic questions of our
time. But this was not always the case as we recall: the
United Nations played a significant role in easing the pangs
of decolonization. Even at the height of the cold war, the
United Nations was not an unimportant instrument through
which the super-Powers could manage regional proxy
conflicts and, on occasion, even direct nuclear
confrontation.
This contrast with its past should lead us to regard the
present and future of the United Nations with deep concern.
We can no longer postpone a critical examination of
fundamental issues. It is for this reason that my delegation
is especially gratified to see Malaysia occupy the
presidency of the General Assembly at this important
turning point for the future of the United Nations. We in
the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)
know Tan Sri Razali Ismail for his commitment and clear
thinking.
I can do no better than echo what you, Mr. President,
said about reform in the first plenary meeting of the
General Assembly at its fifty-first session; we entirely agree
with you. The interminable debates about the need for
United Nations reform have led to precious little real
reform. These debates have served to conceal and not to
clarify basic issues. An important theme has been the need
for greater efficiency; we all support that. No one can
seriously argue against more productivity, better
management and less waste. The key question, however, is:
efficient to do what?
What kind of United Nations do we really want and
for what purposes? We all know that the purposes of the
United Nations are enshrined in the very first Article of
the Charter. Nevertheless, the answers are not self-
evident. We all know that the first of the United Nations
purposes is
“To maintain international peace and security”.
But what does this mean? The more extravagant post-cold
war hopes for a new Agenda for Peace have proved
illusory. The failure of the United Nations Protection
Force (UNPROFOR) raises troubling questions about the
role of the United Nations after the cold war. The
essential lesson to be drawn from UNPROFOR’s fate is
not merely how the Security Council became a political
theatre to assuage the domestic concerns of some of its
principal members; nor is it only the truism that the
United Nations could do no more than what its principal
members allowed it to do. The real tragedy for the United
Nations in Bosnia is that when the major Powers finally
decided to get serious about what they determined to be
a threat to international peace and security, their preferred
instrument was clearly not the United Nations.
Again, we all agree that poverty breeds conflict, and
that the gap between the rich and poor is widening. Yet
the Agenda for Development has been mired in
theological arguments about the definition of sustainable
development. Now I do not mean to suggest that clarity
of objectives is unimportant. But the real issues are not
that complicated, because what the least developed most
urgently need is not intellectual sophistry but help: help
to build the institutions and formulate the policies that
will allow them to plug into the global economy. The
United Nations has not adequately met these challenges.
The stalemate in reform is not merely because of the
difficulty of the questions or because of conflicting
interests. Of course, the issues are thorny and differences
in interests inevitable in any system of sovereign States.
That is precisely why we need the United Nations, as the
Charter envisages, “to be a centre for harmonizing the
actions of nations”.
Why then is the United Nations today less able to
perform this vital function? In my view, it is because it
has been reluctant to adequately confront the implications
of the two most significant developments of our time.
First, the end of the cold war and, secondly, the
emergence of a truly global world economy. The
conjunction of these two events is changing the manner
in which States relate to each other in unprecedented and
fundamental ways. Yet these developments are at best
12

only imperfectly reflected in the United Nations. And any
international organization that divorces itself from
international realities has no future.
The most obvious consequence for the United Nations
since the end of the cold war has been the great increase in
membership. But the change in the nature of Members has
occasioned less comment. In 1945, small States, which I
define as those having a population of 10 million or less,
formed 59 per cent of a United Nations with 51 Members.
Half a century later, in 1995, small States by the same
definition formed the same percentage of a United Nations
of 185 Members. And 23 of the 26 countries — more than
88 per cent — that joined the United Nations after 1989
were also small States. I expect that when the United
Nations membership expands further, as it surely must, the
majority of new Members will also be small States.
This is because changes in the structure of the
international economy engendered by technological
advances and the end of the cold war have made size less
important in the determination of a country’s viability.
What matters most today is not merely the extent of a
State’s frontiers or the wealth of its resources; the key is
the ability of a State to integrate itself as part of a network,
and size is irrelevant to this.
The most important international networks are not
composed of relations between States. The critical networks
are increasingly defined by transnational patterns of
relationships between cities, regions and subregions that
may only imperfectly fit in with the formal political
boundaries of individual States. This again makes a
country’s size or its resources less important than its ability
to access these networks.
It is a fact that many small countries are also among
the less developed. This is not surprising given the skewed
distribution of international wealth. But the significant point
is that to be small is no longer an automatic or fatal
disability. It can even be advantageous. This has
emboldened many to seek self-determination. And since the
same trends have loosened the ability of capitals to control
their peripheries, many have succeeded.
Where economics leads, politics inevitably follows.
Paradoxically, the political consequence of increasing
economic integration of a globalized world economy is a
certain loosening of political bonds. We see the effects of
this most dramatically in the physical breakup of large and
diverse States. But these are exceptional situations. Even
when, as is more usual, the formal political boundaries
remain intact, the ability of capitals of large and relatively
homogeneous States to impose a single direction over all
their constituent parts is clearly diminishing. Power is
devolving everywhere. This trend is a new international
reality.
I do not wish to overstate the argument. So long as
sovereignty remains the chief organizing principle of the
international system, the exercise of force cannot be
discounted in inter-State relations. In war, size is not
entirely irrelevant, even though technology has made it
something less than the totally decisive factor it was in
the past. But war is an extreme condition of international
relations. Under normal conditions, the very notions of
power and wealth are being redefined and becoming more
diffuse, their different dimensions less prone to be
focused in just a few world capitals. Hierarchy is still a
fact of international life. But what does it really mean to
be a “great Power” at the end of the twentieth century?
The very phrase today sounds anachronistic.
Bereft of a simple strategic enemy, the post-cold-war
foreign policy decision-making of the major Powers is
increasingly localized, with domestic politics exercising
greater impact. The policies of big Powers in a globalized
world, where the economic and other interests of their
component parts may be at odds with those of the capital,
is becoming less coherent. The very notion of a single
national interest is becoming somewhat ambiguous.
All this is making it increasingly difficult for even
the biggest countries to routinely bring their power to
bear in an interdependent world, where an attack on an
opponent may well damage their own interests. Wielding
power is becoming more unpredictable even for those
who control its greatest instruments. It is not an accident
that the big Powers are now somewhat more cautious
about exercising power nakedly save in exceptional
circumstances and against States that are marginal in the
global economy.
I do not mean to suggest that the traditional notion
of international relations structured by the interactions of
a few big Powers pursuing their individual national
interests is entirely obsolete. But it is surely an inadequate
description of the world today. The balance of military
power is still important. But the strict distinction between
high politics and low politics on which the traditional
balance of power rested is increasingly blurred.
Now, all this ought to make a consultative,
multilateral process more attractive to everyone, and not
13

less attractive. Alas, this is not so. Herein lies the root of
the problems of the United Nations. All States, big and
small, are adjusting to the changing international system.
Indeed they have no choice. But not all are choosing to do
so in or through the United Nations. In the United Nations,
most of the Powers that we traditionally designate as
“great” have reacted with varying degrees of disquiet to
these new international realities.
Some, troubled by their decreasing ability to control
events even within their own frontiers, are frustrated at their
inability to impose their order on what is perceived as a
recalcitrant, unfamiliar and intrusive Organization. Others
see a threat to their position and prestige. Psychological
adjustments are always the most difficult to make. It is thus
not surprising that in the United Nations their reflex
reaction has generally been a stubborn defence of the status
quo.
In discussions on United Nations reform, this simple
fact is all too often obscured by the use of arcane and
convoluted jargon. I am encouraged, Mr. President, by your
reputation for plain speaking, for pulling aside the veil of
rhetoric and letting the truth be known. If the United
Nations is to be marginalized, let the responsibility clearly
be seen to lie where it should. This is most evident in the
two most critical and inter-related areas: Security Council
reform and finance.
Discussions on Security Council reform have
emphasized the Council's size and composition, and in
particular the possibility of the admission of new permanent
members. There is a wide consensus that in the event that
there should be agreement for an increase in the permanent
membership, an increase only by industrialised countries
would be unacceptable. Many countries agree that Japan
and Germany should become new permanent members
when consensus is reached on the expansion of the Security
Council. Nevertheless, crucial ambiguities remain about
whether new permanent members should have the veto. It
is especially difficult to imagine major Powers allowing
developing countries the veto over their policies. And
therefore the stalemate continues.
There is also widespread agreement that Security
Council reform should comprise a comprehensive package
that would include changes in the working methods of the
Security Council in the direction of greater transparency
and participation by the membership of the Organization as
a whole. But the permanent members have been reluctant
to admit any but the most cosmetic of changes to the
Security Council’s working methods. Yet this is the most
critical aspect of Security Council reform for the small
States which form the majority of United Nations
Members. Small countries do not aspire to permanent
membership. But as the principal organ for the
maintenance of international peace and security, the
Security Council’s working methods and its decision-
making processes are of vital and legitimate interest to
them because they can have direct a impact on their
security.
One of the most important and innovative proposals
currently on the table is for a reinterpretation of Article
31 of the Charter. This would allow greater participation
by non-members in informal Security Council
consultations when questions affecting them are being
considered. It was extremely discouraging that this
modest proposal was categorically rejected by almost
every permanent member. Indeed, most refused even to
seriously discuss it. It must surely be a basic principle of
elementary justice that parties most directly affected by a
particular situation should be allowed to present their
views directly to the body that will have the most
influence over any action that the United Nations may
take on that situation. That is in fact the precise reason
why Article 31 was included in the Charter in the first
place. The intention was clearly to reconcile great-Power
leadership with the principle of sovereign equality.
Informal consultations are an innovation that has
evolved over the years. All the most important decisions
the Security Council takes today are made informally by
permanent members. Even the participation of non-
permanent members in the real decisions is sometimes
more symbolic than significant. Formal meetings are
clearly only a choreographed ritual to set the final seal of
approval. A reinterpretation of Article 31 would not
require an amendment to the Charter, nor would it mean
that non-members must participate in all informal
consultations. It is therefore no real threat to the authority
of the permanent members; it is just an important reform
that would undoubtedly enhance the legitimacy, and hence
the general acceptability and effectiveness, of Security
Council decision-making by bringing the process more in
tune with the temper of our times.
I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not
suggesting that the size and composition of the Security
Council are unimportant. I understand the merit of the
claims for new permanent membership that have been
advanced by both industrialized and developing countries.
Singapore supports the expansion of the Security Council
by up to five new permanent members as part of a
14

comprehensive package that would, among other things,
include the consequent adjustment of non-permanent
membership to maintain a balanced ratio. But given the
profound changes in international relations that are under
way, refusing to seriously discuss anything but membership,
and even that with critical ambiguities, would be akin to
trying to prepare the United Nations for the twenty-first
century by applying a nineteenth-century model of great-
Power politics to it.
The same resistance to seriously engaging the
legitimate interests of the small-State majority of United
Nations Members also underlies the financial problems of
the United Nations. No one disagrees that the key reason
for the cash flow problems of the United Nations is the
failure of Member States to pay their dues in full and on
time.
There are various reasons why various Member States
have not met their legal obligations. Some are poor. But no
one has ever suggested that the largest debtor lacks the
capacity to pay. Its argument is that its assessed
contributions must be reduced because the state of its
domestic political consensus does not permit it to sustain its
current share of the United Nations budget. The financial
burdens, it is consequently argued, ought therefore be more
widely spread. I do not lightly dismiss such arguments.
They reflect the increasing difficulty of defining and
exercising great power that I had earlier called one of the
new international realities. I can therefore sympathize with
such arguments. But it is not politically acceptable to pick
and choose which of the new realities to emphasize when
useful, and which to ignore when inconvenient.
Several permanent members have complained of the
financial burdens they bear, and have sought to spread them
more widely. But there has never been any suggestion by
any of the big Powers that their control over critical United
Nations expenditure decisions, in particular peacekeeping
expenditures, should be proportionately diffused among the
majority of small countries which would be expected to
take up the financial slack that they want to discard. All the
permanent members have been reluctant to allow anything
more than the most superficial reexamination of their
authority or their relationship with the membership as a
whole. Discussions on the role of the General Assembly,
which is the only universal and truly representative United
Nations organ, have touched mainly on peripheral issues,
such as the timing of plenary meetings, the duration of the
general debate and the organization of the General
Assembly’s work.
No one should disagree that to put the United
Nations on a sound financial basis ought to be a common
endeavour. We certainly do not. But it must really be a
collective enterprise involving fair give and take. Political
resistance coalesces because it has become clear that the
majority are expected to give, while the few only take.
Resistance is underscored by the historical fact that the
percentage financial contributions of all permanent
members, except France, have been steadily reduced over
the years while their privileges have not. Resistance is
strengthened by the recollection that the United Nations
has in fact repeatedly made the financial adjustments
asked for, but as yet without any appreciable change in
the payment record of the largest contributor.
I do not suggest that this situation is the result of a
deliberate policy, since no country takes any pleasure in
being unable to pay its dues for whatever reason. But it
is politically incongruous and basically unfair to ask the
majority to assume a greater share of the financial
burdens without at the same time being prepared to allow
them any more authority over the most important
expenditure decisions. It is untenable to have an almost
total separation between the authority for launching
peacekeeping operations and how and who should pay for
them. The United Nations is the only organization in
which a small number of Members run up the largest bills
while everybody else pays them.
The stubborn defence of the status quo is all the
more striking because no one has asked for anything more
than the most modest and incremental adjustments to the
relationship between the General Assembly and the
Security Council to allow the general membership a little
greater participation in and shared responsibility for the
decision-making with the greatest budgetary implications.
Singapore is, of course, a small State, and I do not
claim to be a disinterested party. As a small State, we are
passionately concerned about and vitally engaged in the
future of the United Nations. However, our drawing
attention to the real obstacles to reform is not just in the
interests of small countries alone.
I have suggested that the paradoxical political
consequence of a globalized world economy is a certain
enhancement of centrifugal tendencies everywhere. A
universal international organization to play an integrative
role is therefore needed by everyone, big and small, if
this is not to lead to conflict. Only the United Nations can
play this role, and if it did not exist, we would have had
to invent it. But the United Nations can play this
15

integrative role only if the legitimate aspirations of the
small States are not ignored and if the majority do not
become increasingly alienated from the very Organization
that purports to represent them.
Some may dismiss the distance between the rhetoric
and the reality of the big-Power attitude towards United
Nations reform as simple hypocrisy. I do not accept such a
simplistic explanation. I can empathize with the far more
complex and wrenching psychological adjustments that the
big Powers need to make. The big Powers must summon
the political courage to begin this process and embrace the
reality of, and necessity for, change. I appeal to them to
work with us, the small-State majority, to make this truly
a United Nations for all — all — its Members.
Prestige does not depend solely on privilege, and
power shared is not power lost. The new international
realities are making a zero-sum conception of State power
obsolete. A credible United Nations, one that is not
regarded as the mere tool of its largest Members, will be a
more effective instrument for the foreign policies of all its
Members, big and small.
In closing, let me say that my delegation looks
forward to close collaboration with you, Sir, and all other
members over the next year to advance a collective vision
of a truly representative, effective and united United
Nations for the twenty-first century.


On behalf of the
Government and the people of the Republic of Korea, Sir,
I would like to express my sincere congratulations on your
assumption of the presidency of the fifty-first session of the
General Assembly. We are confident that under your able
leadership the Assembly will take action to revitalize the
world Organization, building on the foundation laid by your
predecessor, Mr. Diogo Freitas do Amaral of Portugal. My
gratitude goes also to the Secretary-General, Mr. Boutros
Boutros-Ghali, and the staff of the Secretariat for their
excellent work for this session.
The most pressing business of this Assembly is to
create the architecture for United Nations renewal. The
Member States, with vision and determination, need to
construct step by step a consensus on reform that will not
only bring the Organization out of its present crisis, but will
also prepare the world community to meet the challenges of
the twenty-first century. We welcome the ongoing efforts
to strengthen and revitalize the United Nations. But at the
same time we must admit that unless progress is accelerated
in the months ahead, there is a real danger that the
momentum and sense of purpose spawned by the fiftieth
anniversary could well be lost.
My Government actively supports the various working
groups of the General Assembly as they seek ways to make
the United Nations more effective, efficient and democratic.
As a member of the Group of Sixteen States in support of
renewing multilateralism, we are also pleased to actively
participate in the efforts to enhance the principle of
multilateralism. The Group’s joint statement embodying this
principle was reported to the General Assembly last
Wednesday by Prime Minister Persson of Sweden, on
behalf of the 16 Heads of State or Government.
All these efforts, however, will be of no use if
Member States fail either to meet their financial
obligations or to make the political compromises
necessary to produce a durable package of reforms. Let us
not forget that the very principles of multilateralism on
which the United Nations was founded are at risk. As was
so aptly put by the President of the General Assembly in
his 17 September inaugural speech, “the syndrome of
business as usual'” (Official Records of the General
Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Plenary Meetings, 1st
meeting, p. 3) must be discarded.
Our Organization is in serious financial trouble due
to the arrears and outstanding contributions of Member
States. The Security Council needs to be modernized to
reflect the expansion in United Nations membership, to be
more equitably balanced geographically and to work
efficiently, transparently and democratically. To better
serve the needs of economic development and to reduce
duplication, we should undertake a sweeping reassessment
of the scores of subsidiary bodies of the Economic and
Social Council and of the Assembly itself. While we
welcome General Assembly resolution 50/227 as a step in
the right direction, much more needs to be done. History
will not judge the United Nations on how many
committees it forms or how many resolutions it passes,
but on how much it does on the ground, day in and day
out, to further peace, prosperity and justice for the
world’s peoples.
Today I would like to focus my remarks on four
major challenges facing the United Nations and then to
say a few words about the situation on the Korean
peninsula.
In considering the architecture for United Nations
renewal, we should shape an Organization better prepared
to respond to the following four priority needs: first,
restraining the proliferation of dangerous and destructive
weaponry; secondly, bolstering United Nations capabilities
for effective peacekeeping and peace-building; thirdly,
assisting economic and social development while
enhancing protection of the environment; and fourthly,
improving mechanisms for ensuring respect for
international law and human rights.
Calls for a new international order will ring hollow
without more reliable controls on the spread of dangerous

armaments, particularly those capable of mass destruction.
As a supporter of the early conclusion of a comprehensive
test-ban treaty (CTBT), my Government heartily welcomed
the long-awaited adoption of the Treaty earlier this month.
The conclusion of the CTBT will help curb nuclear
proliferation in all its forms and will contribute towards
nuclear disarmament. As an original signatory to the CTBT,
the Republic of Korea aims to ratify the Treaty swiftly. In
order for the CTBT to become universal and verifiable, my
Government urges all countries to accede to the Treaty at
the earliest possible date.
While the Conference on Disarmament failed to reach
consensus on the CTBT, the Conference, through two and
a half years of intense negotiations, was instrumental in
articulating the eventual Treaty. I would like to take this
opportunity to pay tribute to the Conference and to assure
the Assembly that the Republic of Korea, as a new member
of the Conference, will spare no efforts to contribute to its
vital work.
Despite much progress towards a world free of nuclear
weapons, the Korean peninsula still faces the threat of
nuclear proliferation. North Korea has yet to achieve
nuclear transparency. Once again, my delegation urges
North Korea to comply with its obligations under the Treaty
on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards in
a comprehensive manner, and to implement fully and
faithfully the Framework Agreement between the United
States and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We
also renew our call on North Korea to live up to its
obligations under the South-North Joint Declaration on the
Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Until they are eliminated from the face of the Earth,
chemical and biological weapons too will pose a grave
threat to humanity. Towards this end, the Republic of
Korea, as an original signatory to the chemical weapons
Convention in 1993, recently concluded the domestic
procedures to ratify the Convention. We look forward to its
swift entry into force, for universal adherence to the
Convention is critical to achieving a total ban on chemical
weapons. My delegation therefore strongly urges those
countries which have not yet joined the Convention,
including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, to do
so as early as possible.
Moreover, my Government, which acceded to the
biological weapons Convention supports the efforts to
introduce a strict verification system into the Convention.
Both of these non-proliferation measures are essential
building blocks for world peace.
My Government, moreover, shares the international
concern over the millions of anti-personnel landmines
scattered throughout the world. We are looking forward
to working closely with other Member States to minimize
the suffering and casualties among innocent civilians
caused by these indiscriminate weapons. To this end, I am
pleased to announce that the Republic of Korea will again
extend its moratorium on the export of anti-personnel
mines for another year.
The second priority for United Nations renewal
should be to adapt and bolster its uniquely valuable
peacekeeping and peace- building work to meet new
challenges. Following several years of rising expectations
and expanding mandates, Member States have developed
over the past two years a more sober appreciation not
only of the limits of United Nations capabilities but, more
important, of their own willingness to provide the
requisite material and human support for a more
ambitious role for the world body. Both the scope and the
nature of peacekeeping operations are being tested as the
demands for United Nations involvement remain high in
a world confronted by an alarming number of intra-State
conflicts and acts of terrorism.
Today’s peacekeepers are often required to undertake
diverse tasks such as monitoring violations of human
rights, staging elections, rehabilitating civic institutions
and reintegrating combatants and refugees into peacetime
society. Thus, peacekeeping now directly contributes to
peace-building and conflict prevention. Post-conflict
peace-building, by rehabilitating a country’s war-ravaged
economic and social base, can serve to prevent the
recurrence of conflict. Member States should recognize,
however, that the broadening of peacekeeping objectives
should be matched by an expansion in the resources and
capabilities of the United Nations for carrying out these
tasks. Peace, too, has a price.
Recently, several promising proposals have been put
forward for enhancing the rapid deployment capability of
the United Nations. We consider the United Nations
system of standby arrangements — currently comprising
of 59 countries, including the Republic of Korea — to be
an innovative and practical mechanism for coping with
emergency situations. We also believe that the growing
interest and participation of Member States have boosted
the credibility of the system of standby arrangements,
making it easier to secure the consent of parties in a
12

given conflict to United Nations peacekeeping involvement.
In addition, we support the establishment of a rapidly
deployable headquarters team within the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations, as proposed by the friends of
rapid deployment. The Korean Government is willing to
detail personnel to the team as part of our contribution to
strengthening the United Nations rapid deployment
capability.
Since we first dispatched an engineering unit to the
United Nations peacekeeping operation in Somalia in 1993,
the Republic of Korea has contributed to many
peacekeeping operations around the world. We intend to
expand our participation in terms of human resources, and
material and political support for practical steps to improve
the peace-management capacity of the United Nations.
In an uncertain world, terrorism poses an ever-present
threat to international and domestic peace and security.
Having been a direct victim of terrorism, the Republic of
Korea strongly condemns all acts of terrorism. We urge the
international community to take firm action to contain and
combat terrorism. The 1994 Declaration on Measures to
Eliminate International Terrorism clearly states that
terrorism in all forms is not only criminal, but also
unjustifiable under any circumstances, regardless of
political, ideological, ethnic or racial motivation. My
Government reaffirms its strong commitment to join the
ongoing efforts to eradicate terrorism worldwide.
Economic and social development should also remain
a high priority at a time when scientific progress and
information technology are globalizing the world economy
at a rapid pace. Driven by unprecedented levels of cross-
border trade and investment, globalization presents new
opportunities to bolster economic development and improve
quality of life. Nonetheless, we must not lose sight of the
detrimental effects of this trend, which threaten to leave
some developing countries increasingly marginalized.
The United Nations has an obligation to try to help
those least developed countries, particularly in Africa, that
are truly in need. My delegation fully supports the United
Nations System-wide Special Initiative for development in
Africa, a joint undertaking by the United Nations and the
Bretton Woods institutions launched last March. We look
forward to joining other Member States in a common effort
to bring this worthy endeavour to fruition.
Having risen from the devastation of the Korean War,
the Republic of Korea has achieved sustained economic
growth and advancements in living standards over the past
three decades. Seeking to share the lessons of our own
development experience, we have worked to help other
developing countries apply two key elements of our own
growth: capacity-building and human resource
development. The Korean International Cooperation
Agency is implementing diverse programs to assist other
developing countries in this regard. At the same time,
Korea will increase its voluntary contribution to the
operational activities of the United Nations by 120 per
cent during 1996-97. In these and many other ways, we
are determined to participate in United Nations efforts to
bring about economic and social progress throughout the
world.
Since 1994, my Government has worked with the
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to
establish the International Vaccine Institute in Seoul. This
Institute will be dedicated to capacity-building for
developing countries in the development and use of
vaccines, particularly for children and the impoverished.
The official launching of the International Vaccine
Institute will take place in New York on 28 October. We
would encourage as many countries as possible to show
their support for this worthy and noble project by
becoming party to the agreement.
The emergence of unprecedented global
environmental issues, such as climate change and
biodiversity, calls for genuine global partnership based on
equitable burden-sharing. The special session on
environmental issues of the General Assembly in 1997
will provide us with a valuable opportunity to formulate
a clear, sustainable development strategy for the twenty-
first century. On 5 June 1997, immediately before the
special session, my Government will co-host World
Environment Day, together with the United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), as part of our efforts
to contribute to the resolution of environmental issues.
The fourth theme for United Nations renewal, in our
view, should be to reinforce the unique United Nations
capacity for codifying, monitoring and encouraging
respect for international law and human rights. As the
Charter so eloquently attests, genuine peace and stability
depend upon a healthy respect for international law and
human rights norms. The continuing United Nations
commitment to human rights and social justice was
reaffirmed by a series of international conferences during
the 1990s. They include the Vienna World Conference on
Human Rights, in 1993, and the Fourth World Conference
on Women, held in Beijing in 1995.
13

In particular, the Beijing Conference underscored the
critical principle that gender equality — through the
protection of women’s human rights and the eradication of
all forms of violence against women — forms the
foundation of a sound and prosperous society. The Republic
of Korea is committed to maintaining its support for
international efforts to advance the status of women.
All of us need to do more, however, to help the
United Nations live up to its potential for promoting human
rights. Its mechanisms for furthering respect for universal
human rights need to be reinforced and upgraded across the
board. We need to enhance the coordinating role of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights and of the resources
of the Centre for Human Rights. The Korean Government
will do its best to make a meaningful contribution to this
end.
Envisioned since the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals
of a half century ago, the idea of an international court to
punish crimes against humanity is now being materialized,
even as the Yugoslavia and Rwanda Tribunals are
struggling to bring to justice criminals who have committed
genocide and other mass crimes. A preparatory committee
is refining the draft statute of the international criminal
court, prepared by the International Law Commission. We
look forward to the early establishment of the court, which
we believe will deter violators of human rights. We also
welcome the establishment of the International Tribunal for
the Law of the Sea, which should contribute significantly
to the strengthening of international law and order.
The road to democracy in the Republic of Korea has
been long and difficult. Indeed, laying the foundation for
democracy in a developing country is never easy. It
requires a vigilant public conscious of democracy and
human rights and a government willing to nurture the will
of its citizens. This has been and will remain a primary
objective of the Korean Government. We are making every
effort to promote further human rights and democracy
through the enhancement of our legal and institutional
mechanisms.
My Government has also been active in the endeavour
to assist the democratic impulse throughout the world.
Lending our support to the electoral assistance activities of
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
we provided a dozen election monitors, as well as supplies,
for the international operation to ensure free and fair
elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the past, we also
participated in the electoral observer missions in
Mozambique, Cambodia, South Africa and Palestine.
Let me now turn to the situation on the Korean
peninsula. Despite the easing of tensions worldwide since
the end of the cold war, the Korean peninsula continues
to be a source of instability, posing threats to the peace
and security of north-east Asia and beyond.
Unfortunately, the tides of openness and reconciliation
that swept other parts of the world have not yet reached
the Korean peninsula, the last remaining legacy of the
cold war.
Last week North Korea dispatched a military
submarine to infiltrate armed commandos into the South.
We uncovered this infiltration when the submarine ran
aground on the shore of Kangrung, a city on the South
Korean east coast, and 26 armed agents are believed to
have come ashore. Of these, 21 were killed and one was
captured. According to the captured agent, the armed
infiltrators were all military officers from the North
Korean defence ministry. Subsequent examinations also
revealed shocking findings. The 11 North Koreans found
dead on the day of the landing were apparently killed by
their cohorts for reasons unknown.
The investigation is still under way to find out the
purpose of the infiltration and other details, but the
findings to date present a strong possibility that last
week’s infiltration is part of a larger-scale infiltration
operation.
This brazen act of military provocation by North
Korea constitutes not only a serious infringement of our
territorial waters and sovereignty, but also a blatant
violation of the Armistice Agreement. It also clearly
demonstrates that North Korea still seeks Korean
reunification by any means, including the use of force.
Needless to say, this act of provocation poses a direct
threat to peace and stability on and around the Korean
peninsula.
We once again urge North Korea immediately to
renounce its absurd goal of unifying Korea by force and
to pursue peaceful coexistence with the South. The North
should also abide by the Armistice Agreement and end
any attempt to disrupt the current armistice regime.
We also take this opportunity to renew our call on
North Korea to accept our proposal for four-party talks
involving both Koreas, China and the United States,
which will enable constructive negotiations for the
establishment of a lasting peace on the peninsula. In the
absence of Pyongyang’s positive response and given the
seriousness of North Korea’s violation of the armistice,
14

my country firmly believes that the Armistice Agreement
should remain in full force.
At the historic fiftieth session of the General
Assembly, we took a collective look at where the United
Nations had been and where it was going. In an open and
forward-looking spirit, we compared visions of the kind of
world body that will be needed to meet the challenges of
the twenty-first century. Now, with this fifty-first session,
comes the hard part: redoubling our collective commitment
to the world body so that it can become a means for
translating our visions into realities.
Together, we can fashion the architecture of United
Nations renewal. Can we achieve harmony out of diversity?
Can we refocus our energies on the four priorities of
stemming the spread of weapons of mass destruction,
bolstering United Nations peacekeeping and peace-building
capabilities, advancing sustainable economic and social
development, and reinforcing our joint commitment to
international law and human rights? The answer to these
questions must be a resounding collective “yes”. The
Republic of Korea stands ready to make its share of
contributions, through the United Nations, to meet the
challenges of the next century.


My delegation and I are pleased, Sir, to see you
presiding over the fifty-first session of the General
Assembly. Your great experience of multilateral
diplomacy, along with the apt initiatives which your great
country, Malaysia, and you yourself have taken in many
focal areas of international relations make you the right
person to guide us and to ensure the success of this
important session.
I extend my sincere congratulations to your
predecessor, Ambassador Diogo Freitas do Amaral, for
the outstanding work he did in heading the General
Assembly at a difficult time, marked by a financial crisis
unprecedented in the history of our Organization. Thanks
to his abilities and diplomacy, he helped to preserve the
founding roles of this institution, namely the maintenance
of peace and of economic and social development, and to
guide it towards new areas. We are particularly grateful
to him for his excellent work at the last session, which
marked the fiftieth anniversary of our Organization.
The delegation of Côte d’Ivoire would also like to
thank the Secretary-General for the active and
determined part that he has always played in heading the
Secretariat, particularly in the areas of peacekeeping and
economic and social development. Accordingly, the Côte
d’Ivoire endorses the Declaration of African Heads of
State or Government, who, at the thirty-second Summit of
the Organization of African Unity, held at Yaoundé,
reaffirmed Africa’s right to a second term and
4

recommended the candidature of Mr. Boutros Boutros-
Ghali.
Nearly a year ago, on 22 October 1995, a Special
Commemorative Meeting of the General Assembly took
place, involving 129 Heads of State or Government who
had come here solemnly to reconfirm their belief in the
ideals of the Charter of the United Nations, namely peace,
development, international cooperation, equality and justice,
and also to demonstrate their commitment to the reform and
modernization of our Organization so that it can take up the
challenges of the future. In the Declaration on the Occasion
of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, adopted
on 24 October last, we committed ourselves to assuring that
we:
“will give to the twenty-first century a United Nations
equipped, financed and structured to serve effectively
the peoples in whose name it was established.”
(resolution 50/6)
Encouraged by Ambassador Diogo Freitas do Amaral
over the past year, the General Assembly and the
Secretariat have advanced on the path of reform for the
United Nations and clarification of its objectives and
missions. The open-ended working groups of the General
Assembly responsible for examining “An Agenda for
Peace”, the Agenda for Development, Security Council
reform, the financial situation of the United Nations, and
the strengthening of the United Nations system, have
sufficiently progressed in their considerations to allow the
greatest hopes as to the restructuring of our Organization,
its revitalization with an eye to greater effectiveness
adapted to contemporary needs and challenges.
I would add that after a decade of study and reflection
on United Nations reform, it is now imperative to proceed
with such reform so that we can focus on what constitutes
the raison d’être of our Organization: its essential missions,
namely, the maintenance of peace and security, the
promotion of economic and social development, the
struggle against poverty, humanitarian assistance, the
protection of human rights and democracy, the protection
of the environment, dialogue among cultures and respect for
diversity.
Concomitant with this progress by Member State
towards reform, there has been an equally commendable
effort by the Secretariat to correct the Organization’s
disfunctions, particularly those relating to fragmentation
within the United Nations system and the inadequacy of
certain coordinating mechanisms, as well as, in some cases,
the absence of a rational division of labour, which has led
to overlapping and duplication.
I would particularly like to mention, among other
things, the progress that has been made towards the
restructuring and revitalization of the United Nations in
the economic, social and related fields pursuant to
resolution 50/227. On the basis of that resolution, the
Economic and Social Council will carry out its work
within a rationalized framework that should enable it to
attain the objectives assigned to it under the Charter. Its
working methods will also be adapted to the necessity of
better time management and greater budgetary savings,
operating on the basis of a rational reduction in the many
outputs of this body, with a view to assuring greater
effectiveness. Thanks to this resolution, we should be able
slowly to move away from the heavy and spendthrift
bureaucracy associated with our Organization.
It is in this spirit that, in anticipation, the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP) was able to
reform its working methods, redeploy its people in the
field and develop its activities thanks to a fruitful
partnership within and beyond the United Nations system,
notably with representatives of civil society. This truly
remarkable transformation of UNDP over the past two
years has enabled it to regain a central role in operational
activities for development on all continents, particularly
in Africa, where it is steering the United Nations System-
wide Special Initiative for Africa.
Reform is an act of the will that plays itself out over
time. It must be carried out from the inside and under the
impetus of Member States. In this regard, we may
welcome the evaluation of the Efficiency Board chaired
by Under-Secretary-General Joseph Connor, whose work
is highly encouraging as to the rational management of
the United Nations system.
Thus, all the sectors where overlapping and
duplication were most obvious have now been singled out
with a view to proper management that will generate
substantial economies in the budgetary performance of the
Secretariat. Here we would like to say how pleased we
are that the Secretary-General was able to hold the United
Nations budget for 1996-1997 within the strict limits
defined by the General Assembly. The $150 million in
savings are the result of a set of measures aimed at
rationalizing and maximizing the cost-effectiveness ratio
of the work of the Secretariat, as can be seen in the first
report of the United Nations Efficiency Board, which was
made public last month.
5

The new spirit of budgetary strictness and
administrative efficiency that is becoming prevalent within
the Secretariat and among those in charge of the agencies
and programmes of the United Nations system seems to
have given us a new awareness of the need for self-
examination and for concrete responses to the needs of
Member States.
With close links between thinking and operational
activities, and with an increasing presence on the ground,
the United Nations will be closer to the people, and thus
better able to take into account their needs in a number of
areas, such as employment, education, health, humanitarian
assistance and environment.
Specifically on the question of humanitarian
assistance, we should highlight the remarkable way in
which the United Nations has adapted in dealing with the
refugee problems resulting from internal conflicts in various
parts of the world. There are millions of displaced persons,
and this situation is without precedent since 1945. The
Department of Humanitarian Affairs, the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) have been
particularly effective in this area.
I think these examples are enough to rehabilitate the
United Nations in the minds of some. If we were to believe
its detractors, our Organization would be bureaucratic,
behind the times, ineffective and yet extravagant. While
some of these criticisms were perhaps justified to some
extent in the past, today we can say that our Organization
is moving resolutely towards reform and a structural and
functional transformation that started a decade ago.
Last year in San Francisco, 50 years after the founding
of the United Nations, the international community
reaffirmed at the highest level of leadership the relevance
to today’s world of the Charter and its purposes and
principles. Through this important act, the international
community enshrined its commitment to attaining the
objectives set out in the Charter. The Declaration of
24 October 1995 also confirmed the essential tasks of the
United Nations for the year 2000: promoting peace,
development, equality, justice and understanding among
peoples. It also gave a special place to the advancement of
women and the protection of children.
In order to carry out these tasks, in the last few years
Member States have worked out careful strategies through
the cycle, ending this year, of thematic conferences that
began in New York in 1990 with the World Summit for
Children, continued in Rio with the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development, in Vienna
with the World Conference on Human Rights, in Cairo
with the International Conference on Population and
Development, in Copenhagen with the World Summit for
Social Development, in Beijing with the Fourth World
Conference on Women and in Istanbul with the Second
United Nations Conference on Human Settlements
(Habitat II). In this connection, we should also emphasize
the importance of the upcoming World Food Summit, to
be held under the auspices of the Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in Rome in
November 1996. Complementing these initiatives, the
Agenda for Peace and the Agenda for Development
provide an appropriate framework for thinking about the
important interrelationship and interaction between peace
and development.
Along the same lines, and without being exhaustive
in my list, I would like to recall the progress made last
year in the areas of peace and disarmament with the
signing on 24 September 1996 of the Comprehensive
Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The establishment of new
nuclear-weapon-free zones in South-East Asia, the South
Pacific and Africa, and measures relating to nuclear safety
and security are also positive achievements in this area.
In conflict prevention, on the initiative of Canada
and the Netherlands excellent progress has been made in
developing the rapid-reaction capability of the United
Nations to respond to threats to peace and security. Other
initiatives from various sources also bear witness to the
growing concern over preventing conflicts and acting in
advance, particularly in the area of development, so as to
create conditions for consolidating social peace in
Member States.
With regard to human rights and fundamental
freedoms, I would underline the specific, dynamic and
publicly visible results of some recent United Nations
decisions, such as the establishment of a High
Commissioner for Human Rights, the establishment and
effective functioning of International Tribunals to
prosecute and judge persons accused of serious violations
of human rights in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda,
and measures taken, or scheduled to be taken, in
combating terrorism and organized crime.
For these reasons, I think we can say that the United
Nations is now a much more coherent instrument vis-à-vis
its objectives, its missions and its strategies. However, we
6

must complete the renewal that is now under way. I have
already stressed that the Secretariat’s efforts to adapt,
carried out through austerity measures, are healthy, but the
dividends should be used to strengthen operational activities
for development.
The other central organs — the General Assembly, the
Security Council and the Economic and Social Council —
must make continued, deeper-going transformations to
update their structures, their functioning and their working
methods and adapt them to special circumstances that are
unlike the post-world-conflict circumstances of 1945.
In this connection, and with particular regard to the
General Assembly, I should say, as I did when I presided
over the forty-ninth session of the General Assembly, that
this body, within the context of the institutional balances
provided for in the Charter, should continue to play its full
part in the reform process under way. The General
Assembly, because of its unique form of legitimacy, is still
the best guarantor of the common interests of the Member
States.
As this fifty-first session begins, we find ourselves at
a crossroads. Last October we resoundingly reaffirmed the
irreplaceable nature of the United Nations. Today, showing
political will and above all a spirit of solidarity, we must
now translate that commitment into action. Without this
reaffirmation of solidarity, the values on which the
international community rests will become rather
meaningless. Our Organization must tirelessly continue to
seek ways of strengthening this solidarity. We do not see it
as much as we would like to, and the frustration of
developing countries is growing because of situations in
which international cooperation targets are simply
disregarded and many promises remain unkept.
It is one thing to establish aid programmes and time-
frames, but it is another to move ahead and actually do
what the international community has committed itself to
do. Of course, the United Nations is often judged by
international public opinion on the basis of its ability to
consolidate peace. But its credibility also depends on its
ability to act firmly in order to fill the increasingly wide
gap between the rich and the developing countries.
It is high time that development aid found its place in
an effort to mobilize, in which the actors, the industrialized
countries and the developing countries all get their fair
share. One cannot talk simultaneously about the existence
of universal values, such as democracy or human rights,
and still feel satisfied with a situation in which poverty and
the AIDS epidemic are steadily gaining ground, thus
exacerbating the divisions within the international
community and thwarting national efforts.
In this context, the effort to combat AIDS must be
a subject of particular concern because of its devastating
world-wide effects, especially in developing countries,
where 90 per cent of HIV-positive individuals are
located — 60 per cent in Africa alone — but which do
not have the resources to deal with this pandemic. On the
question of access to medicines, particularly anti-
retrovirus agents, it seems unacceptable to us that such
preventive medicines are available to only 10 per cent of
those suffering from AIDS/HIV.
However, also within the context of international
cooperation to combat AIDS, we welcome some strong
action that has been taken. For example, we welcome the
Economic and Social Council resolution making the
question of AIDS as one of the topics for its 1997 high-
level segment. We would also place great hope in the
commitments made to provide the Secretariat with an
appropriate structure and relevant resources to support the
United Nations AIDS Programme.
I would like to speak more about Africa, as many
representatives already have, because the picture painted
is often very far from the reality. There is little in
common between the usual cliches about the wretched
situation in Africa and the velvet revolution which our
countries are engaged in carrying out. We have suffered
from the scourge of the economic crisis which has spared
no continent. We have suffered from the globalization of
the economy, in which we have been marginalized. We in
Africa are now beginning to reverse this trend. All the
specialists agree that Africa has set forth on the path to
economic recovery, with an average growth rate last year
of 5 per cent.
For my own country, Côte d’Ivoire, I can say that
after the l980s, which were marked by a difficult
economic and financial crisis, the Government adopted a
coherent economic policy, backed by thorough sectoral
strategies to obtain viable, strong, self-sustaining growth.
Stabilization and adjustment programmes begun in 1993
enabled the Côte d’Ivoire to meet the conditions in 1994
for a recovery with greater diversification in our
economy, greater weight being given to the private sector
and careful management of public finances, and a re-
centering of State control in the areas of regulation
monitoring and in the environment of economic activities.
This policy enabled us to achieve a 7-per-cent growth rate
7

in 1995, and suggests that we can achieve double-digit
growth in 1998, which is the goal of President
Henri Konan-Bédié, whose plan is to make Côte d’Ivoire a
truly industrialized nation.
Along with efforts to win the fight for development,
African countries have also committed themselves to
democratization, as can be seen, inter alia, in the
organization of multi-party elections, the establishment of
the rule of law and the emergence of a responsible civil
society. Backed up by true legitimacy, political leaders are
about to succeed in building modern States with the
primary purpose of ensuring national cohesion and progress.
The advances that we see here and there on our
continent must be backed up by more sustained action by
the industrialized countries. Time is running out, and we
must move quickly from speeches, promises and good
intentions to concrete action. The adoption of the Agenda
for Development ought, therefore, to be an opportunity for
re-thinking the philosophy underlying development
assistance, its mechanisms and its modalities, so that socio-
economic activities can be placed at the centre of the work
of the United Nations.